The Hive Chronicles

Following in Bodrul's footsteps, I'm also going to open up a floorspace for members to ask me questions. I also feel the need to give everyone a good look into the way that I think, as well as to illustrate what I think makes me a great candidate.

So, fire away!!

TheBorg

What policies would you implement to reduce the dependance on fossil fuels?

Would you offer tax breaks to green energy producers?

Would you offer tax breaks to those would want to move to biofuel in their cars?

What is your stance on Iraq, and do you have a Middle East peace plan?

What are your plans on the growing trade imbalance?

What is your stance on universal health care?

What will you do about the growing national debt?

What will you do about the rising education cost for students?

What are your thoughts on the Kyoto treaty?

What would your national strategy on crime be?

What is your stance the death penalty and why?

How do you intend to restore the independent media in the US?

I'd start by allocating larger portions of our DNP(Domestic National Product) towards funding of electric / biofuel / hydrogen powered vehicles, and I'd make it mandatory that we keep a certain cap on the price of oil/gas in relation to the current economic level of the country. If that were to force us away from the oil market, then that would be fine. We'd already have the technology to make the transition a smooth one.



Simply put, yes. So long as they're encouraging a new way of doing things more efficiently, I'm all for giving them something for their efforts.



I'd do better than that, I'd make it so that it wouldn't cost them anything to make the conversion. Once they made the conversion, then they'd be better off, because the costs would be lowered, and it would also improve the environment.

The only thing I can see going wrong here is that the prices on the biofuels would go up a bit. But that's easily countered by the ease with which anyone can make them. To me, it'd be a win-win situation.

For Freedom,
TheBorg

Please keep an eye on this thread for the answers to those questions, as they'll all be answered there.



Hmm, good question. I'd tighten our trade ties with our closest partners, like China, and bring them closer to a free trade deal. I think trade is a perfectly viable option between countries, regardless of their political situation. However, both sides would need to have an agreement, and live up to their end. If they break it, then the deal is immediately off; there'd be none of this back room pandering just to keep a good trade partner. We can find those anywhere.



I think everyone should have it. I also think that it should be given to someone from the time they're born until they die, with no limits on treatment. If a nation's not willing to put it's all into it's people, then why should they expect the same from those very same People?



I'd spend all of the money that we're currently spending on the Iraq War on the deficit. Please refer to the thread stated above in the Iraq question for more in-depth reasons behind this statement. (It's not up there right now, 5/27/07, but it will be by later tonight).



I think that every single student in our country to learn should be given the best that we can offer, bar none. We shouldn't hold people's development back just because of money. We have other ways of insuring that people get adequately compensated for their efforts, and this should be the ideal by which we all stand.

What will I do though? I'll make it a priority to give every single student the best that we as a nation can, as that's all that I can do at the moment.



I like it, and am all in favor of it.



Now some might think this a radical approach, but I'll explain the reasoning behind it.

I think we should re-institute the stocks, and use them as a permanent form of punishment. What this would do for the justice system would be tantamount to nothing yet experienced in the Americas. We would put the criminals convicted out into the stocks for a predetermined amount of time, and they would be out in the open, in the middle of town. This would serve to make them the public spectacle that we want them to be.

As it is now, they are held up in prisons, with no one seeing them or what they did. What good does that do? How does this deter crime? We should put them out in the open in the stocks, with their names and their crime posted either beside them or above them, along with their sentence, and the date that it started. This would serve to show people why they shouldn't commit a crime, and it would prevent those being punished from ever committing another crime.

Now, the sentences for the crimes could be significantly reduced, as the nature of the punishment is MUCH greater. For example, a crime like petty theft might only garner 5 days in the stocks, while something more substantial, like rape, might get 6 years. There would be one exception however. First degree murder would be an immediate life sentence, with no chance of parole.

The families of the prisoners would be allowed to put shelter up around the criminals, and to bring food to them, but they would, for all intents and purposes of the state in which they are being held, be left to God's divine will from the time that they are left in the stocks until they are released. Should someone be released by a visitor, the person being released, and the one(s) doing the releasing will all serve the remainder of the term together. Should someone that's committed a heinous crime escape, the guards on duty would be authorized to shoot on sight. It would be a mandatory shoot to kill order too. Is it authoritarian? Definitely. Does it prevent future crime? You bet. And that is what we're all after, is it not? I hope this answers your question adequately.



After reading the above answer, I'm sure you can guess that I'm anti-death penalty, unless the prisoners try to escape.



I'd leave the news making up to the People themselves, as they can do a much better job of figuring out what's going on than some small organization can. Take ATS here as a perfect example. We're always discussing new topics here, so that should show the quality and number of people that are out there looking to tell everyone what's going on.

Does anyone have anything else to ask me? Feel free to ask away.

TheBorg

Some following questions if I may TheBorg?

Would you relax the planning laws for wind farms?

Do you believe that need for greener energy is one that must be made at the price of a natural landscape?

Would offer tax breaks for all house holders to install solar panels?

Would you use federal funding to provide solar panels/green energy equipment to those who can not afford it?

There is a lot of hearsay evidence that the big oil companies and big business own the patents and rights to energy saving and greener energy technology. Would use you federal powers to review the patents held and then force business to release or use what they have the rights to?

By all means, ask away.



I don't know honestly. I love the concept, but at the same time, they take up a large portion of land that could be being used more productively. If we could use the land below for other stuff as well, then I'd be all for making some cuts to help out the people that use them.



No. I believe that we can achieve the desired outcomes while maintaining a symbiotic relationship with the environment.



Yes. In fact, if they were so willing, we'd even help them pay for it if they couldn't afford it.



See my above answer for more clarification.



Let me put it this way. I'll do everything in my power to make the world a safer, more livable place.

As I've stated before, if you have any questions, feel free to send em in.

TheBorg

Expanding on the wind farm concept.

Would you focus more on land based wind farms or offshore wind farms?



Now a foreign policy question.

What are your plans on economic sanctions of Cuba, would you loosen them, get rid
of them or keep them the same?

[edit on 5/28/2007 by iori_komei]

That depends on where the wind blows the most, hehe. If we could get better results from the offshore locales, then by all means that's where we'd go. The North Atlantic is quite a good spot for some prospecting, but the windmills would have to be super durable.



I'd start by talking with Castro, and see what he'd like to do. Then, based on what was discussed and agreed upon, we could move forward. I'm all about making the world a better place for ALL people, whatever country they're from.

For Freedom,
TheBorg

I believe you can tell a great deal about a candidate by who they have around them.

So have you decided who you would ask for the major offices of state if you are elected?

I have, and surprisingly enough, I would choose my staunchest opponents as my cabinet, and there is one very good reason why.

Each one of the people that I'd select to join me in my cabinet would be able to challenge me on an intellectual level that I wouldn't have if I was simply surrounded by a bunch of people that thought the same way that I did. When I come up with an idea, I want plenty of debate on it, to flesh out all of the "bugs", as well as to establish the best possible solution to the problem before us. What this entails is taking people from all walks of life, and all viewpoints, and bringing them together to get a semblance of what they think is right or not. Only surrounded with people like this can one effectively lead, and remain loyal to the People that elected him/her.

I hope this answers your question. If anyone has anymore questions, ship em on out!!

For Freedom,
TheBorg

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

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

Yes. I would have gone back there during Clinton's Administration as soon as they broke the UN Treaty that we both signed in good conscience. Not only that, I would have finished the job the second time around. I would have made sure that that kind of behavior wouldn't likely happen again.



Not unless there's some evidence that they aren't telling us about. Suspicion should never be the reason for doing something. If someone acts on suspicion, and ends up being wrong, they should suffer a severe penalty for it in front of those that they suspected of wrongdoing. This would force people to think before they act.

If anyone else has anything, you know the drill.

TheBorg

I have another question.

Would you, as president veto a bill that you believe is not right, if the majority of the
Congress and people supported it?

I'm human, and as such, am prone to have moments where I don't see things the right way. It's a part of being human. This is why I would surround myself with the people that most disagree with me; so that we might hammer out a probable solution to the bill that's before us at the time. It's all a process of compromise, something that many lawmakers today have forgotten all about.

So, to answer your question a bit more directly, no I wouldn't. To me, to have a valid, working Democracy, the People are the ones that decide, not I. I'm merely present to make sure that the People's wishes are fulfilled. My opinion would be expressed in each case, rest assured. However, if the People want something badly enough, they'll get it. I will not stand in the way of the very thing that I hold so dear, OUR Freedom.

For Freedom,
TheBorg

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

Would you reform the intelligence agencies in the light of the apparent intelligence failure in the run up to 9/11?

If you would, what would you propose?

I haven't thought much about that conflict, as I've been focused on the Iraqi war for so long, as this thread can attest to.

Once I get done with the above linked debate, I'll get back to this. Keep an eye on that debate for me, and when it's finished, remind me about this so that I can answer it properly.

Thanks bod. I'm still waiting on my "appeasement" gesture...

TheBorg

I would definitely make some changes, primarily to the process of responding to potential threats to our country. If we have a reasonable suspicion that someone is about to attack us, I would make sure that we explored every avenue to make sure that the attack in question doesn't happen. At least that way, if an attack manages to get through, no one will be able to come back and say, "Well, he never tried to fix it. He knew all about it and did nothing!!"

TheBorg