[ slight hijack ]
Merijeek, I hope you enjoyed posting to the SDMB.
[ /slight hijack ]
I would like to apply for the position of Ambassador to Canada. My first act will be to pressure the P.M. to appoint me Ambassador to the United States. Bi-lateral discussions will have never been easier!
Well, since it seems to me that you plan on running, maybe you could help me out. I need a Federal appointment. I don’t want much, but you do want my vote. I’m ok with you giving me a job as the Ambassador of Ohio. Or do you call that Senator now. Well, just fire the other Ohio guy and get me…
I guess you could make me a nicely paid janitor…I probably wouldn’t mind.
You do sound pretty good on message board, I hope you sound as good on the campaign trail!
Brendon Small
I disagree, the Second Amendment DOES mean that law-abiding citizens should be permitted to own firearms
the operative word being PEOPLE, not Militia
you want to cut down on firearm-related violence, that’s all well and good, how about enforcing the laws already on the books instead of drafting new laws to ban firearms…
a firearm is an inanimate object, a tool, a dangerous tool that must be respected, but a tool nonetheless, it’s the intent of the person behind the trigger that you have to worry about, that said, most firearms owners are aware of the responsibility of firearm ownership and abide by both the laws and common sense, yes there are people out there who do not have the maturity or responsibility for firearm ownership
I’ve grown up around firearms, and have had the importance of firearm safety pounded into my skull since i was old enough to hold my first BB gun, I’m 36 years old, have a small selection of firearms, and have never raised one in anger, or pointed the muzzle at anything i did not want to destroy, I’ve legally concealed carried my .357 Magnum, and have never had to draw it in defense, ever
what is your policy on private ownership of firearms?
Most of your other points i agree with, but i cannot, in good concience, vote for someone who plans to “take my guns away”
Would you wear a kilt at your inaugeral ball? How many beers would you be able to hold?
A kilt, you say?
Yes, a kilt.
Well, I know of at least two DOPERS who will be glad to wear kilts to the inaugural ball.
Huh? Right?
I generally supported President Clinton’s foreign policy with other nations, including in international trade (although I’m much more skeptical of China’s intentions than he was). I believe we need to emphasize areas of agreement with other industrialized nations and, honestly and in good faith, negotiate issues where we disagree. The U.S. is well-served by a robust, open world economy in which we can compete on a level playing field with other nations. Growing economic tension with Europe says as much about the Bush Administration’s arrogance, actual and perceived, as it does about the underlying issues; a new administration should be able to start anew with our European friends. I have no particular opinion of EU expansion - if the EU wants to expand, and other nations wish to join it, that’s their decision.
Thank you for your feedback on gun control. We will have to agree to disagree. I’m glad, at least, that my other views meet with your approval.
-
Domestic wiretapping and other surveillance should only be carried out with court authorization, as required by the Fourth Amendment and its later interpretations. Anything less sets an extremely dangerous precedent and would endanger liberty. This is one area in which I’m particularly critical of the Bush Administration.
-
Any invasion of privacy or strengthening of police powers needs to be carefully scrutinized. Is it constitutional? Advisable? Will it really make us safer? Do the benefits really outweigh the costs? More often than not, since 9-11, the answer has been “no.” We should remember Ben Franklin’s sage advice: Those who would give up liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.
-
I am strongly opposed to secret detentions, and even more so to torture. Torture coarsens those members of our military and intelligence service who practice it, and violates international treaties to which the U.S. is a party - and which are, as constitutionally defined, the “supreme law of the land.” It corrodes the rule of law and exposes us as hypocrites, badly undercutting the basis of our real struggle against international terrorism. I agree with Sen. John McCain, who has had some personal experience in the field, that torture is a moral and legal wrong which stains our nation’s honor. In fighting our enemies, we must take care not to become them.
Hey, we’ve drunk beers in the rain together. He’s just doing his job. Give him a break! 
Have you stopped beating your wife?
I like your responses, but it is worth noting that this great quote and one of my favorites, was probably not really said by Franklin, but just attributed to him.
Thank you for your questions.
-
In a robust global economy, money and jobs will flow freely from place to place. That will be sometimes to our detriment and sometimes to our benefit, depending upon the particular industry or business. I believe that, overall, it will be to our definite national economic benefit. The U.S. is still a major manufacturer and exporter, and it’s in our longterm self-interest to encourage free trade everywhere. Where particular American industries or businesses are hurt by free trade, we should offer retraining and other alternatives.
-
As I wrote earlier, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will largely have to be resolved by them. I do not have any particular borders of Palestine in mind. You’re right, it is a relatively small piece of real estate. I don’t have any magic solutions that will lead immediately to mutual security and peace.
-
I cannot envision any circumstances under which I would commit U.S. troops to a longterm enforcement of any Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. They would inevitably have to take sides in this dispute or that, and would then become targets. (I part ways with former President Josiah Bartlet on this issue.
) -
I’m deeply troubled by the erosion of freedom in Venezuela. Chavez seems more and more likely a demogogue and power-mad strongman. Our leverage is extremely limited, however, and the U.S. is already at a disadvantage in addressing the situation because of the Bush Administration’s over-hasty welcoming of an abortive coup there a few years ago. I’ll have to discuss the situation at greater length with my Secretary of State after taking office.
-
I have a similar answer to the human-rights problem in China, too, I’m afraid. Our grotesquely large trade deficit with China should give us some leverage in ongoing negotiations, and we should encourage Chinese dissident and pro-freedom groups to the extent possible. I would raise human rights and intellectual-property rights with the Chinese leadership at every opportunity. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves: China is a very large country, fast becoming a giant in the world economy, with a quickly-modernizing and extremely large military. We cannot simply dictate terms to them, if indeed we ever could.
-
This is, as you suggest, largely a state issue. The question of minors seeking abortions puts two legal imperatives, parents’ rights to raise and control their children, and abortion rights, at loggerheads. There is no perfect answer. Parental notification and permission should be required, but I agree with the long line of cases requiring a judicial bypass be available to minors who aver that they fear physical or sexual abuse in the home if they were forced to notify a parent or to seek permission. I’m not familiar with any proposals to offer Federal aid to teenage parents, and thus have no views on that.
-
Colleges and universities obviously cannot, and will not, price themselves out of existence. Sooner or later the bubble of soaring tuition will burst for all but the very most selective schools. I don’t have any particular plan for financial aid, but would support increases in it, consistent with our need to reduce the current monstrous Federal budget deficit.
-
I had the pleasure of attending a U.S./Venezuelan exhibition soccer game in Cleveland a few years ago with my oldest son, who’s soccer-mad. We’d both look forward to a visit to South Africa in 2010 (I’d hope to pair it with a meeting with Nelson Mandela, a personal hero of mine).
-
I have come to the reluctant conclusion that the Electoral College is so antiquated and anti-democratic as to require its abolition. The only argument in its favor that has any weight with me is that it limits contested-ballot challenges to a single state, or a handful of states, as in 2000 and 2004. However, that’s not enough reason for me to support its continuing existence. I’d back the election of the president and vice president by at least a plurality of the overall national popular vote.
-
The War on Drugs has been a failure, by and large, but the alternative is unknown and unknowable. I don’t have a magic answer. If elected, I would appoint a national blue-ribbon commission composed of scientists, law enforcement officers, substance-abuse specialists, social workers, criminologists, lawyers, judges, penologists, and both pro- and anti-legalization leaders. I would charge them with the duty of honestly and respectfully debating our current drug policy, and coming up with wise, practical alternatives. I would carefully consider any recommendations they made, and recommend legislation to Congress where appropriate.
-
I support the use of medical marijuana, where sought by a patient and approved by a doctor qualified on that issue.
-
Federal law should be amended to permit states to seek waivers from the overall prohibition on medical marijuana, and such waivers should, in my view, be routinely granted.
-
I oppose them. In my administration, such raids would stop.
-
I’m afraid I don’t anything about them, and thus have no position on them.
-
Students do not waive all their rights when they enter a school, but educators must be able to teach and maintain discipline. Where there is a demonstrable problem of drug abuse in a school, educators should take the minimum necessary steps to combat it. This is largely a state issue, however.
-
I don’t know that there is a Federal role in the unfortunate situation you describe. But I support the rights of teens and others developing their own sexuality to do so safely, legally and with due care for others. A gay close friend of mine didn’t come out until he was in college, in part because of the unaccepting atmosphere of the small town in which he grew up. My own view is that we are all God’s children and should treat each other with love and respect.
-
I’m torn, to be frank. The Castro regime is oppressive and backward, but the embargo has shown little if any useful progress after almost half a century. I doubt I would take the initiative to reverse the embargo, particularly given the uncertainties over Fidel Castro’s health and what will happen after his death, but I would keep an open mind if Congress sent me such a bill. Our goal should of course be a democratic, open and free Cuba, and a friend at our doorstep. Anything likely to bring that about would have my support.
-
Federal law is supreme, as provided by the Constitution. Since many guns used to commit crimes are bought in other states with laxer gun laws, there is a legitimate role for Congress to play. That is not to say that Congress should blithely override state law on a whim.
-
According to some studies, George H.W. Bush would have been reelected but for the on-again, off-again presence of Ross Perot in the 1992 race. I don’t see this as a problem unique to either of the two current major parties.
An intriguing idea, but probably unworkable. A servant cannot serve two masters. But I’d hope to have you visit me in the White House, in any event!
We will have to agree to disagree on interpreting the Second Amendment. I also grew up around firearms, and have done target-shooting and Civil War reenacting with guns for many years, and with great pleasure. (Unlike Mitt Romney, I’ve never hunted “small varmints”).
I commend you on your safe approach to guns. Alas, many people do not share your scruples. Federal law permits private ownership of firearms, and that would not change. I would take away no one’s guns. However, I would do all I could, consistent with the Second Amendment, to keep criminals, the mentally disturbed, and children from gaining access to guns, and would punish those who violate gun laws to the fullest extent of the law.
I’m more of a traditionalist. As no other President has ever worn a kilt, to my knowledge, I’m not likely to either. Sorry, Brian (besides, my legs aren’t nearly as handsome as yours in a kilt). And my limit for “holding” beers is three - then I start to embarrass myself. And the country isn’t ready for that…
I never started.
Hah! I went to law school. You can’t trip me up with a question like that!
What Exit?, thanks for the tip about Franklin. But the last paragraph you quote suggested that the author “was very likely Franklin.” Good enough for me.
Ohio having been, since 1803, a state, it has no U.S. ambassador of its own. And the President can’t fire a senator, or appoint a new one. Or were you just whooshing me? If you’d like a janitorial post, in any event, I’ll certainly keep you in mind. Thanks for the compliment!