Some questions for the current candidates.

#1: How do you feel about the current campaigning between the current senators of the white house? If you could change one thing about how campaigns are ran what would this thing be?

#2: What are some of the thoughts you have about how we elect leaders that represent political parties? Do you believe they represent the parties that they are chosen to represent well enough?

#3: What is your stance on nuclear proliferation, what must we do to stop all countries of the world from going nuclear.

#4: How much of a role should the U.N play with our foreign policy? Should the UN control our foreign policy-- or should they play along with us and let us be and let us do our own things?

#5: How do you think we should deal with Iran?

#6: Do you think BUSH made the right decision by going to war with Iraq?

#7: Do you support the war with Iraq?

#8: What do you think about the patriot act? Is the act constitutional, and what constitutional amendments do you feel that they are violating with it?

#9: What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you pro-choice or are you unsure or do you have a clear view on the stance?

#10: What is your stance on how we should deal with Al-queda?

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#1: How do you feel about the current campaigning between the current senators of the white house? If you could change one thing about how campaigns are ran what would this thing be?

I would limit the amount of money people in Congress spend from special interest group A to special interest group B and lower their budget to keep them from spending so much on their campaign. A good campaign should be good enough so that the candidate can spend their money wisely and still so that they can market themselves so that people can hear what they have to say.

#2: What are some of the thoughts you have about how we elect leaders that represent political parties? Do you believe they represent the parties that they are chosen to represent well enough?

Obviously-- the Republican party was not represented well enough. We all need change, and we were desperate for a new leader in power and Bush did just that, but he didn't live up to his expectations, nor did he read into the pre-war intelligence enough. We should have looked for insight and held a trial as to who did what wrong. Instead we made a patriot act that infringes upon our rights, as much as Republicans LOVE THEIR PRESIDENT, G.W.B, made the wrong decisions many times.

#3: What is your stance on nuclear proliferation, what must we do to stop all countries of the world from going nuclear.

We obviously need tougher sanctions on their countries. We cannot let them acquire the nuclear weapons and if they are enemies of us we should topple their government with the use of the CIA to do that for us.

#4: How much of a role should the U.N play with our foreign policy? Should the UN control our foreign policy-- or should they play along with us and let us be and let us do our own things?

Obviously not-- we should have more of a role with how this organization is ran because we could have potentially won the war in Iraq with the UN's support and they could have occupied the region for us... with UN troops instead of poorly trained U.S. troops, but they do not and will not and will never think of doing that.

#5: How do you think we should deal with Iran?

Do nothing that will incite war. Either that or back up Israel 100% if they attack Iran. But then again if Israel will attack them, then they will get wiped off the face of the map.

#6: Do you think BUSH made the right decision by going to war with Iraq?

Well, the violence has cooled down considerably and instead of 50 people dying per day only 10 people die per day so I suppose he has been doing better. However, Bush made some really stupid mistakes with the Iraqi government... by basically allowing them to patrol the city of Iraq with death-squads. Consider how many people have wrongfully died because of the Iraq war.

#7: Do you support the war with Iraq?

I support it but I do not care for the man in charge. That lowlife. That despicable man. He should flee to Canada, that coward. He ran from the battlefield, that's what G.W.B did. He let the enemies get to him in time of war and failed to uphold the constitution.

#8: What do you think about the patriot act? Is the act constitutional, and what constitutional amendments do you feel that they are violating with it?

Obviously-- it does not agree with the needs of the American people. It leads governmental agencies to imprison people that have done nothing wrong. In the UK people who are claimed to be terrorists are let free of charges. In the U.S, they are detained, and deported without a trial when they done nothing wrong.

#9: What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you pro-choice or are you unsure or do you have a clear view on the stance?

Marriage should not be defined. It is a union between one person and another. That is all. If someone is a man and another person is a man they should be allowed to do what they want, why is it your business, what do you care about it, what's in it for you?

#10: What is your stance on how we should deal with Al-queda?

I believe we need to eliminate Al-queda before they consolidate their power again and with that being said, we need to eliminate them within two generations, or they will become out of control. I doubt we will see peace in the ME-- people look for false prophecies-- but all they ever bring is more violence. The only way to win is for Moderate Muslims to take back their religion from the radicals so that suicide bombers aren't considered "heroes" anymore.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

#1: How do you feel about the current campaigning between the current senators of the white house? If you could change one thing about how campaigns are ran what would this thing be?

I believe that anyone that is qualified for the office should be able to run without being disqualified for not being able to pump millions of dollars towards a campaign. I think that if we caped the amount that could be spent on a campain you would see more qualified candidates run for office.

#2: What are some of the thoughts you have about how we elect leaders that represent political parties? Do you believe they represent the parties that they are chosen to represent well enough?

Unfortunatly yes they do represent the party base well.

#3: What is your stance on nuclear proliferation, what must we do to stop all countries of the world from going nuclear.

I have no objections to countries developing nuclear energy facilities for their people. I do not however agree that all countries should have the bomb but I would not support military means to stop a country from developing a nuclear deterant.

#4: How much of a role should the U.N play with our foreign policy? Should the UN control our foreign policy-- or should they play along with us and let us be and let us do our own things?

The UN has an important job to do We as the United States need to back up the UN on it's global efforts towards peace.

#5: How do you think we should deal with Iran?

We need to back off and leave them be before we get into a war with them and end up in the same situation as Iraq.

#6: Do you think BUSH made the right decision by going to war with Iraq?

No, it was based on false intelegence and assumptions that had no basis in reality.

#7: Do you support the war with Iraq?

I support our troops, it is not their choice to be there. But I do not feel that we need to be in Iraq any longer.

#8: What do you think about the patriot act? Is the act constitutional, and what constitutional amendments do you feel that they are violating with it?

The Patriot act deffenatly strips away our constitutional rights for privacy. There are already plenty of laws on the books as it is to be able to coordinate agencies, investigate suspects, detain suspects and arrest without going behind the constitutions back.

#9: What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you pro-choice or are you unsure or do you have a clear view on the stance?

Love is love and it should not be legislated. I do not believe we need a gay marriage amendment to the constitution but I believe that states should make up their own minds about the issue. I also belive that if a state chooses to allow gay marriages then all other states should recognise that union.

#10: What is your stance on how we should deal with Al-queda?

Al-Queda is a known terrorist organisation and it is the only legitimate reason that we should be anywhere in the middle east. We need to combat this threat to our national security and never let up.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by whatukno]

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#1: How do you feel about the current campaigning between the current senators of the white house? If you could change one thing about how campaigns are ran what would this thing be?

I think there are so many of them now that it's enough to make most peoples head's spin.

It would be a tie between setting a spending cap of $10,000 at the most,
and making a law that candidates could not create attack adds/libel & slander.

#2: What are some of the thoughts you have about how we elect leaders that represent political parties? Do you believe they represent the parties that they are chosen to represent well enough?

I believe that political parties are an incredibly idiotic idea, and that
candidates should just run, and people should vote on them based
on there views and policies.

#3: What is your stance on nuclear proliferation, what must we do to stop all countries of the world from going nuclear.

I believe that nuclear weapons in general are bad, but we will never get
rid of them completely.

I believe that we should prevent any other countries from having nuclear
weapons, and that the current nuclear countries should dismantle half of
there arsenals and replace the other half with newer, safer, more efficient
and less environmentally destructive bombs.

Eventually I'd like to see the worlds remaining nuclear stockpile under
the control of an international body.

#4: How much of a role should the U.N play with our foreign policy? Should the UN control our foreign policy-- or should they play along with us and let us be and let us do our own things?

NONE!
The U.N. is the best example of a good idea gone horribly wrong.
The foreign policy of this country should be based on current, reliable/
true Intel, and what the public feels.

#5: How do you think we should deal with Iran?

We should open up negotiations with them.
However, if they continue there stance of not allowing international
inspection of there nuclear facilities, we should take out there nuclear
facilities.

#6: Do you think BUSH made the right decision by going to war with Iraq?

Absolutely not! The man went to war on faulty intelligence, which
honestlyI would''nt put past him knowing it was wrong.
Add to that that a great many Iraqi's (obviously not all of them) were
happier and better off under Saddam's government.

#7: Do you support the war with Iraq?

No, I most certainly do not support this disaster of a war, I never have and I never will.

#8: What do you think about the patriot act? Is the act constitutional, and what constitutional amendments do you feel that they are violating with it?

I believe it is one of the worst things to happen to the freedoms of this
country in a long time.
As for what amendments it violates, well off hand I'm not sure, but I
think the fourth amendment is one of them.

#9: What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you pro-choice or are you unsure or do you have a clear view on the stance?

I am all for gay marriage, telling someone who they can/not love is
a violation of human rights.
Marriage is a legal union, and therefore has no standing in religion,
so there should be no problem.

#10: What is your stance on how we should deal with Al-queda?

We should hunt the dogs down and imprison them, however we should
make sure they actually are Al-queda, we should also not take away
there rights, as that makes us worse than them.

[edit on 3/3/2007 by iori_komei]

#1: How do you feel about the current campaigning between the current senators of the white house? If you could change one thing about how campaigns are ran what would this thing be?

It doesn’t work. The current system of Government is based around the rich getting their own way at the expense of the rest of society. How can the best people run a Nation when you are expected to have millions of dollars to do it? I outlined in a previous post what I think needs to be done. Simply put, a Government sponsored website for every candidate who gains X amount of signatures, free television and radio time also for this candidate – the station and number of signatures based on which office he is running for.

#2: What are some of the thoughts you have about how we elect leaders that represent political parties? Do you believe they represent the parties that they are chosen to represent well enough?

I dislike the idea of Party Politics. Surely they should represent society and not a political ideology? Surely every ideology has its merits? I can look at almost every party and find things I agree with and I do believe everyone can. So the idea of party politics I find detrimental to society.

#3: What is your stance on nuclear proliferation, what must we do to stop all countries of the world from going nuclear.

We shouldn’t. Sorry but these weapons have been used once and are now nothing more than a deterrent, nobody will use nuclear weapons on a Nation with them because it is instant annihilation and also not that many people are truly suicidal. Furthermore every time a Nation has been near them, we have claimed they’d destroy the World – Pakistan and India for example, yet still we survive.

#4: How much of a role should the U.N play with our foreign policy? Should the UN control our foreign policy-- or should they play along with us and let us be and let us do our own things?

Our foreign policy should be simple: We do not get involved in a Nations own affair until they directly attack us. If they go around invading other nations than it is the United Nations role to act and not our own however the UN has problems and I would try to help modernize it.

#5: How do you think we should deal with Iran?

What is the problem? In reality Iran is not as bad as we make out, it has its own social issues but didn’t we all? How would the US of liked it if every Nation commented on them during the Civil Rights era or slavery or any other? They’d not have. Let them sort out their own problems and sit back –we only become their enemy by our actions.

#6: Do you think BUSH made the right decision by going to war with Iraq?

No I do not. I think we have destabilized the region, we have caused a lot of economic damage and we have also killed and have lost a lot of our own soldiers and innocent people. Iraq was not a threat, Saddam was not a threat and by removing Saddam we allow Iran to gain more influence.

#7: Do you support the war with Iraq?

No I do not.

#8: What do you think about the patriot act? Is the act constitutional, and what constitutional amendments do you feel that they are violating with it?

I do believe there’s not a need for it. When we limit a Nations freedom we gain more and more distrust by our own people. We should not judge the innocent guilty till they prove otherwise and that is all this piece of legislation creates. Distrust results in terrorism in many cases.

#9: What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you pro-choice or are you unsure or do you have a clear view on the stance?

I have a very clear view. The Government should allow homosexual civil partnerships. It should be down to each religion to decide if they allow homosexual marriage or not. We do not have the right to alter their religion.

#10: What is your stance on how we should deal with Al-queda?

We deal with them by opening up dialogue. It never worked for the I.R.A, Irgun, Levi or any other terrorist group and until we start to communicate we will get nothing and they will only gain more support from the world. We act like the bully, running around and shouting nothing but: “We won’t communicate with terrorists. They are evil” and so on and so fourth. It is about time that we take a leaf out of the book of other Nations and begin to work towards calming the world down.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#1: How do you feel about the current campaigning between the current senators of the white house? If you could change one thing about how campaigns are ran what would this thing be?

I'd have the campaigns conducted solely in the printed media. This leaves no doubts and can easily be validated at a later time.

#2: What are some of the thoughts you have about how we elect leaders that represent political parties? Do you believe they represent the parties that they are chosen to represent well enough?

We have an insufficient number of parties. Two parties do not represent the full spectrum of political opinion in America and this leaves most voters disenfranchised.

#3: What is your stance on nuclear proliferation, what must we do to stop all countries of the world from going nuclear.

We should behave in a responsible manner with our technology and lead by example.

#4: How much of a role should the U.N play with our foreign policy? Should the UN control our foreign policy-- or should they play along with us and let us be and let us do our own things?

None. We should withdraw from the UN.

#5: How do you think we should deal with Iran?

We should deal with Iran as an equal trading partner.

#6: Do you think BUSH made the right decision by going to war with Iraq?

No

#7: Do you support the war with Iraq?

You fight a war when you absolutely must, it should never be an elective decision. Only an idiot supports war.

#8: What do you think about the patriot act? Is the act constitutional, and what constitutional amendments do you feel that they are violating with it?

The Patriot Act has nothing to do with patriotism, it is not constitutional and it violates at each of the first 10 amendments in some form.

#9: What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you pro-choice or are you unsure or do you have a clear view on the stance?

I'm already married and I'm not interested in men, so I wouldn't do it. However anyone that feels differently should be able to marry as they see fit.

I support Roe v Wade.

#10: What is your stance on how we should deal with Al-queda?

We should pull our troops from Mid East countries.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#1: How do you feel about the current campaigning between the current senators of the white house? If you could change one thing about how campaigns are ran what would this thing be?

As long as its kept open, decent and civilised then I have no problems with it. Smears and dirt digging just lower the tone of the whole proceedings to that of farce level.

If I was changing one thing, it would be that candidates HAVE to show the names of all their sponsors and backers, everytime they appear in public, or on television. You know what you are getting then.

#2: What are some of the thoughts you have about how we elect leaders that represent political parties? Do you believe they represent the parties that they are chosen to represent well enough?

As it stands, I see no reason to change the systems of how parties elect leaders. Similarly, the fact that they got there must mean a large proportion of the party wanted it that way.

Having said that, two major parties in a population of 255+ million is very polarised. I know there are minor parties and independant candidates, but I do think there needs to be some formalised major "third way".

#3: What is your stance on nuclear proliferation, what must we do to stop all countries of the world from going nuclear.

Nuclear proliferation, as it stands, is a direct result of double standards and fear. Why should a select few have something, and then tell others that they cannot have it?

The reason that other countries want nuclear weapons is twofold. The first is that they are afraid of countries that actually have them, and the second is that once they do have them, they can exert more of their own influence elsewhere.

One of my main themes is leading by example. If we don't want people to have these things we need to question why we have them ourselves. Do we really need 6,000 in service nuclear warheads and 4,000 in reserve?

Its kind of hypocritical to say "yes we do" and then tell someone else that they can't have them, don't you think?

#4: How much of a role should the U.N play with our foreign policy? Should the UN control our foreign policy-- or should they play along with us and let us be and let us do our own things?

Do you mean "should America say 'screw you' to the rest of the world, ignore agreements and duck out of the international courts, act in its own best interests and then refer to the UN when it needs bailing out of things like Afghanistan and Iraq" ?

I ask because I think that the US should be a leading player in the UN, and we should abide by the international courts. We should be aiming to be a guiding beacon in the international community, not a pariah that stands alone. The United States of America represents 255+ million people on a planet inhabited by 6 Billion. We aren't above anyone else and we sure as hell shouldn;t be acting like we are unless we are prepared - at some point in the future - to pay a heavy price for it.

#5: How do you think we should deal with Iran?

Engage them diplomatically. Help them obtain nuclear power. Show them they have nothing to fear. Treat them as our equal. Lead by example.

#6: Do you think BUSH made the right decision by going to war with Iraq?

No. Its been farcical from the very beginning. It was sold on a lie. If it had been sold on a different premise then world opinion might well have been different.

#7: Do you support the war with Iraq?

As I said above, under the premise the war has been undertaken, no I don't.

#8: What do you think about the patriot act? Is the act constitutional, and what constitutional amendments do you feel that they are violating with it?

I think it breeds paranoia and fear, and was designed to do so, and yes some of the amendments do violate the constitution in relation to personal freedoms and the ability to express opinions, and also by sidestepping judicial procedures in the interests of "security".

There are other ways of ensuring national security. Education is one. Looking after your own people properly is another. Flying troops halfway round the world and invading another country certainly isn't going to help.

#9: What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you pro-choice or are you unsure or do you have a clear view on the stance?

Every day thousands of people die of famine, war and disease. Most of those people can be helped. The US has, on average, 3.5 million people a year suffering from homelessness, and over three quarters of a million in any given week.

These are issues we should be dealing with. Why then, should people who wish to express their love for each other be any kind of political issue? Let people be.

#10: What is your stance on how we should deal with Al-queda?

Starve them of the oxygen that keeps them going.
Remove our troops from the region and bring them home where we can use them to ensure the security of our borders and homeland.
Stop using their name for fear mongering purposes.
Engage in a decent and neutral Middle East Peace process.

If we commit to all of the above, their cause is removed. If violence ensues when we haev done all of those things, then we would be just in identifying the main protaganists and securing their convictions through fair, just and proper trials, based on the legal system of the country they are arrested in.

Sorry it's taken me a while to respond. I spent the weekend putting new crown moulding up in the bathroom and revamping my campaign site (check it out). Anyway, I can now give these questions my full attention.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#1: How do you feel about the current campaigning between the current senators of the white house? If you could change one thing about how campaigns are ran what would this thing be?

I assume you mean the Presidential campaign? So far I don't really have much opinion of it other than to say I'm extremely excited about the prospect of a major first in 2008, either the first black president, or the first woman president. Either way, there's a very good chance that I will be a witness to one of the most historic moments in U.S. History.

As for what I would change about the current campaigns, I would change the price tag. The "Magic Number" being touted right now is $100 million dollars to even qualify for the primaries. Some estimates are claiming that the final ballot candidates for President of the United States will have spent over half a billion dollars apiece.

I don't need to tell you this has reached absurd proportions. At the present rate of increase, in the next decade, only multi-billionares will be able to run for the top office successfully. While this certainly ensures our future President will have demonstrated the ability to successfully spend warchests worth of dollars, unless the prospective candidate is self-made, their representation will, for the most part, be limited to only the wealthiest of citizens.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#2: What are some of the thoughts you have about how we elect leaders that represent political parties? Do you believe they represent the parties that they are chosen to represent well enough?

There's a reason I'm in the Reform Party.

I used to be a Republican. Thanks to the 2000-2006 Administration, Congress, and Senate, I've lost all faith in the Republican Party to represent the American people and their ideals at this time. The Republican party who claims to want family values, a unified people, smaller government and responsible spending has thrown America into over $7.7 TRILLION in debt, enacted the largest series of "Big Brother" Domestic Surveillance Programs, Secret Torture Camps, and one of the single greatest eras of moral depravity and scandals since Tammany Hall. In short, it would be easy to only blame Bush, and he is certainly a major cause of many of these problems, but the problem at its core was the complete and utter hypocracy of a holier-than-thou party that divided this nation's people to their very core, in the name of god and country, while at the same time exhibiting none of the very standards they espoused.

I am not a Democrat, but I will almost certainly be voting Democrat in the "Real Life" election, because the Reform Party hasn't had a viable candidate since Ross Perot (unless you count myself, and I'm not 35 yet). While I have never been fond of the naivety and over-inflated social programs of past Democrat administrations, at least within my lifetime they did not betray everything American stands for. Additionally, I think either Obama or Hillary would bring a fresh perspective to the Presidency that centuries of white male stagnation have placed us in desperate need of.

In short, I'm not particularly thrilled with either Real Life Party. However, from what I have seen so in recent years, the Democrats more closely represent the American ideal, and their own party's platform.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#3: What is your stance on nuclear proliferation, what must we do to stop all countries of the world from going nuclear.

The Beauty Pageant answer is to give everyone a puppy, and encourage nations to make love, not war.

The truth is far more horrific, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but nukes are here to stay. You could no more get rid of nuclear weapons than you can guns. Regardless of every effort made by the United States, the United Nations, diplomacy, sanctions, and military might, the fact remains that this is a technology that has already been achieved in massive numbers in multiple countries, and it is only a matter of time before everyone on the planet has one, either through trade or development. People must come to live with the spectre of nuclear weapons until the day we develop an even more terrible weapon, capable of even greater destruction.

This leads us back to the Beauty Pagenat answer.

If we walk away from the Bush regime learning anything at all, we must learn this: The United States cannot and must not attempt global warmongering to achieve its goals. Gone are the days where Lady Liberty could beckon to a place, claim the best interests of humanity, and expect the Good Nations of the World to follow. Gone are the days where we have any right to condemn another nation for grievous violations of humanity. Gone are the days where we can expect our economic, strategic, and cultural allies to stand by us when we purposely commit such outstanding blunders as to invade a country that never attacked us. Bush has squandered, in the space of two terms, every ounce of political capitol that the United States has fought to achieve. We can only hope that, once he is gone, there will still be some nations left willing to even talk to us.

We must engage in diplomatic talks. We must be willing to enter into these talks without hesitation. We must quit the mindset that we can bully the world to our whims.

What some might perceive as hard-nosed tactics achieve nothing more than bitter feelings from another potential or active nuclear power. Our current tactics address nothing more than the symtom of desire to push the Big Red Button. If we are to truly control nuclear proliferation, or at least prevent their use across the globe, then we must learn to cooperate in a new, global world, and address the cause of nuclear desires, rather than the desires themselves.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#4: How much of a role should the U.N play with our foreign policy? Should the UN control our foreign policy-- or should they play along with us and let us be and let us do our own things?

I believe neither is the case. The United Nations are a forum, much like AboveTopSecret, only it has less members with more power. It is a neutral forum for the leaders of the world to be able to maintain face-to-face contact with one another, and to be held publicly accountable for their words, policies, and actions.

The U.N. was never designed to be a ruling body, it was intended as a way to prevent another world war through diplomatic rather than military channels.

I think in some instances, it is a wiser course of action to go with the broader wishes of the U.N., because the diplomatic benefits will, more often than not, outweigh the consequences. In other instances, it is wiser to ignore the wishes of the U.N., especially when they are a direct confrontation with the best interests of our nation. In some instances, the clear deciding factor is not known, and one must do what they feel is right.

However, the U.N. is not our puppet, and neither are we a puppet of theirs.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#5: How do you think we should deal with Iran?

First, I think it needs to be known that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not represent the majority interest in his country. Even those whom elected him are rapidly becoming disgusted with his actions, and many top Iranian government officials, as well as the average Iranian on the street, would love to begin building some good relations with the United States.

The fact that the Bush Administration has flat out refused, time and again, to open talks with Iran, to place them on the Axis of Evil list back in 2001 (a grievously insulting term that was previously reserved for the member countries of Nazi Germany), to publicly and repeatedly attempt to sway media and whispering campaigns about their threat to the United States, has only served to empower Ahmadinejad and his party further. It has propped up two incompetant men under the pretense of opposition to one another.

If we are to sort this out properly, with any hope for Peace in the Middle East, and with any hope of establishing a stable basis for relationships between the U.S. and Iran, as well as stop their nuclear enrichment program and interference in Iraq, we need to open diplomatic channels. We need to enter into talks with them. We need to find out exactly what they want first and then assess the situation from there.

Let me be crystal clear, I am in no way, shape, or form, saying we need to surrender Iraq to Iran, or that we must kowtow to Ahmadinejad's regime. But if we are to do anything other than start another war, we must at least talk to one another. These are not some primitive tribes waving spears at us from the stone-age. This is a thousands-of-years old culture of a very sophisticated and influential people, controlling much of the power in the middle east, whom are not afraid to engage in total war. We can't threaten them with guns and expect them to back down. We can't threaten them with nukes and expect the rest of the world to tolerate it. We can't afford another Iraq in two countries at once. If we do not engage in diplomatic talks with Iran, we have already failed, and willfully so.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#6: Do you think BUSH made the right decision by going to war with Iraq?

I think Bush is the single worst President the United States has ever had. He is a colossal failure on so many levels that it is a testament to the power of our Constitution and the American Way that we still have a country left.

One of the many enormous follies of his regime has been to throw us into a war with a country that never attacked us, had no real connection to Al'Qaeda (at the time), had not attacked our allies, and had no weapons of mass destruction. He took us into war against the advisement of his own administration, against the advisement of the United Nations, and against the advisement of every inspector in Iraq looking for the weapons.

THEN, to make matters even worse, when he made up his mind about invading, he ignored any numbers about troops and money except those he wanted to hear, and fired anyone and everyone until someone would tell him what he wanted to hear. He sent our best, bravest men and women, and countless civilian contractors, into a war we never should have been in, unprepared, unarmored, and unequipped. He then proceeded to keep America in the dark about both the casualties and the true grievousness of the situation until leaks within the military brought the truth to media attention.

All of these things are the direct orders of a Commander in Chief who never served a day of combat duty in his entire life.

Do I think he made a mistake? No. I think he committed a crime and should be impeached and sentenced to a cell in GITMO.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#7: Do you support the war with Iraq?

I believe this to be a loaded question. One doesn't "support" wars. Wars are the result of failure of every other possbile action. They are the result of people killing each other on such a massive scale that the charge of muder no longer applies. I do not support ANY war, ever. This does not mean that wars must never be waged. Sometimes brute force truly is the only way to resolve a situation, however tragic the case may be. I would never support a war, but I might support the cause behind the war.

However, this is not the case with Iraq. I do not support the cause of our War in Iraq. As politically incorrect as it is to say, I am ashamed that our President has wasted the lives of so many of our soldiers without even laying down a basis for victory. This is not to say that I feel a dead or injured soldier wasted their own life. They are heroes, and should be honored for their sacrifice. For reasons that are their own, they chose to join the armed forces and honor their commitment to it. I only wish that, as a nation, we had honored them back with a cause worth fighting for, instead of a few cents on the dollar for a gallon of gas, and some nonexistent WMDs.

I come from a long line of military men. My brother was in the Air Force, my father and grandfather were in the Army, my other grandfather was a Frogman in the Navy, and my ancestors as far back as I can trace carried a weapon in service to their country. I support the troops. I consider them heroes, and I would never waste these souls on such a tragedy as Iraq. I sure as hell wouldn't stand, for one second, the widespread conditions of our military hospitals.

A lot of people, for a long time, held the stern belief you cannot support the troops and denounce the Iraq War at the same time. Perhaps some people still feel this way. To those people I ask how the reverse is even remotely possible. You have seen how Bush "supports" the troops. How well does he support the War in Iraq?

I offer a clear line of victory for Iraq.

I will lay down, in very clear terms, what is needed to achieve victory in Iraq, stabilizing it, and making it a symbol of Shia and Sunni cooperation, while at the same time allowing the United States to regain at least a fraction of its former honor by cleaning up the terrible mess that Bush's lack of support for his own war has caused.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#8: What do you think about the patriot act? Is the act constitutional, and what constitutional amendments do you feel that they are violating with it?

Long before Lemony Snicket, there was a political term we were constantly warned about: The Slippery Slope. In a nutshell, the phrase describes a situation in which, if a questionable policy is enacted, then a related unacceptable policy is more likely to occur, or be justified, as a result.

For instance, if you enact a policy that allows for the occasional suspension of liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, the slippery slope may result in either a permanent suspension of said liberties, or the broadening of what is constituted as terrorism to the point that the distinction considers everyone but the most priviledged as terrorists.

The Patriot Act was passed during a panic-stricken congressional session, and almost no one read what they were voting on. A series of liberty-suspending legislation, wide-open doors for surveillance on a Orwellian scale, and a slope towards a tyrant state so slick and steep that even now we are hanging on by fingernails, all in the name of fighting terrorism.


What constitutes "terrorism" has been expanded even to the point of including dangerous high school pranks by very stupid children. What constitutes "acceptable treatment" of terrorists has been expanded to include torture, trials where the charges, trials, and evidence against the accused are hidden from everyone's view, including their own, and indefinite sentences in degrading, abusive prison camps where one may be held incommunicato without even being told why.

The proponants of these measures say "if you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about."

I disagree.

I think there is everything about this process to worry about. The very system itself allows for zero correction in the event of the abduction of an innocent, and leaves no distinction between committing a crime and an act of terror. It provides the Executive Branch the ability to supercede any liberty, any judicial review, and any law, as it sees fit, without any public disclosure as to why, or the results of these actions being given.

Let me repeat: any one of you, this very minute, could be declared an "enemy combatant", hauled off to a secret prison, tortured for years on end, and your family and friends never being notified. The don't have to provide you representation, reason, or even a trial. It wouldn't matter if you've never even so much as stolen a piece of candy from a dollar store, because after a few days in Gitmo, you'll confess to the murders of Abe Lincoln and JFK himself if you think it'll buy you a few hours of solace.

And that's just the "known" scarier aspects of what the Patriot Act and similar such legislation allows. Let's not forget the unknowns, the fact that any email, any internet activity, any bank transactions, any phone calls, any thing you do that has any way of being traced, is now being dutifully recorded, stored, and awaits nothing more than some official, somewhere, taking in interest in you, in the name of fighting terrorism.

It doesn't matter if you've never done anything wrong. Allowing these types of invasions, these legislations to set up a police state, go against everything our forefathers fought for.

Are we so afraid of dying, of anyone getting hurt, of another 9/11, that we're willing to sell our liberties and freedoms that millions of Americans have died to protect since our nation's birth?

We need to wake up, and realize that terrorism is always going to be a possibility, no matter how strict and miserable we make life in an attempt to prevent it. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. Sometimes horrible acts occur, so atrocious they make the world stand up and take notice. Sometimes there are crimes too terrible to even discuss without everyone involved becoming disgusted and infuriated by the very thought. This is reality. These things will happen until the end of time. Don't sacrifice everything our nation stands for, under the illusion that it won't.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#9: What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you pro-choice or are you unsure or do you have a clear view on the stance?

I believe the Federal Government needs to stay the hell out of people's marriages, and absolutely NOT amend the constitution based off of what is, to be frank, homophobia.

I don't care if someone is gay, I don't care if someone hates gays. This is America, and we were founded on the right to be our own persons and disagree with one another. The day people don't have that option anymore is the day we slide towards facism. If someone doesn't think gays should get married, then don't marry one, don't attend their marriages, and if it's a religious thing, don't allow their marriages to take place in your congregation. But to enact a Constitutional Amendment, or even Federal Legislation, to FORBID it across the board, for gays everywhere, is not only facism, it is inviting the Federal Government to tell you exactly what is, and is not allowed inside the privacy of your own bedroom.

Marriage is a power of the State, not the Federation. If a State wants to legalize gay marriage, that is a fair representation of the feelings of the demographic of that state. If a state wants to ban gay marriages, the same thing applies.

My feelings on this are crystal clear: Individual states maintain the right to decide who can and cannot get married within their borders, and must honor the marriages of the other United States. Meaning a gay couple married in Massachussettes cannot be denied their rights in a state that will not perform gay marriages.

I think it will only be a matter of a few years before this becomes a moot issue. Homosexuals represent a very large business, voter, and cultural demographic that any state who wishes to remain competitive in the market will need to accept as a resource, rather than a liability.

Like it or not, the homophobic community needs to come to grips with the fact that homosexuals make up a valid and large portion of the population. You don't have to like it, you just need to realize they deserve fair representation like everyone else in America.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#10: What is your stance on how we should deal with Al-queda?

First, I think we need to define exactly what constitutes a "terrorist" versus a "criminal". No one has put this into words, there are no legal definitions for it. What crossed line makes a murder or destruction of property an act of terror? Unless we are to simply leave the door open, for anyone and everyone committing a criminal act to be declared a terrorist and denied due process rights, we must have a clear and legal dinstinction between the two.

Second, we need to establish a solid, standardized process by which terrorists, once apprehended, are catalogued, detained, questioned, and represented. As it stands, there's nothing more than the Bush administration's promises that they know what they're doing. Frankly, I've seen no evidence from their administration to trust that claim on their ability to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, much less handle the incredible international repurcussions of indefinitely torturing an innocent man apprehended on foreign soil.

Make no mistake, I hate terrorists as much as anyone, but I hate the heavy hand of a tyrranical police state and the ruination of innocent lives even more. We MUST, for the protection of even our own citizens, have clear, legal, due process, or we all risk any one of us being black-bagged, tortured, and forgotten forever.

Third, we need to start an aggressive campaign to address the ROOT CAUSES of terrorism, not just the symptom. The crazed, masked gunmen you see on TV waving AK-47's are not the root cause of terrorism. They are the symtom of something deeper, something that has made them so angry or afraid that they feel the only option left is one of horrific violence. You can't just shoot these people and assume the problem will go away. You have to find the source of the issue.

Why does the terrorist attack? Maybe it's oil, water, money, power, religion, ethnicity, or government. Can you tell just by looking at the bomb, the gun, or the mask? No. We need a specific unit of people to investigate and address the primary root causes of terrorism throughout the world and we need these findings to be publc. We need to know that if Uncle Sam says he's going after Terrorist Group XYZ, that they're doing so because XYZ did -this- for -that- reason, and here's what's being done to address that reason.

Fourth, we need an aggressive, worldwide, professional anti-terrorism marketing campaign. We need Superbowl-quality television advertisements, radio advertisements, motivational speakers, and the slickest BS-artists in the world touting 24-hours a day about Sunni and Shia collaborations for peace. We need there to be a radio station everywhere talking about how Muslim extremists everywhere are laying down their arms and accepting peace. We need public service announcements from ex-terrorists (real or not) denouncing terrorism across the globe.

It doesn't matter if it's a lie, because if you tell a big enough lie enough times, sooner or later it becomes the truth by proxy. Where our bullets can't reach, maybe our airwaves can. By god, if lying propaganda can be used for evil to recruit terrorists, it can be used to convince them that peaceful dialogue is a better option.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#1: How do you feel about the current campaigning between the current senators of the white house? If you could change one thing about how campaigns are ran what would this thing be?

The money factor.

#2: What are some of the thoughts you have about how we elect leaders that represent political parties? Do you believe they represent the parties that they are chosen to represent well enough?

I am an independent. I have never been a republican or a democrat...a prepackaged set of principles does not allow freedom of thought or choice.
It becomes an 'us' or 'them' situation...

As far as what anyone represents...I honestly have no idea. I have no interest in partisan competitions. I'm sure they do or else they would not be elected by their parties in the primaries!

#3: What is your stance on nuclear proliferation, what must we do to stop all countries of the world from going nuclear.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'going nuclear.' If you mean weapons, then I have answered that on one of the other threads in this forum: The Nuclear Club

If you mean other than weapons, then I don't see any reason to stop the process of development.
If we knew more, we could find a far safer means to explore it as an alternative energy source. But until we educate ourselves and master it on the smallest scale possible, we have no business with large scale nuclear endeavors.
Chernobyl should certainly have taught us that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But I'm not sure that it has, generally speaking.

#4: How much of a role should the U.N play with our foreign policy? Should the UN control our foreign policy-- or should they play along with us and let us be and let us do our own things?

The UN can make suggestions and they make them according to the international laws already established. Either the countries who are members heed their counsel or they don't.
The UN was never intended to be permanent. No doubt it could be improved. But that is something that the UN must be concerned with as a whole, not the President of one of the member nations.

#5: How do you think we should deal with Iran?

By letting them do as their President requested – allow them to help Iraq rebuild. As he mentioned in his letter to President Bush, they ARE neighbors. It is both efficient and beneficial to all concerned.

#6: Do you think BUSH made the right decision by going to war with Iraq?

It doesn’t matter at this point in time. What is done is done. Either we learn from it or we don’t. That is what experiences are for. To learn from.

#7: Do you support the war with Iraq?

Please see my response in this thread.

#8: What do you think about the patriot act? Is the act constitutional, and what constitutional amendments do you feel that they are violating with it?

The US Justice department is addressing/has addressed this in part. It has not accomplished anything positive.
I do not think it was a viable solution in the first place. The very idea of a country which proclaims itself to be ‘the home of the brave’ taking measures because of being ‘terrorized’ is hypocrisy.
Fear creates danger and courage dispels it. I REFUSE to be terrorized - by man or beast. Lead by example.

#9: What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you pro-choice or are you unsure or do you have a clear view on the stance?

That has become, already, a state issue – simply because some states had already passed laws concerning such before the time the DOMA was ratified (around 3 years). This continued even after the DOMA was signed by President Clinton. This violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
The reason President Clinton is on the record as giving for his decision has nothing at all to do with the rights of citizens according to the Constitution but instead is a statement concerning his own personal judgment and opinion. That is unacceptable and unlawful.
Marriage should be defined according to rights and privileges – not dictate who is allowed to decide to build a life together. That is overstepping our rights to judge other human beings in general.
Homosexuality is NOT going to go away – it has been around as long as sex has been a part of natural life.
If all men are created equal then all citizens are entitled to the same rights, opportunities, and privileges under the same contracts available to all consenting adults. This includes sexual preference and laws about marriage should not be concerned with one’s personal lifestyle but rather protect their public rights as both taxpayer and US citizen.
The United States is the land of the free, NOT the home of heterosexuality…it is the home of the brave. Why make love and companionship into an issue that requires strength of character and personal fortitude beyond what many people inherently possess?
This is also included under the heading ‘pursuit of happiness’.

#10: What is your stance on how we should deal with Al-queda?

What do you mean, ‘deal with?’ How do we deal with criminal offenders in this country?
Al-Qaeda is considered an ‘international alliance’ and operates not as one but rather recruits individuals on an independent basis to work toward its goal(s). It is like any other crime committed and prosecuted in the US – each individual suspected of violating the law goes through due process of the law depending on whether they are a citizen of this country or not.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
#1: How do you feel about the current campaigning between the current senators of the white house? If you could change one thing about how campaigns are ran what would this thing be?

At the moment, all of the candidates seem to be bahaving themselves, but I don't expect that to last much longer. Sooner or later, someone's going to start mudslinging. When that starts, the whole election goes down the crapper, imho.

As for what I think could be done to change the way things are ran, I think we should eliminate the need for campaign funding. This is just one great way for corporations to get their dirty little hands into the political arena, so that they can make more money. I think it's high time for their control of political affairs to come to an end.

#2: What are some of the thoughts you have about how we elect leaders that represent political parties? Do you believe they represent the parties that they are chosen to represent well enough?

I think that leaving the decision of who ends up elected in the hands of a few people is a bad thing, as it lends itself to corruption by the very same people that helped to fund the candidate's campaigns. This is yet another reason that I can supply as an answer to Question 1. I don't think it's a valid assumption to say that they are elected by party anymore, as the corporations that control them know no party, aside from profit.

As far as the candidates go, they seem to try to adhere to their party lines, but more and more, I'm seeing them sway more towards a more moderate view on almost everything, on both sides of the aisle. This could be a good thing, or it could be a bad one. It could be good in that they are finally starting to realize that they need to be cooperating more with the other side, to get what's best for their people. Yet, at the same time, it could be a bad thing because they could all be just conspiring to create an aristocracy that oppresses it's people. While I don't like to think that that could be happening right now, I fear that it is. This is why I ran for the Reform Party. I consider myself an Independent, and will base ALL of my legislation on such principles as have been passed down to me for my entire life.

#3: What is your stance on nuclear proliferation, what must we do to stop all countries of the world from going nuclear.

I think what's fair for one should be fair for all, aside from terrorist states. Most will think this is a radical thought, but hear me out. There's history to back this view of mine up. During the Cold War, the US and Russia both had nukes, and yet no nuclear war erupted. Why you ask? Well, there was this thing called "Mutually Assured Destruction", which basically means that if the Russians fired first, we'd fire, and everyone in the middle would die. This basic principle, I think, will ensure that we do not ever have to worry about nuclear war.

However, as I stated at the beginning of this response, I must admit that I personally feel that SOME groups don't need to have any kind of nukes, such as Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq (even though we're there, I still don't like the idea), amongst others. Some groups would obviously misuse them, which is why the world would need to keep a close eye on them, not just the US.

#4: How much of a role should the U.N play with our foreign policy? Should the UN control our foreign policy-- or should they play along with us and let us be and let us do our own things?

To be totally honest, I think the UN has outlived it's usefulness, and should be abolished. They are an impotent organization, with no real power anymore. If they could do anything other than poke their noses into fights that they shouldn't be stopping, then I'd say we should keep them.

However, that's not the case. I think they should be summarilly dismantled, and a new organization should be brought forward. This organization would only intercede when there's a world threat from a conflict between two or more nations. They wouldn't pander about in the mundane affairs of two nations having a political squabble, unless it threatens the sovereignty of the rest of the world.

#5: How do you think we should deal with Iran?

Leave them alone until they pose a significant enough threat. However, I think we should watch very closely from afar, to provide us with vital intel on their doings. Should they directly disobey the rulings of the rest of the world, then they should be made to comply, by whatever means necessary.

#6: Do you think BUSH made the right decision by going to war with Iraq?

Depends on what you're definition of "right" is I guess.

To clarify, I think he's on a quest to finish what his daddy started. And while I know that most people don't believe that notion anymore, I merely think that's but one small facet of his reasoning for being there. I believe there's a major reason that we're there. Whether it be a political one, or an archealogical one (biblical artifacts??) remains to be seen. I just think that there seems to be an awful lot of secrecy on the matter of our reasons for being there, and that lends itself to conspiracy theories. Hence my malcontent towards the whole situation...

#7: Do you support the war with Iraq?

No, but I support the troops that are there. They're my fellow brothers and sisters as well, you know. Their deaths hurt me as much as it hurts their biological families, since they deserved to live a better, more fullfilling life. if I could, I'd bring them all home, and let the Iraqis sort out all of their own problems. True, we created the vast majority of their current ones, but this correlates very well with the founding of our own great nation. We had to deal with troubles and tribulations when starting the 13 colonies. We weren't without our fair share of hardships.

But, we dealt with them, and made ourselves a nation that has stood the test of time for the past 230 years. We are the shining example of what one group of people can accomplish if they want something badly enough. Now the question is, do the Iraqi's want it badly enough to keep it? If they do, then they will, with or without our help. We'll never know if they can handle it though if we don't get out of their way and let them try.

#8: What do you think about the patriot act? Is the act constitutional, and what constitutional amendments do you feel that they are violating with it?

I think the patriot act serves to further oppress the American People to a point of submission that will allow the powers that be to come in and take complete control of the country, without as much as a wimper from the People. It tramples all over my rights to privacy, based on mere suspicion of an act. Since when did suspicion become reason enough to monitor someone.

If that law applied equally and fairly, then I should be able to request a secret linetap on the President's personal phoneline, based simply on the suspicion of him having prior knowledge about 9/11. Does that make me right? NO, but it's the very same reasoning that they use to listen to anyone else. It's wrong and unjust.

#9: What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you pro-choice or are you unsure or do you have a clear view on the stance?

I don't care if two of the same sex want to get married. If so, they should be allowed to. So long as they don't force me to be privy to any awkward moments. It's just common courtesy, whether it's a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, to keep some things behind closed doors. So long as it stays there, that's fine. I just don't think it's my or anyone else's place to dictate what goes on in someone else's private bedroom.

I don't like to have an opinion on the issue of abortion, as I'm not a woman, and as such, have no real grasp of the situation. While I feel that way, I must also admit that the male in a relationship should have at least some say in what happens to an unborn child, as it is partly his as well. There must be a compromise, and each case is it's own distinct one. There will be exceptions to the rule, so my stance is best described as on the fence.

#10: What is your stance on how we should deal with Al-queda?

Wipe them out, plain and simple.

For Freedom and Democracy,

TheBorg - Reform Party Candidate '08