NorthSideSox72

I am blatantly copying PA's idea here. One of the keys to great leadership is knowing what you do not know, and surrounding yourself with smart people to fill in those blanks. This is a great idea. Feel free to ask me anything you'd like about my campaign, my views, the North-South party or the election. I'll give you a direct, honest, whole answer.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) That still leaves a hole in LF. Looks like Pierre and Roberts are going to sign elsewhere. Soooo, we are still one LF and one leadoff hitter short. Wells would be great, but unless there's a leadoff hitter in there, forget it. Gload in LF and hitting second, new shortstop who can hit leadoff (one of the many discussed here, or maybe even Young, not prototypical, but high OBP). That would be ideal, IMO.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:20 AM) Good idea, but lets wait on it. I want to give everyone a chance to declare and talk before we start throwing weight around. Good point. If you start throwing your 43,000 posts worth of weight around before the boat is full, we might capsize.

Should I start a seperate thread just for endorsements?

Protection of the American Indian. Aside from possibly slavery, there has been no other event in American history where we did so much wrong as our wiping out of a civilization. It would be nice if we treated what was left of it with at least some basic level or human respect. Seeing as they are currently being taken "care" of by the most corrupt agency in the federal government (BIA), and the majority of Indians on reservations are living in squalor... I think we can do a little better.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 08:33 PM) dude, you said he was obese and a sloppy eater. you also implied he would show up to be sworn in wearing a mcDonalds uniform. for shame. And despite all that, I wouldn't care what he swore in on.

OK PA, I have a few questions... QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 11:27 PM) My name is PA, and I am an Independent Republican. Isn't that an oxymoron? QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 11:27 PM) I speak for myself and I act according to what I have learned through personal experience and through everyday relationships. So, as a leader of the constituency, you don't speak for them? QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 11:27 PM) Environmental issues, protections: A balance needs to occur between regulation and public health; Public health coming first and foremost before over-regulation. Since the purpose of environmental regulation IS the protection of public health... how does that need balance? QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 11:27 PM) North Korea: Will continue to be a threat until other nations take a real stake in its future. Iran: Will continue to be a threat until other nations take a real stake in its future. Palestine/Israel: Will continue to be a threat until other nations take a real stake in its future. Is the U.S. one of those "other nations"? QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 11:27 PM) Social Security: I would pass law to include “retirement education” as a part of the CRA (customer reinvestment act) which requires financial institutions to prove their “giving back” to the community which they serve. People young and old must know that Social Security is a supplement to retirement and not to be considered their entire retirement portfolio. Love this idea, I have to say.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 06:16 PM) Gee, nice when the moderator favors one candidate by name. If you think I'm endorsing PA, you're on crack. I just threw my hat in the ring.

NorthSideSox72 - Your Agent for Change Political party affiliation, or independent: North-South Welcome to America's party: North-South. Like most of you, we favor the protection of the freedoms guaranteed by ALL 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights - not just the 1st and 4th like the Democrats or the 2nd, 5th and 10th like the Republicans. We believe that government should be slim, effective, and generally run like a business - smartly and efficiently. We prefer to promote American interests using all the country's resources, not just the military. We understand that the health of our nation and world depend on protecting and sustaining our natural resources. And we believe that those issues that the Constitution and logic dictate remain at the local and state level... stay at those levels. Some might call us social moderates and fiscal conservatives. We like to think of ourselves your agents in protecting your freedom, your security and your way of life - no matter what that way may be. Our platform is simple - every belief or stance you see in the profile below flows from the three basic principles that guide our mission in representing you. They are: 1. The freedoms guaranteed throughout the Constitution should be protected above all other laws, and we should always err on the side of individual freedoms. It is the government's place to protect people's way of life, regardless of what beliefs, behaviors or choices that way may represent. It is not the government's place to choose that way. 2. The government should be run as efficiently as a profitable business, if not more so. 3. National interests, such as the environment and national security, should be unified and handled at the federal level. Everything else should fall to the states and localities, as specified in the 10th Amendment. I’ll provide some examples of how these apply to specific issues. Principle 1 dictates that all people should be treated equally – that means that affirmative action, which is a form of organized bigotry, is not acceptable. It also means that if the government needs so badly to pry into someone’s life that they need to spy on them, that the least they can do is get a warrant from a judge (even after the fact, as FISA allows). Principle 2 is a popular thought – everyone thinks the government should cut waste. Lots of politicians claim they can do so, but they never do. They can’t, because the goals of government employees are not aligned with success. To make the government as efficient as a private business, it needs to be structured and directed that way. For example, one plan I’d suggest is bringing in outside management consultants to determine efficiencies and quality measures – then reward public servants for achieving those efficiencies while still creating the required output and quality levels. Other efforts such as restructuring and removing unnecessary bureaucracy should be prioritized as well. Principle 3 means that the federal government should be purely in the business of running the government for the purpose of national interests – those specified in the Constitution as being federal. It is not the place of the federal government to spend money on art, sports, local road projects or business subsidies. And it is not in the purview of the federal government to tell states and localities how to run their schools or who can and cannot be married. These are the principles that I stand for, and they are at the core of what Americans expect from their government. A vote for me allows me to be your agent in achieving these goals… Abortion: Pro-choice Gun Control: Most types of gun control are ineffective (why would criminals follow those laws?), and the 2nd Amendment needs to be protected, even today. Iraq War: The current administration made a series of horrible decisions to get us involved, but we are now obligated and responsible to put Iraq on solid footing - we cannot leave now. War on Terror: The fight needs to be taken head on, on three fronts - security at home, neutralizing terrorists wherever they may be, and most importantly, addressing the corruption and hatred that are the breeding ground of terror. Energy policy: Getting off non-renewable energy must be one of the nation's highest priorities, and this can be best achieved by leveling the business playing field. Prayer/religion in schools: No public funding should ever go towards religious activities, and no child should ever be required to bow to any specific religion; but spontaneous and personal acts of faith should be protected with equal vigor. Environmental issues, protections: It is imperative to the survival and public health of the country and mankind that we make every effort to promote sustainable agriculture, healthy ecosystems and minimal pollution. Capital punishment: Unacceptable, for the simple reason that people make mistakes, and death cannot be undone. Gay marriage / civil unions: Government should not be involved in marriage or any other personal relationships whatsoever. Health care / Medicare: Health care should never be for-profit, as the primary goal should always be health itself, and not profit. But our inept government is not the solution either - privately controlled not-for-profits are the answer. Minimum wage: I am in favor of the raise currently proposed at the federal level, but it needs to have a COLA attached, and states need to be able to add their own differentials. Welfare (individuals): The system put in place during the Clinton administration is actually quite good, putting the focus on gaining employment, which is the key. But in the long run, the federal government should not be in this business. Government funding of corporations (corporate welfare, targeted research, etc.): Except in matters of national security and public health (such as clean energies), no federal funding should go towards private, for-profit corporations. State and local levels are a different story. Bankruptcy protections (business, individual): About right for individuals, but far too lenient on businesses - their purpose, to protect jobs and markets, are not served in their current form. Immigration policies: Emphasis on better channels to get people into the country to fill the jobs we need filled - in addition to better security and enforcement of existing laws, particularly against companies who break those laws. Doctrine of preemptive military action: Only when the evidence passes the reasonable doubt test, and when our national security is truly endangered. Size/scope of federal government: It is currently too large, and tries to control many more things than the Constitution intended. Federal taxes and budget:No more income tax - sales tax (scaled on need values) is preferable and much more efficient, and more "use" fees should be promoted. I would support a balanced budget amendment, with a wartime exemption. Areas needing increased spending: At the federal level: clean and renewable energies, environmental protection, regional/national transit Areas needing decreased spending: At the federal level: IRS and tax apparatus, corportate and individual welfare, individual entitlements, many others Affirmative action: Affirmative action is organized bigotry, no matter how well-intended – therefore it is unacceptable. Relationships with other nations and their human rights records:Use the economic strength of western capitalism to entice nations to rise above human rights violations (via treaties and trade agreements) North Korea: Containment. NK's have more access to information than Il wants, and eventually, the people will turn on his regime. Iran:Diplomacy for now, but if they continue to promote violence in Iraq and appear on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons, then tactics may need to change. Palestine/Israel: This is one of the keys to a peaceful Middle East - we should be throwing our diplomatic weight behind working out a solution, even if it means enforcing it against BOTH sides. School funding: This should be a state and local process. Rebuilding of New Orleans: We have the opportunity not just to rebuild a city, but do it with a long range view - build only in areas that didn't flood, and designate the flood plains as parks and other non-residential use areas. NO has an opportunity similar to Chicago after the fire. Civil liberties vs security (wiretaps, etc.): As the phrase goes, if we give up liberty for security, we will have neither. Our freedoms should always be protected, even if it means sacrificing complete security. Social Security: Privatization, flexibility and the one tax increase I'd be willing to accept - raising the income ceiling. Stem Cell research: Definitely. Unions and labor: Unions serve a great purpose. How they function, though, is not of the government's business, unless the tactics used are illegal in some way. Eminent Domain: Never for reasons of profit or economic gain. Transportation/transit priorities and spending: regional and national rail transit, and whatever can be done nationally to get people out of their cars. At the state level, promote mass transit as well, and the use of clean energy vehicles. International trade policy (open or protectionist, NAFTA, etc.): like all business environment issues - an open, level playing field. Tort reform: All civil trials should be changed to bench trials (or if that’s not possible, then bench reviews and conditions before trial), so that some semblance of reason can be brought back to the process. How to fix corruption in Congress (and other areas of gov’t): tightening of existing reporting regulations but, more importantly, an independent regulatory and enforcement body OUTSIDE Congress. Thank you for your time, and your support.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 06:22 PM) actually, I was being serious by being funny. Does it really matter WHAT people swear on? Shouldn't we give accurate testimony to anything and everything to the best of our ability regardless of what just happens to be holding up my resting hand at that moment? just saying. Definitely agree. I think the idea that anyone is offended or bothered by what someone is sworn in on has missed the point.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) of course you weren't trying to slander me... and of course you weren't trying to stereotype mcdonald's workers and/or patrons of that restaurant.... Of course not. And of course the good citizen from Pennsylvania's original comment wasn't meant as a slight against those who would swear on holy books other than the Bible.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 09:54 AM) HEEEEEEEE'S BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK From Drudge Glad to see we learned from our mistakes. Maybe the Libertarians need another voter afterall... Its official. Both parties have decided to alienate as many of their constituents as possible by way of their positional nominations. The time is ripe for the Greens, the Constitutionalists, the Libertarians and/or some other party to sweep into Congress in 2008 and make a stand. SS2K5 and I will seize that opportunity. Vote North-South in 2008!

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 04:46 PM) you still haven't fully addressed the issue of PA swearing in on a McDonalds value menu. If some morbidly overweight dude with crumbs all over his shirt and a "25 years of service at McDonald's" pin on his lapel was being sworn in on a McDonald's value menu... I'd probably accept that he met that legal hurdle.

I've gotta say, I am impressed with some of the things I've seen so far. Great platform statements, PA's personal thread... 2 people even have new Sigs for the election. Very cool.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 02:37 PM) An interesting sidebar... It was just annouced over the last week or two that China is investing $9 Billion into Africa ... let's see where all that money goes. They are hoping that this helps curb the violence that the continent is seeing and distributes wealth around enough to curb this type of violence. They're following my advice from a previous post. They are thinking long term.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 02:34 PM) I said it at the outset, some of it is 'spun', but overall... the general economic going on in the country is what most would consider as very good. Fixed. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 02:34 PM) Iraq was packaged by BushCo as the end all be all of this election, and that may be the right thing, or it may not be. Everything else was rejected as 'nonimportant' and that's my point with posting this. Also fixed. The Dems just followed suit. BushCo made this election, as he did 2004, about Iraq and security.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) I placed the platform in that thread and came here to discuss. As per your instructions. I assumed you wanted one neat thread with just platforms and all the discussions in another. I meant your first post in this thread (question about VP), which had previously been in the Platform thread, and I moved it.

Given that the markets have been going up for a while, including after the elections, I'd say the experts on the economic picture for the nation are not overly concerned.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 11:55 AM) And you want to be President? Must be a GOP candidate, can't read. Which is funny because I had to move your post as well, Mr. Kinky.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 09:45 AM) Nice... this could be fun... Listen, I have finals and stuff to get through, but I want to participate. What's the time range (limit) that you want to accept entries for this? Let's say the end of next week, maybe Monday. We'll go with 11/27 for the platforms. I'll update the main thread.

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 09:04 AM) Seems awful clique-y and dividing to me. No one wants to know my politics, it'll color their view of my posts. Of course its cligue-y and dividing. That's what we do in here.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) Yes, interesting. . . What if we just want a sweet pork barrel job? Like Secretary of Fashion and Shoes? Or Education? Do we have to run for that? Well, I suppose that whomever wins the election can be in a position to give you that gig. Some candidates may even go around enticing the voting/posting public with offers of that sort. For example, maybe a candidate wants your vote, and you say you'll give it to them if they put a line in their sig that says "Soxy is da bomb" in like 64-size font. Let the politicking begin.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 08:42 AM) I was going to ask Nuke if he wanted to form a ticket. We'd have kicked everyone's ass. Its a good idea, but, I would like to see everyone take their shot individually in this case. That will get more people involved in the discussions. Otherwise the Veeps can just hang around. But I have to say, a Tex/Nuke ticket would definitely be... interesting.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 08:32 AM) Can we form a ticket before posting and run as a Pres/Veep? Good question. The answer is no. I'd like to have a sort of first and second place thing going on here, it makes it more interesting. Plus I like the idea that we might end up with a P and VP that are very different politically.

In order to officially establish your platform, please use the following template... ------------------------------------------------- Political party affiliation, or independent: Make your opening platform statement here. 3 or 4 paragraphs max, try to make it brief. Then, provide ONE SENTENCE descriptions of your views on the following issues, to establish a profile: Abortion: Gun Control: Iraq War: War on Terror: Energy policy: Prayer/religion in schools: Environmental issues, protections: Capital punishment: Gay marriage / civil unions: Health care / Medicare: Minimum wage: Welfare (individuals): Government funding of corporations (corporate welfare, targeted research, etc.): Bankruptcy protections (business, individual): Immigration policies: Doctrine of preemptive military action: Size/scope of federal government: Federal taxes and budget: Areas needing increased spending: Areas needing decreased spending: Affirmative action: Relationships with other nations and their human rights records: North Korea: Iran: Palestine/Israel: School funding: Rebuilding of New Orleans: Civil liberties vs security (wiretaps, etc.): Social Security: Stem Cell research: Unions and labor: Eminent Domain: Transportation/transit priorities and spending: International trade policy (open or protectionist, NAFTA, etc.): Tort reform: How to fix corruption in Congress (and other areas of gov’t):