Got Balance? Ask TheLibra and Chissler

Well, it appears my competition have each begun their own private Q&A threads, so I'll be happy to open one as well.

Got questions for TheLibra/Chissler platform? Ask away. All I ask is that the questions be reasonable and clean. Or at least clean. Or reasonably clean.

Ok, well I gave my questions a bubble bath so they would be squeaky clean (and no I
did'nt touch them in there special places, much) when it was asked.


What do you think about Presidential pay, should it be lowered, highered or stay the same?

Would you put more funding into NASA?

Do you think laws should be passed preventing reality shows from forcing contestants to sign
waver forms that get rid of the responsibility of any serious injury or death that they
may endure while in the show?

Thanks for the questions, Iori! I hope I answer them to your satisfaction.

Originally posted by iori_komei
What do you think about Presidential pay, should it be lowered, highered or stay the same?

The current Presidential Pay is $400,000 per year, including a $50,000 expense allowance (as of Jan 20, 2001). The current administration doubled the salary from the previous $200,000. In addition, the President receives an annual pension of $151,800 plus up to $150,000 per year for an office and staff. This does not include the thousands of dollars per dinner, speech, etc, that the more desirable ex-presidents can command per occasion. This is in addition to the expense of the secret service protection they and their children receive, despite the fact that there's never been an attempt on an ex-president's life, free room and board, free travel in the most luxurious and secure transportation available, and the best free medical and legal assistance on the planet. This, along with inside tips on nearly every major megacorporation and investment planning.

I think the office of President has quite enough perks that the salary need not be raised for a very long time. It is also my personal opinion that anyone wealthy enough to run for President in this day and age is quite capable of donating their salary to charity. I do not believe the pay for the position is insanely inflated, as there are CEOs of small companies that earn far more per year, but I also find the idea of paying the President anything rather ludicrous in light of the fact that one must have millions in personal wealth in order to run, and the paltry few hundred thousand would be nothing more than spending money to them. Mid six-figures would be a windfall, however, to any charitable organization.

What I propose is that the Presidential salary, thus, go to the charity of their choice, rather than their personal bank account, unless the candidate somehow miraculously came from a background where they earned less than even a fraction of the salary before taking office, then they should receive salary equal to their current pay, and the rest go to charity.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Would you put more funding into NASA?

Absolutely!

While I believe there are immediate and dire threats to our nation and people, such as healthcare, education, climate change, and terrorism, I firmly believe that we must also keep a firm influence on the future of the human race.

As it stands, if an End-Life-Event (ELE) were to affect the Earth, humanity would have no recourse but to face extinction. We have no other home but Earth. It would take only a large enough meteor, disease, or solar flare, to completely wipe mankind from the universe forevermore.

Further, space is the next major theater in warfare. The country whom controls the most agile theater has military advantage over the entire planet. When land was the most important theater of war, Romans had the advantage due to their use of roads. When the sea became the most important theater of war, Spain held the theater with their massive armadas. When the entire Earth became the theater of war, England's worldwide colonies controlled the advantage because of their cunning use of flags. Finally, when mankind learned to fly, America grasped and held the advantage through advanced aircraft.

Space is the next theater of war. There is no denying it, nor is there any way to avoid it. And while I have zero desire to war with anyone, I do have a strong desire for us to maintain a significant military advantage.

My primary motivation, however, is the ability of mankind to colonize other worlds. Right now we place a paltry $17 billion into all of NASA's projects each year, which may sound like a lot, but considering our GDP is $13.22 trillion, that means less than 0.001% of our resources are going into the realization of either goal.

I believe our current policies have made us lose track of the most important need of all, survival of the human race, and the American way of life. Without significant increases to funding in deep space exploration, interstellar propulsion technology, terraforming, and sustainable ecology in hostile environs, we will not advance far enough for humanity to live past the next ELE on this planet. In essence, we are living on borrowed time. We may not be able to stop the next ELE, but we can ensure there is another planet for humanity to carry on our legacy.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Do you think laws should be passed preventing reality shows from forcing contestants to sign waver forms that get rid of the responsibility of any serious injury or death that they
may endure while in the show?

This isn't really the job of the President to decide. The President does not write laws or pass them, he or she may only approve or veto them, and add signing statements.

Personally, I don't watch reality TV that much. I like the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, the Science Channel, and Comedy Central, but even then my TV watching amounts to less than four hours a week.

If I were to encourage any television legislation at all, it would be to put the power of the FCC into the hands of the people, and let them decide their own standards of decency.

Would you offer tax breaks to encourage home owners to install solar panels and wind generators?

Would you look to relax planning laws to make the siting of solar and wind farms more easy?

And how would you balance this with the impact on the enviroment?

How would you encourage big business (oil companies and the like) to bring the technology which is claimed they own and have rights to, that could reduce our dependance of fossil fuels

If China were to invade Taiwan what would your response be?

Do you have a policy concerning Iraq, further more do you have a mid-east peace plan?

With the trade imbalance quickly growing do you have a economic plan to reverse this and bring back the industrial might of the US?

With the federal deficit reaching a ludicrous height how would you reverse this and maintain the quality of life for the people, and what programs would you reduce or cancel?

Collage and university education is getting extremely expensive how would you reduce the costs for the average student?

What are your thoughts about the fact that most main stream media are owned by five corporations? And what do you think should be done about it?

What would be your military policy, peace keeping in line with the U.N or primarily combat missions just to defeat an enemy that is a danger to the security of the U.S?

What is your immigration policy? And what should be done about the 20 million illegally residing in the U.S?

How would you address the growing gap between the rich and the poor on both an individual level and an interstate level?

With out abridging the constitution how would you deal with the terrorist threat?

What would your strategy be for the war on drugs?

What is your position regarding the death penalty?

What is your position regarding abortion?

What is your position regarding gay marriage?

What is your position regarding universal health care?

Thanks for the questions, Freedom ERP and Mr Mxyztplk. My answers are as follows:

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Would you offer tax breaks to encourage home owners to install solar panels and wind generators?

Yes, though to be honest, this is not the true hurdle towards getting the populace to supply their own electricity. What it would actually require is regulation by the government to remove power company's monopoly on state legislation. I myself am generally absolutely against government interference in business, but there are some criminal and ethical issues that the corporations cannot be trusted to adequately cover on their own.

One such example is TXU, whom I already have a big problem with. They have managed to buy the current governor of Texas, and have legislation enacted that costs anyone who wishes to generate their power tens of thousands of dollars in fees, inspections, and equipment unrelated to the generators, and literally twice that amount to sell one's power back to the grid.

This leaves zero incentive for anyone on TXU's multi-national grid to switch to solar or wind on private land, because it costs far more money (which goes directly to TXU) to switch to private generation than it saves. Excess energy from private generation likewise is never sold back into the grid because one must pay prohibitive costs to the point where it is not remotely affordable, much less, profitable.

Since companies like TXU are largely to blame for their short-sightedness and continued refusal to develop new technologies aside from fossil fuels, I believe they must be held accountable for the cost of private switching.

I will have such power companies held accountable for delaying the switch through unreasonable costs, fees, and equipment through investigation by a non-partisan commission that does not take money from power companies. Once a reasonable switchover cost can be assessed, and a process in place, the proper amount of tax credit or deduction can be ascertained for those who do switch to private electric generation.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Would you look to relax planning laws to make the siting of solar and wind farms more easy?

And how would you balance this with the impact on the enviroment?

It depends largely on other environmental factors, as well as land usage.

Some areas where wind generation might have the greatest effect are unservicable because the same wind current in that area acts as a major migration highway for birds each year. I don't think anyone wants to literally decimate the bird population during the first North-South bird migration once those plants go up. Other areas capitalize on their view, and the addition of wind farms would spoil it and decimate the tourism to that area. Regardless, some sacrifices here and there will have to be made, both in adding, and not adding, wind generation.

I think on Wind Power, what we will see is "The Formula" in effect. The Formula will likely be:

Is (ecological damage from not using wind) > (economic loss from its implementation).

Solar, of course, requires large areas of land that get plenty of sunlight, both of which are at a premium compared to the energy returned, but there is zero argument that the sun gives off more energy in one second than all energy mankind has generated in its entire history. The idea that we have yet to figure out how to harness this energy effectively is not due to lack of a resource, but rather a lack of an efficient enough solar cell. This research MUST continue if we are to ever achieve total green energy for the planet and still power mankind's needs. It is, however, an unfortunately young science in terms of efficiency, and up against a huge demand for power and a retreat from fossil fuels.

To alleviate these factors, I suggest two possibilities:

More nuclear power plants - Nuclear power, despite what fears we've been raised to feel, are far, far safer than ever before, and are more tightly regulated and inspected and enforced than any other power plant type. They are also a lot cleaner than any fossil fuel source, and actually produce only a tiny fraction of the radioactive elements released in coal burning plants. They also currently produce the absolute biggest bang for the buck in terms of power achieved versus resources used. Once we have 80%+ efficient solar cells, we can phase the nuclear plants out.

More efficient electric grids - A big problem we face is that we can generate plenty of power, we just can't get it from Point A to Point B over a great distance. We need a power plant in Nevada to be capable of powering a business in Florida. As it is, we can't even get a wind farm in west Texas to power a house in North Texas. This is unacceptable, and we need more research in the area of efficient power distribution. This would allow arid, unusable land to be blanketed with wind and/or solar generators, and their eneergy to be distributed freely around the United States without too much depreciation at the terminus.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
How would you encourage big business (oil companies and the like) to bring the technology which is claimed they own and have rights to, that could reduce our dependance of fossil fuels

We can't force them to, not if we are to remain America and a free nation. If given the powers of a police state, I would hold them accountable for many, many crimes. However, in our present state of government, we cannot force them to do anything except regulate their prices, their emissions, and their legal influence on legislators and governors. We cannot nationalize their business or force them to give up trade secrets, without compromising our core values as Americans.

However, we sure can encourage their competition!

As mentioned in a previous thread, I would hold an annual competition, with a one-billion dollar prize for the best proven example of "clean energy" generation. The prize is payoff for the inventor to release the rights to the technology to the public domain, where any and all competitors may use it to drive the more corrupt power companies out of business. If neccessary, I am willing to increase the prize money.

I can bet you dollars to donuts that within less than four years, anything the power companies previously had will be obsolete.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
If China were to invade Taiwan what would your response be?

Taiwan is a military ally of the United States. If there is an unprovoked attack against them by China, we go to war. The same as if Britain, Canada, Mexico, or any of our other allies. I pray this day never happens.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Do you have a policy concerning Iraq, further more do you have a mid-east peace plan?

Absolutely. And I will be only too happy to divulge it in a near future post (it's quite lengthy). The gist of it is this, however:

a. Creation of Blue Zones – Safe, Self-Sufficient Arcologies
b. Reduction of Forces to Blue Zones
c. State-of-the Art Security, Infrastructure, Water, Power, Police, Firefighters, Education, and Hospitals.
d. Shiite/Sunni Cultural Collaboration Projects
e. Train Iraqis to Expand Blue Zones in Size and Number
f. Innundate with anti-terrorism counter-culture.
g. Open talks with Iran and Syria, treat in same manner as N. Korea (phased).
h. Iraqi awareness of Iran’s influence.
i. Establish alliance presence within Iraq (like with Japan, etc).
j. Open more diplomatic channels with Iran and Syria.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
With the trade imbalance quickly growing do you have a economic plan to reverse this and bring back the industrial might of the US?

Yes, and frankly, I think it's the only survivable option for us available. As it stands, every calorie of food an American eats costs ten calories worth of oil alone. This is to say nothing of all the other resources it takes to transport one ear of corn across the globe onto your dinner plate.

This is a rough estimate, but a tried and true one. It costs roughly 20 times the the item of food itself to transport it across across a national boundary, and 100 times that if it crosses an ocean. This means eating that pack of Chinese noodles actually consumed 100 noodle packs worth of resources, and that doesn't even account for spoilage and waste. Perhaps you accidentally knocked your bowl of ramen over before you could eat it, and had to heat another one. You've just consumed 200 packs worth of resources for 1 pack's worth of nutrition.

This is a ridiculous way to live! Is it any wonder we are referred to as the most wasteful nation on Earth? Folks, we MUST, absolutely and positively, recognize there is a resource-to-use ratio for every item we use and consume, and work to lower that ratio every single chance we get.

One of the largest ways we can achieve this is through producing our own food and fuel domestically. One of the most brilliant and overlooked methods of purchasing food is through the local Farmer's Market. Almost every item in there will have been grown within a distinct radius of the market, usually less than 100 miles. Purchasing a head of lettuce from there, rather than Wal-Mart, will reduce the consumption ratio a staggering amount. It will also inevitably be cheaper, fresher, and most likely less prone to outbreaks of e. coli and other diseases. Awareness of Farmer's Markets is growing, but I would like to see the "Local Market" concept expanded and encouraged to other avenues as well.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
With the federal deficit reaching a ludicrous height how would you reverse this and maintain the quality of life for the people, and what programs would you reduce or cancel?

Another great question, and one that requires its own seperate post. However, in brief...

a. Social Security
i. Establishment of choice to “Opt Out” of SS & applicable tax.
· Require proof of investment to opt out.
· Pre-Tax dollars used on Opt-Out, similar to FLEX plan.
ii. Re-vamping of existing social security program
· Handled as a national retirement pool.
· Principle is hands-off, added proportionally by subscribers.
· Interest doled out among subscribers.
iii. Law to Prevent “Dipping” into SS Principle ever again.

b. Health Care
i. Audit of Costs to Materials (no more $100 aspirin).
ii. Public Health and Preventative Medicine Centers
iii. First Aid and Lifesaving required courses in school.
iv. Audit of Cost to Insurers (no more 10x costs to insured patients)
v. Audit of Insurer Payouts (no more chintzing the bill)
vi. Nationwide pre-tax FLEX plan, with rollover, earning interest.
vii. Hands-off Law for preventing “dipping” into FLEX plan dollars.


c. Return to a Balanced Budget
i. “No Dipping” laws for direct taxpayer benefits (like SS & HC)
ii. Limiting “World Police” actions to pursuit of specific criminals.
iii. Peacetime Army produces goods and services to offset own costs.
iv. 10% of Budget to go towards Savings and Investment.

d. Reducing the Debt
i. 20% of the Budget will go towards paying off the National Debt.
ii. Enact legislation to prevent future debt, except in cases of:
· Opportunities for better economic growth
· Wartime spending


---------

Regretfully, I'm out of time for the moment. I will continue to address the rest of these questions shortly, and thank you very much for your interest.

Are there any circumstances in which you would have invaded Iraq?

And does the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran, warrent an invasion?

What’s your stance on Israel and how would you ensure that they abide by international laws?
And how soon would you get a Palestinian state and how would you ensure a right of return for Palestinian refugees

Originally posted by iori_komei
What do you think about Presidential pay, should it be lowered, highered or stay the same?

There is no justification for any raise in pay for the President of the United States. thelibra has shown the facts and presented the perks that come with the position. What else could one ask for? There are several sectors of our society that are severely under funded and this is something that we would not turn a blind eye to. However, raising the salary of the President of the United States would be a slap in the face to all of these individuals who desperately need a fraction of a percentage of our resources.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Would you put more funding into NASA?

Yes. Again, as thelibra has pointed out, space is our future. If we were to deny that, we would be closing the door on our existence in a few generations. There were several moments in history where man had to decide whether or not they were going to overcome, or be defeated. Those that decided to overcome, they held the power. Whether it was land, water, or the skies, we've faced our share of hurdles in the past. We, as a society, face our next hurdle and it would be the choice of this Administration to overcome the hurdle rather than be defeated by those that do.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Do you think laws should be passed preventing reality shows from forcing contestants to sign waver forms that get rid of the responsibility of any serious injury or death that they may endure while in the show?

I don't think this is something that would even come up on the radar of the President of the United States. I see that it is a piece of legislation that needs to be considered, but there are far more important things that I would hope to tackle well before I looked to insure the safety of reality television contestants. The safety of orphans, homeless, the sick, war veterans, etc., are all individuals that would pull rank in the mind of this writer.

So it is something to consider, but not at the expense of those that need our attention first.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Collage and university education is getting extremely expensive how would you reduce the costs for the average student?

This is another of those "seperate post" answers, which I've been working on for some weeks now. I actually have a plan to revolutionize the education system in a way that gives a far better education, for a far lower price tag, keeps students interested in school, and prepares them for a career of their own choosing, while at the same time making them functionally apt at caring for themselves financially.

Colleges and Universities have extremely inflated prices, but the level of education I intend for this new system to provide will be comparable to that of a bachelor's degree or higher. The very way in which we think about colleges and universities will likely be changed if the program proves successful, as they would have to offer a higher level of education to be competitive.

I'm nearly done writing it, and expect to have it finished within a few days.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
What are your thoughts about the fact that most main stream media are owned by five corporations? And what do you think should be done about it?

I'm a pretty big advocate of smaller government. While I'm not happy about the fact that the media is largely controlled by a few corporate interests, I don't think any of them qualify as a monopoly yet. Outside of there being a monopoly, or illegal business practices, I cannot punish these corporations for simply being large, powerful entities.

As for what should be done about it? Well, that's really up to the consumer. We can have freedom of speech, a free market, and rule of law, or we can have our liberties and laws systematically sidestepped in the name of the President's opinion. I think that's a choice we must always remember, when treading this kind of ground.

I would, however, encourage more funding for Public Media like KERA, PBS, NPR, and those small free local papers you see in newstands. I understand not everyone feels these stations should survive because they are not profitable, but I feel they serve a vital community need in that they provide the populace a dependable, educational life preserver in an ocean of corporate-sponsered advertisement and mindless media. I think that it's important enough for that educational media to be there that I'm willing to take a stand for increasing its funding.

Further down the road, as radio, TV, newspapers, and the world wide web all start merging into all-inclusive equipment, I think we must be careful to keep the internet free. Advertisement and corporate influence is essential in the development of existing technology, but it would be a shame if, in the future, if you purchased your internet service from Time Warner Cable, that you were only able to access news and information that TWC agreed with.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, I plan to split up the FCC and put their power back in the hands of the people. The ISO standards will of course remain on a Federal level to maintain uniform techonological communication, but it's time to let states decide their own "community standards of decency". For those unfamiliar with why this is neccesary, it's important to understand the current situation.

See, the FCC has no concrete guidelines as to what is and is not allowed to be said over the air. If you try to pin them down to specifics, they dodge. The reason is because the FCC's morality policiing on the air is based upon "community standards", literally worded that way.

Currently, it only takes one complaint, and if a broadcast was found to be in violation of these vague "standards of decency" then the broadcast company is fined for all areas they broadcast to, which can multiply the fine by tens of thousands of times over if it was national television.

But there isn't a real true national standard of decency. We're a nation of individuals. Utah is going to have much different community standards as a whole than, say, California and Texas. States need to be able to determine their own standards of decency and enforcement.

What I'm proposing is that instead it would make more sense to have the "Standards of Decency" set by each state, and then only be fined on a state by state basis if their content proves offensive enough to warrant a complaint. For instance, if Nevada decides it's okay to show nudity in their community standards of decency, then even if someone lodged a complaint about Janet Jackson's nipple at the superbowl, the broadcast company wouldn't be fined because it wouldn't have violated the local standards of decency. Likewise, if Oklahoma said nudity was against community standards, but no one lodged a complaint about the notorious half-time show in Oklahoma, the broadcast company wouldn't be fined.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
What would be your military policy, peace keeping in line with the U.N or primarily combat missions just to defeat an enemy that is a danger to the security of the U.S?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question, I think some words got left out. However, if you're asking about how we would handle our World Police actions, my answer is this:

We need to have a CLEAR definition of what constitutes a terrorist versus a criminal. If we are persuing an international criminal, it is my opinion we work with Interpol and work within their established guidelines. If we are persuing a terrorist, then we need to persue the established guidelines I would institute upon taking office.

I think brash declarations of war on countries that never attacked us will never be an option in my administration, and I think all the secrecy and disregard for due process in the name of fighting a faceless enemy has damaged American credibility in the eyes of the world and our fellow Americans. How can we trust the government is doing "what's in our best interests" when we don't even know what the process is, or to what extent it violates our rights, and none can be held accountable for violations of our rights because every violation constitutes a breach of "State Secrets".

We must end this trend towards a police state, lest we risk losing all confidence in our government and republic. If we are to maintain any shred of legitimacy in the war on terror, we must start acting better than those we are fighting.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
What is your immigration policy? And what should be done about the 20 million illegally residing in the U.S?

My platform on this is two part, we need a secure border, and we need to follow the rule of law.

However, I am violently opposed to a literal wall along the border. The sheer volume of resources required just to build the wall is insane. Further, a wall does more than keep immigrants out, it keeps Americans trapped inside. A border wall is the ultimate symbol of the police state, and I cannot bear the thought of advocating one. Lastly, emergency measures might one day dictate we have to cross the border in a hurry. A wall would ultimately ruin any amount of effectiveness in crossing the border.

What I instead propose are a series of sensors capable of detecting movement under, on, and above the ground, in a wide radius, for a depth of up to five miles, and then mobile units stationed at regular intervals in helicopters. If a sensor is triggered, it's heading and trajectory is sent to the nearest unit, and a border guard helicopter is dispatched with men armed with net launchers, tranquilizer guns, and other non-lethal armament. Once the offender has been caught, processed, and determined to be an illegal, they will be flown to the opposite-most international airport of the host country (be it Mexico or Canada).

This will ensure that both countries will still be physically capable of crossing the border in the event of a an emergency crisis. Americans still have a way to flee back home if the other country decides to close its own borders. It will use a fraction of the materials that a wall would require, with a much more accurate and timely response. It would allow for crowd control of "cattle call border rushes". Best of all, in the end it puts an enormous and expensive physical distance between the perpetrator and the border they wish to cross. If they wish to try again, they will have to pay for transportation to make it to the border in both time and money. If we have a military base in southern Mexico and northern Canada, all the better. We'll recommission some nice, leaky, breezy old troop transport planes, retrofit them to hold civilians, and cart 'em out by the truckload at a slow, leisurely, non-luxurient pace, and then release them outside the gates of the air force base at the far end of the other country.

As for the illegals that are currently here. I'm all for the rule of law. They're here illegally. If they're found, ship 'em out with their mates in that transport plane I mentioned.

Personally, I really don't have a problem with people who just want honest work. I don't see too many Canadians in Texas, but I see a lot of Mexicans who work all around me in the city. Some legal, some not. They haven't hurt me or my family, they do good work for less money than someone would otherwise have to pay. For the most part, I consider our Mexican population a valuable industrial, economic, and cultural resource that we just haven't learned how to come to terms with yet as a nation.

But the law is the law, and until it is changed, if an illegal is caught, they get deported. When the nation as a whole is ready to change those laws, they will vote accordingly. Until then, we live by the current laws.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
How would you address the growing gap between the rich and the poor on both an individual level and an interstate level?

I would set up free financial planning clinics in poor neighborhoods. It is my FIRM opinion that even the poorest of individuals capable of work can, in our free market, achieve significant wealth, provided they learn the fundamental principles of financial planning.

These clinics would provide everything from classes on budgeting to investment advice, with the primary goal of helping the citizen to help themself.

I came from the lowest rung of society, homelessness. I ate filth. I slept in boxes when I was lucky. That's a horrible life. I was lucky. Someone was willing to offer me a job, and financial advice, and I was willing to listen to it. Ultimately though, what it took was my decision to make use of what I had, in order to better myself. People who can't be bothered to help themselves will never be anything more than a drain on public resources, and I have little sympathy for them. But for people who would make something of themselves if only given the chance, these clinics would be life-changing places.

As for people physically or mentally incapable of any kind of work whatsoever, we should be able to provide them much better charity-care once the rest of the people who take advantage of the financial clinics stop collecting unemployment due to rising bank accounts, along with my proposed health-care changes to make it less expensive.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
With out abridging the constitution how would you deal with the terrorist threat?

I've answered this one before, but in a nutshell, we must have a CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE definition of "terrorist" versus "criminal", and the due process for the pursuit, capture, detention, trial, and punishment of both needs to be standardized and transparent to the public.

This is not to say we have to say which people we're going after, or give away state secrets, but the public needs to be aware of exactly what rights are being curtailed, why, how often, and what happens to suspects. Ultimately, there MUST be a fair, speedy, and just trial, with evidence, where the burden of proof is upon the accuser. The idea that we hold unnammed individuals offshore in a torture camp for years on end, incommunicato, sickens me. It is the absolute most abominable crime of the present administration, and should I become President, this will very swiftly change.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
What would your strategy be for the war on drugs?

I intend to end the War on Drugs.

Anything more addictive than cigarettes or liquor will be outlawed, anything less or equally addictive may be consumed in the safety and privacy of one's own home. This should cause the subsequent collapse of several drug cartels that no amount of bullets and undercover agents ever could.

To counterbalance this, I would be much harder on DUI and DWI charges. I would require the DUI-wreck simulation "Every 15 Minutes" or similar programs at schools in the elementary, middle, and high school levels. I want children to grow up knowing that driving under the influence is one of the most sickening, selfish, and horrible crimes you can commit.

Actual DUI convicts will be punished in the same way that attempted manslaughter convicts are. People need to understand and realize that when you drive under the influence, you are hurtling through a crowded area full of innocent children, in a weapon made of glass and steel. I would no more tolerate a drunk driver than I would a game of Russian Roulette in a Day Care.

Do whatever you want in the comfort and safety of your own home, but God help you if police during my administration find you driving drunk.

The money saved from ending the War on Drugs, plus taxes gained from the newer legal drugs, should be able to finance many programs, and/or reduce the national debt.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
What is your position regarding the death penalty?

Some people need killin', but most need rehabilitation.

We need to stop thinking of Crime as something you become institutionalized, for, do your time, and then repeat the same thing a week later. I would suggest we focus less on the choice of "Life in Prison" or "Death by XXXXX", and instead try to figure out "Why did John Smith commit this crime?" and attempt to resolve why it happened, force John Smith to confront the crime he committed, take an active role in the reparation of that crime, and offer an avenue for them to attone for the crime.

I realize this doesn't satisfy the "eye for an eye" approach, and it's also not a quick and easy fix. It is, however, a very thorough way of determining if a criminal can ever have hope of rehabilitation or redemption in the public eye. If they commit a capital crime and have proven themselves beyond remorse or rehabilitation, then I say let them spend life in the chair.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
What is your position regarding abortion?

I think any man who tries to tell a woman what to do with her own body is a damned fool.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
What is your position regarding gay marriage?

I have no problem with gay marriage, but I think it must be decided by the individual states, and not the Federal government. States must recognize each other's marriages, but they need not perform them if they do not wish.

But if two HUMAN BEINGS want to unite themselves in matrimony under god and the law, then by all means let them. For those that bring up the slippery-slope notion of "marrying a dog," I say when dogs as a species start paying taxes, can be held to binding contracts, and are capable of testifying in divorce court, we'll talk.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
What is your position regarding universal health care?

Answered in brief in the previous post, but here it is again:

i. Audit of Costs to Materials (no more $100 aspirin).
ii. Public Health and Preventative Medicine Centers
iii. First Aid and Lifesaving required courses in school.
iv. Audit of Cost to Insurers (no more 10x costs to insured patients)
v. Audit of Insurer Payouts (no more chintzing the bill)
vi. Nationwide pre-tax FLEX plan, with rollover, earning interest.
vii. Hands-off Law for preventing “dipping” into FLEX plan dollars.

------------

More answers to come.

was my question invisible or something?
or was it to hard for you to answer

Originally posted by bodrul
or was it to hard for you to answer

If thats the battle you are looking to tackle, I'm afraid your going to go down.. and go down hard. Looking at the effort that goes into every post by my running mate, I think it is quite evident why some time may have lapsed between you proposing the question and receiving an answer.

Hold onto your socks mate, because your going to need them in this race.

Originally posted by bodrul
What’s your stance on Israel and how would you ensure that they abide by international laws?

How can we insure anything? Are you proposing that you will resolve this in your Administration? I don't see how one could make that proposal. My stance on this issue is that violence is wrong, 100% of the time. Hamas winning a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council was certainly a step back. The sanctions that have been put forth have been completely ignored, and I do not think it is reasonable to say that their tendencies will change in the immediate future. So my personal stance is that, hopefully at some point, peace will prevail for these people and they can walk down the streets enjoying the same sense of security that you and I do.

How will I insure that they abide by international laws? Outside of invasion, what else can we do? We've cut off ties with them and put sanctions forth that have been completely ignored. Like I said, violence is wrong. It would be my hopes that we did not go to war over this, but at this point, I don't see how anyone could make any guarantees.

Originally posted by bodrul
And how soon would you get a Palestinian state and how would you ensure a right of return for Palestinian refugees

How soon? Forgive me here as I am far from an "expert" on the Middle East Conflict, but has this not been going on for a very long time. Many people have come and gone and not been able to resolve this issue. You asks these questions very lightly as if they are within arms reach. Are you going to end this conflict? Spread world peace? Solve poverty?

Being realistic, I make no guarantees. As a candidate for this office, I only assure the public that I would do my damnedest to insure safety to the innocent victims who are losing their life every day over there. I'm not going to pretend that I am capable of ending this. How could I? Where so many have failed, why do you feel that you can?

After reading your questions, I'm quite interested in the answer you have for your own questions. And I'd like to know why your ideas are going to work, when so many others have failed.

All the while, being realistic.

Originally posted by chissler
If thats the battle you are looking to tackle, I'm afraid your going to go down.. and go down hard. Looking at the effort that goes into every post by my running mate, I think it is quite evident why some time may have lapsed between you proposing the question and receiving an answer.

Hold onto your socks mate, because your going to need them in this race.

lack of a social life?
i just thought you missed out my question

i have my own ideas on how to solve the problems i am just seeing what yours and your running mates is



edit: if i did insult u above do not take it to heart

[edit on 2-6-2007 by bodrul]

Originally posted by bodrul
i have my own ideas on how to solve the problems i am just seeing what yours and your running mates is

Soooo you're prepared to ask questions but not respond to any?

Originally posted by bodrul
edit: if i did insult u above do not take it to heart

Not in the least. Do not mistake my assertiveness for aggression. I, as you, would like to have a little bit of fun with this. Hopefully you'll respond to my questions.

Good luck B,

Originally posted by chissler
Soooo you're prepared to ask questions but not respond to any?

if course i have a topic for questions
fire away ( i was also the person who started this )

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Are there any circumstances in which you would have invaded Iraq?

To be perfectly honest with everyone, at the time the war in Iraq was to be waged, I was not opposed to it. I was very alarmed with the fact we were ignoring the U.N. Inspectors' requests for more time, and the fact that Iraq had never invaded us. However, I still had a fairly solid degree of faith in our government's judgment, its intelligence capabilities, and that they probably had access to a lot of information that we didn't. I had no idea that they were simply performing a massive Public Relations lie to secure oil wells, nor did I have any idea about how incompetant Rumsfeld's handling of the war would be.

Hindsight is always 20/20. After watching how awful things were managed, how we have mired ourselves in a bloodbath, how no WMDs were found, no connection to Al'Qaeda was found, and how we can not assume we will have any support in the next war, I would say that we must never again attack a country that has not attacked us first, or attacks one of our military allies.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
And does the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran, warrent an invasion?

No.

As appealing as it may be for some, I think we need to adopt a policy of non-aggression unless our military allies or ourselves have been attacked. Technically, Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons under international treaties, it is only the U.N. Security council that has determined their actions to be illegal.

While I'm not pleased with Iran developing nuclear weapons, and I know it means Israel will probably bear the brunt of a nuclear attack by Iran, if we continue invading every country on Earth who poses a potential threat to the U.S. or her allies, then we will eventually invade every country on Earth.

Originally posted by bodrul
What’s your stance on Israel and how would you ensure that they abide by international laws?

Honestly? I think we need to scale back our alliance with Israel to defense and trade. If Israel initiates aggressive action, we should no longer back them up. We should also make it clear our defensive pact is contingent upon the attack being unjustified.

Thus, if Iran suddenly up and launches a nuke at Israel, just because they hate Israel, then yes, we will crush Iran and use the knowledge we gained from fighting in Iraq once it is conquered. Our problem isn't conquering a nation, it's figuring out what to do with it afterward.

If, however, Israel starts shelling Lebanese residential areas, and Lebanon decides to initiate a counterstrike, the Israelies are on their own. They need to learn that they must deal militarily, diplomatically, and internationally, with the repurcussions of their actions.

Originally posted by bodrul
And how soon would you get a Palestinian state and how would you ensure a right of return for Palestinian refugees

I wouldn't. It's been 50 years now. Right of Return isn't going to happen, and if it did, there would no longer be an Israel. I would, however, tell Israel that if they want any U.S. support in dealing with the Palestinians, then they will need to pull back their borders, release the occupied lands, and learn how to cram their citizens into a smaller space without annexing any more land. I would also suggest they cease walling off water from the Palestinians.

Now if they do all that, and still get suicide bombers from Palestine, then there's nothing I can do but let Israel do what it needs to do to sort all that out, but no one can reasonably expect Israel to allow "Right of Return" when it would mean they become outnumbered by 10 to 1. The Jews would be decimated overnight, and any hope of a Jewish homeland would be lost. Those who feel this wouldn't be a bad thing have apparently not read much in the way of history on how Jews were treated in other countries.

Originally posted by bodrul
was my question invisible or something?
or was it to hard for you to answer

Patience and common courtesy are virtues you'd do well to learn if you are to successfully run for President some day. I have spent many, many hours composing replies to all of your questions. If I have missed out on a specific one, by all means, point it out and I will answer it as best I can. Acting rude, however, will only make you look childish and immature.


(edit: spelling)

[edit on 6/5/2007 by thelibra]