Emsworth/ Q Campaign Headquarters

[True Democrat]

Nice speech, any word on the VP yet?

[ilikeverin]

Yay!

[jokerman]

Nice speech, any word on the VP yet?

I'll give you a clue: it starts with a "p" and ends with a "e".

[Max Power]

Nice speech, any word on the VP yet?

I'll give you a clue: it starts with a "p" and ends with a "e".

Pee?

[True Democrat]

Nice speech, any word on the VP yet?

I'll give you a clue: it starts with a "p" and ends with a "e".

HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!, in no time you'll change your name to Cosmo Kramere, and you'll be the VP!! LOL

[ilikeverin]

It's Peter Belle!

[King]

It's none other than PieEatinFattie

[Colin]

Nice speech, any word on the VP yet?

I'll give you a clue: it starts with a "p" and ends with a "e".

Yeah only in your dreams Kramer.

[jokerman]

Nice speech, any word on the VP yet?

I'll give you a clue: it starts with a "p" and ends with a "e".

Yeah only in your dreams Kramer.

Ebowed will only be his VP in my dreams?  I was thinking there was a lot of popular acclaim for that ticket in the recent polling.

[Colin]

Nice speech, any word on the VP yet?

I'll give you a clue: it starts with a "p" and ends with a "e".

Yeah only in your dreams Kramer.

Ebowed will only be his VP in my dreams?  I was thinking there was a lot of popular acclaim for that ticket in the recent polling.

Which poll was that? I haven't seen any polling data of late. Unless you mean the one where people said who they think should be Emsworth's VP and then I believe only three or four people said Ebowed out of, oh I don't know, 35 respondents.

[Max Power]

Nice speech, any word on the VP yet?

I'll give you a clue: it starts with a "p" and ends with a "e".

Yeah only in your dreams Kramer.

Ebowed will only be his VP in my dreams?  I was thinking there was a lot of popular acclaim for that ticket in the recent polling.

Which poll was that? I haven't seen any polling data of late. Unless you mean the one where people said who they think should be Emsworth's VP and then I believe only three or four people said Ebowed out of, oh I don't know, 35 respondents.

More like 13/35, plus a bunch of 'don't know's and a few other people.

[Emsworth]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

One of our most fundamental rights is the right to defend ourselves, which includes the right to keep and bear arms. The right to bear arms is not an unimportant right, to be dismissed and ignored. Rather, it is indispensable to our liberty, to our security, and to our freedom. It allows us to not only protect our private security, but also to resist the oppression of a tyrannical government. The Framers recognized this right as extremely important, and, accordingly, saw fit to protect it in the Atlasian Bill of Rights.

I am opposed to federal bans on firearm possession, whether on the ownership of assault weapons or of any other gun. I cannot just pick and choose parts of the Bill of Rights we like; rather, I will respect its entirety, including the clause which protects the right to bear arms. I am the author of the Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, which sweeps away federal laws that infringe this important liberty.

In addition to protecting the right to bear arms from direct infringement, I am committed to protecting the right from a "stealth attack" in the form of lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers. The old adage holds true: guns don't kill people; people kill people. It would be absurd for us to allow frivolous lawsuits that hold gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of criminals. The criminal is the one who fired the gun; why should the seller or manufacturer be held responsible? It is this sort of lawsuit which indirectly diminishes the right to bear arms, by unfairly harming those who produce them. The above-mentioned Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act also protects against these kinds of lawsuits in federal courts. I have suggested that the regions also adopt equivalent laws; the Pacific and the Southeast have already taken up the idea, and considered the proposal.

In closing, I would say that the government is not entitled to obey only parts of the Constitution it likes. The right to bear arms is as much a right as the right to freedom of speech, as the right to trial by jury, or as the right to due process of law. I cannot and will not approve of any Senate legislation which violates or infringes this very important liberty of the People.

Thank you for attending; I will be ready to take any questions you have about gun legislation.

[Colin]

Yeah enough about guns when are you going to announce your VP choice?

[Defarge]

Nice speech, any word on the VP yet?

I'll give you a clue: it starts with a "p" and ends with a "e".

Yeah only in your dreams Kramer.

Ebowed will only be his VP in my dreams?  I was thinking there was a lot of popular acclaim for that ticket in the recent polling.

Which poll was that? I haven't seen any polling data of late. Unless you mean the one where people said who they think should be Emsworth's VP and then I believe only three or four people said Ebowed out of, oh I don't know, 35 respondents.

15 said Ebowed out of around 30ish respondents, though many were I don't knows, and NixonNow's.
I do remember a poll that within the ILP, almost every single member supported Ebowed for the VP nomination.

[True Democrat]

Who's with me:

*banging fists on the desk*

VP!
VP!
VP!
VP!
VP!
VP!
VP!
VP!

[ilikeverin]

Awww

[Ebowed]

Good gun policy.

[ilikeverin]

Emsworth, if I shot you with a bazooka, would you be proud of me?

[Emsworth]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you may know, while this nation has made great strides against racism in the past few decades, the specter of discrimination still remains. In recent years, the government has attempted to correct such discrimination by using affirmative action. I cannot sufficiently stress my disagreement with this practice.

Affirmative action is not the solution to racial discrimination; on the contrary, it is racial discrimination. It is nothing more than judging individuals on the basis of skin color. The most fundamental principles of fairness demand that the government should treat all citizens equally, regardless of race.

I also believe that affirmative action is grossly unjust. The policy justifies the hiring of one person and the rejection of another, merely because the first belonged to a certain race. It does not matter to proponents of affirmative action if the former is less qualified than the latter. Well, my friends, I strongly reject this view. The best person for a job should get it, regardless of race.

It is often said that historical inequities justify affirmative action. I could not disagree more. While it is true that many races suffered prejudice for much of our history, this does not justify reverse-discrimination today. What just and fair government would discriminate against members of a particular race, merely because of history? Why should the people of today be punished for the iniquities of their forefathers? No, my fellow countrymen, I must reject such an unjust, unfair, and unequal treatment of the people of this country. Our government must be truly color-blind.

[Emsworth]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

One of the most cherished liberties of the People of Atlasia is the freedom of speech. The freedom to express one's own opinions is a hallmark of our great nation, an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Even the most unpopular opinions should be protected by the federal government.

Our government, unfortunately, has often violated, and continues to violate, this important liberty. For example, the Federal Communications Commission presumes to regulate the "decency" of radio and television broadcasts. But I do not believe that any freedom-loving country should tolerate such restrictions on speech. If elected, I would advocate the repeal of federal censorship laws.

Several restrictions on speech have been proposed. One example is the notion that "hate speech" should be banned; another is that flag burning should be prohibited. But I would state that both of these forms of expression--reprehensible though they may be--are protected by the Constitution. To deny freedom of speech to individuals who engage in these activities, or any other, merely because the speech is termed "indecent" or "immoral," would tend to destroy one of the great liberties on which our nation is founded.

[Q]

For information regarding Emsworth's running mate announcement and my acceptance speech, please see the following thread: Running Mate Announcement.

Thank you.

[Q]

My fellow Atlasians,

As the field of candidates in this race has changed, so too have the dynamics of the race.

In my conversations with undecided voters and some of those who have expressed discontent with the choices in this race, I’ve learned a lot about what the voters are looking for.  I hope I can now put some of your fears to rest as this race intensifies.

My running mate has been said to be “too far to the right economically.”  Honestly, as an economic centrist myself, I can understand the basis for these concerns.

However, in his leadership in the Senate, I do not believe that the Emsworth has even once allowed his ideology to interfere with his ability to carry out the duties of his office, and most frequently, to exceed the expectations placed on that office.

I think, furthermore, that action is far more important than ideology in choosing a president.  Emsworth's leadership in the Senate has been unprecedented, and he is imminently qualified to serve in our republic's highest office.

In Atlasia, the president has often been but a figurehead with limited influence.  Just as he has as Vice President, Emsworth will revolutionize the office of the President.  I know that Emsworth’s ideology will not impede his quest for a more responsive government for Atlasia.

You’ve witnessed Emsworth’s commitment to Atlasian government during his active tenure as Vice President.  I pledge to you today that you will not regret giving him the opportunity to take that same leadership to higher office.

Thank you.

[Gabu]

However, in his leadership in the Senate, I do not believe that the Emsworth has even once allowed his ideology to interfere with his ability to carry out the duties of his office, and most frequently, to exceed the expectations placed on that office.

Couldn't it be argued, though, that the position of vice president is essentially a completely nonpartisan job?  I'm curious how someone could let his ideology interfere with his ability to carry out the duties of vice president.

[Ebowed]

You can let ideology interfere with any job.  Being a Supreme Court justice is supposed to be completely nonpartisan as well, but you know how that can turn out.

[Jake]

Simple. Declaring an amendment frivolous when it is very borderline is certainly a possibility I could see an ultra-partisan doing. Or, we could see a VP like Phil who did not participate in the Senate unless needed, but acted outside of his duties in a partisan manner.