Slashdot Mirror
Ask the Presidential Candidates
We are sending questions to the following candidates (listed in alphabetical order by political party affiliation):
- HOWARD PHILLIPS (Constitution Party)
- ALBERT "AL" GORE, JR. (Democratic Party)
- DENNIS I. "DENNY" LANE (Grassroots Party)
- RALPH NADER (Green Party)
- HARRY BROWNE (Libertarian Party)
- JOHN S. HAGELIN (Natural Law Party)
- EARL F. DODGE (Prohibition Party)
- PATRICK J. "PAT" BUCHANAN (Reform Party)
- GEORGE W. BUSH (Republican Party)
- DAVID E. McREYNOLDS (Socialist Party)
- MONICA G. MOOREHEAD (Workers World Party)
Meanwhile, quorum.org is doing a similar, Slashdot-style interview with senatorial and congressional candidates in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If you live in those states, you might want to check it out. We've been talking back and forth with Scott Reents of quorom.org about all of this for months, and we're curious to see the difference in the kinds of questions he gets from his "general audience" readers and those we get from the net-hip, tech-aware Slashdot crowd.
So ask away, and let's see what happens.
Update/note: We will not select questions addressed to a single candidate. We are sending the same 10 questions to all candidates. - Robin
A good question, but attached to a problematic assumption. A tax cut does not, nor has it ever, "injected money into the economy". It's very strange to think that when government receives funding, that money just exits the economy. This is simply false. The only time money ever actually "exits" the economy is when people burn it or keep it in a mattress. If the money is spent or invested BY ANYONE, it's in the economy. Would more money enter the economy if McDonald's charged you less for its burgers? Then why would more money enter the economy when the government charges you less for its services? This sort of bogus idea (the basis of today's supply-side economics) is what Dubya's dad once called "voodoo economics".
Tax cuts merely change who spends the money, and on what. Instead of government spending money on education, health care, drug wars, and missile defense programs; in a post-tax-cut world, that money is spent on vacations, SUVs, and cell phones. But it's the same money, and it's still spent. Is somebody suggesting that the government has trouble spending all the money it has?
The idea that we are being taxed too much is merely shorthand for saying the government spends its money on the wrong things. It's quite a valid opinion, but it begs the question "What do you think are the wrong things?" If more people actually admitted that this is what they are thinking, you'd actually have honest debate on so-called "tax relief". Usually people have very specific ideas about where this "waste" is, and usually not everyone agrees with them.
As a candidate for the office of the Presidency, should you be elected, you will be protected 24 hours a day by federal officers armed with concealed firearms and, quite possibly, heavier weapons. Do you have any objections to the average citizen carrying a concealed firearm for self-protection? If so, what makes you and the federal officers tasked to protect you more deserving of that priviledge than the average american? If not, how will you support the right of the average american to carry a firearm (concealed or otherwise) in responsible defense of himself and his community? How do you feel the 2nd Amendment applies to the answer you just gave? If you do not feel the 2nd Amendment supports an individual right to firearms ownership, do you also feel the 1st Amendment applies only to state militias or the national military? If you feel the 2nd Amendment supports an individual right to firearms ownership, how will you support that right against existing laws which are clearly unconstitutional by that interpertation? (It is understood that the powers of the Presidency do not extend to direct repeal, but options such as advocating repeal of those laws within Congress, appointing judges who will overturn those laws on second amendment grounds, or entering an executive order prohibiting federal prosecution under these unconstitutional laws do exist).
Hey! What happened to the "Peace Dividend?!!!" I want my money!
Ok, I'll rephrase that in a less inflammitory mode...
Now that the "Cold War" has been over for ten years, when is the average American going to see the reduced need for Military spending reflected in their tax bill?
Alternate question : Why the hell do you have to tax individual earnings? You're bright guys, can't you turn a profit and start paying dividends?
Look, atheists *obviously* don't need "religious rights." What they need is somebody who is committed to upholding their Constitutional protection *from* the religious right! The issues range from being forced to engage in prayer to be imprisoned and/or butchered by Christians because of their atheism. If you think that is a silly notion you obviously are not a student of history. The Jerry Fallwells of the world want this to be their reality.
Presidential candidates:
r netfiltering.ap/index.html )
As the beginning of the millennium approaches, the internet and digital media are becoming more mainstream, more commonplace and more important to what is being termed the digital economy. A number of issues have come to light recently, and I would like to hear your reactions to them.
Recently some candidates blamed the internet for teen violence, most notably George W. Bush who blamed the Columbine high school shooting on the internet in the 2nd debate:
"But Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life."
The numbers reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ ) seem to indicate contrary (see http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/qa135.html for general violent crime and http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/qa141.html for homicide ). From these government sources, it appears the trends are steadily downward and have been since the world wide web began to gain mainstream use about 1994.
On a more economic note, the DMCA has caused what seems to be a trend of government-approved corporate takeover of individual rights, namely fair use of purchased products and court rulings against posting or even linking to code contrary to the wishes of certain companies and orginizations (for example, 2600 vs. MPAA and DeCSS).
Finally, there is currently a proposal to require schools and libraries to apply censorware products to their internet access. The aim is to limit the ability of school children to access pornographic sites. ( see http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/10/15/inte
It is important to me, and I hope most other slashdotters, to know your standpoints on internet and digital copyright issues. How do you feel about the internet and its effect on our society and economy? Where do you stand on the issues raised by the DMCA? Do you support government-mandated censoring of the internet?
Thank you for your time.
Bush will win. Oh. Yeah.
...believes that taxes are evil ;)
If on election day, if there was a choice of "None of the Above" on the election ballot, do you really think any of the candidates would receive more than 10% of the vote? Given that most people I know are merely voting for the lesser of all evils, I would like to know how you can truly claim to be our leaders when most of your 'supporters' are only there because you scare them the least?
Dear sir,
I would appreciate three explanations from you:
1: You currently advocate against abortion, and yet a majority of the female populous seem strongly in favor of you.
This seems odd to me -- for you are saying that you wish to take the right of their bodies away from them; why do you think an educated majority would agree to allow you to remove a protected right?
2: Should you become elected will we see a renewed surge of christian idealisms imbued in our legislation -- beyond anti-abortion?
3: How do you justify literally closing off the election debates to but two people? Do you consider the other candidates inferior socially, mentally, or in any way?
Why were several candidates not even allowed to attend said debates?
It seems to be a common practice to embed potentially controversial new laws in a unrelated bills, thus avoiding a debate on the merits of the law. Would you consider, as a general policy, vetoing any bill which drifts off topic in this way?
The War on Drugs has received little coverage this
year, which is causing a serious disconnect
between voters and candidates.
What are your opinions on the following difficult
drug policy items:
1) How does the current Drug War compare to prohibition?
2) Do you support decriminalization of marijuana?
3) Should research be allowed on any drug,
regardless of its schedule? For example, research
on drugs such as Ecstacy, LSD, marijuana is
totally forbidden.
Apart from the special interest lobbying of congress by politically active members of the Jewish faith, and apart from the Christian religious doctrine of God favoring the friends of the children of Israel, why do we always side with and feed billions in international aid to Israel?
Assuming that our government still respects the
separation of church and state,
what is our national interest there?
I was wondering if you like to get blowjobs
from young interns that are going to work for you
also if you do would you be willing to put it on a webcam
it would be a great way to break the digital divide
thanks
For every candidate: What is your opinion on taxation of internet sales? Do you think internet sold goods should be taxed? If so how would you enforce tax rules applying to goods shipped from (figuratively) cyberspace? If not how do you think small local businesses will fare in competition with larger internet businesses that lack the overhead of a store ?
What will be the U.S. response under your administration if China pursues military action against Taiwan?
Most computer software developers consider the US Patent Trade Office (US PTO) anti-competitive and a threat to the Internet economy based on numerous questionable patents awarded in the last few years. Do you agree or disagree with the US PTO decisions, and what changes if any would you like to see Congress and the US PTO make in how the US PTO awards patents?
This article is available at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_browne/200010 06_xchbr_top_10_que.shtml
10. Mr. Gore, you said you believe fully in a woman's right to choose. Does this mean a woman has a right to choose to get out of the Social Security system -- or to choose to smoke marijuana to relieve the pain of glaucoma or chemotherapy? Or is abortion the only area in which a woman has the right to choose what she wants?
9. Mr. Bush, you said you believe in the strict construction of the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority to spend my money on federal education programs, to take my money and give it to charities of your choice, or to set up a prescription-drug program for seniors?
8. Mr. Gore, you said you believe the Constitution contains a right to privacy. Does that mean you'll stop Treasury agents from searching our bank accounts, looking for suspicious transactions? Will you end all federal asset forfeiture, stop monitoring e-mails, and take that ridiculous V-chip out of our TV sets?
7. Mr. Bush, you said you want to give taxpayer money to children to attend private schools. Won't that mean federal regulation of private schools -- turning them into clones of the government schools? Or are you planning to issue the vouchers without any rules whatsoever?
6. Mr. Gore, when asked about the fund-raising scandals, you said you won't answer such questions because they are "personal attacks." Does this mean you should never be held personally accountable for anything you do in office?
5. Mr. Bush, you said you believe in local control of education. Why then are you pushing for mandatory testing and other policies to be imposed by the federal government?
4. Mr. Gore, since the introduction of Medicare, the cost of health care to seniors has more than doubled, even after allowing for inflation. Why do you want to extend this failed program to prescription drugs -- which would probably cause their prices to rise and their availability to shrink, and discourage the development of new drugs that might cure cancer or Alzheimer's Disease?
3. Mr. Bush, you haven't proposed the elimination or reduction of a single government program, regulation, or law. So why do you refer to yourself as the candidate of smaller government?
2. Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush, you each keep referring to budget surpluses. But the official federal debt continues to grow month by month, year by year. This is because the "surplus" exists only by borrowing the excess Social Security receipts and using them to paper over the deficit in the general fund. So how can you promise to "save" Social Security when you're spending all its receipts and leaving nothing in the trust fund? And how can you promise to use the "surplus" for tax cuts, debt reduction, and new spending programs when there is no surplus?
And the #1 question that wasn't asked in the presidential debate is ...
1. Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, would either of you be a better person today if, for your youthful drug use, you had served 10 years in prison? If not, why don't you propose to release the hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders in federal prisons?
(Questions by Harry Browne)
The legal drinking age is 21.
The age at which you can vote is 18.
The age at which you can smoke is 18.
The age at which you can join the military is 18 (I think).
The age of consent in many states is 18.
The age at which you can be tried as an adult for murder is often 15 or less.
Do you think it is fair that we say that you will be treated as an adult if you do something bad, but you can't have any of the benefits that go along with it?
If we are saying you are too young to drink, why should we think you are old enough to decide on the future of the country, or use our vast military technology to defend our country?
(Also, do you see any problem with males still required by law to fill out selective service (draft) forms when they turn 18, and no such demand placed on females - who can now serve in every branch of the military?)
I do admit that there are a lot of coffee shops in Amsterdam (likely to decline as the drug tourism spreads to other places in europe following the trend we see beginning now), but you should realize that you are being an ethnocentric tourist to look at them like they are a problem. The Dutch could crack down on them quite easily if they felt the puritanical way that you do.
It's an easy trap to fall into when you are from a place as intolerant as the states. The first time I went into a coffeeshop I felt like I was doing something illegal, and looked at the guy working there as if he was a criminal. But they are some of the most friendly people in the city, and you get over it quickly.
1. It's July, 2002. China announces to the world, "Taiwan is ours," and commits to backing this statement up by whatever military means are necessary. What will you do?
2. Efforts to curb the current violence in the middle east are unsuccessful. As you step off the podium from your inauguration in January, you receive word that a shooting war has broken out between Israel and several arab nations who are backing the Palestinians. What will you do?
3. Do you support the sending of military advisors to Colombia as part of the "war on drugs"? If so, please explain how this differs from the sending of military advisors to Vietnam in the early 1960s, and describe your plan of action should the conflict escalate.
4. Prohibition of alcohol in the United States required an amendment to the Constitution. If you are a supporter of the war on drugs, explain why drug prohibition does not require a similar amendment. While we're on the subject, do you believe that alcohol prohibition was a success or a failure, and do you believe that drug prohibition is or has been a success or a failure?
5. When, if ever, do you feel it is appropriate to curtail the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? Please explain, in the context of your answer, your position on the following issues: gun control, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999, violence in the media, filtering software in publicly funded libraries, asset forfeiture laws, Carnivore, and the CDA.
6. As evidenced by the protests at the WTO meeting in Seattle, the recent summit in Prague, etc., many people feel that the rights of individuals are being sacrificed in favor of the economic desires of corporations. Do you feel this is a valid concern, and how will you address this issue?
7. Should homosexual marriage be legal? Why or why not? If your answer is no, please explain how a ban on homosexual marriage does not violate either the 1st or 14th amendment.
I, for one, am glad it isn't, because the U.S. is a republic. A democracy would be far too unwieldy.
As for the debates, I too am disappointed that third parties did not appear. I plan to register my displeasure with the debate commission (www.debates.org).
--
While overall a sensible post, this line exhibits a misunderstanding of private education. I received Catholic schooling through my undergraduate days, and not once was following Catholicism a requirement for admission. In fact, recent attempts by the Vatican to restrict faculty hiring by colleges (requiring all theology faculty to be Catholic) was soundly rejected by U.S. institutions.
Just clearing up confusion.
--
Either the candidate answers "no" to the question, or they answer "yes" and then must provide concrete examples.
--
Since we've only read the article, and not the actual work, it is difficult to say if we understand correctly. But I believe that your proposition
"Farmers from two midwestern states would be in the same district, then, but a farmer and a city worker would be in different districts. Annual income might be another good factor."
does not "follow the logic of the article", rather it only follows a small bit of the article. Consider the gerrymandering examples near the end. A voter has more power if the district is diverse--in that case, it is more likely that deadlock will occur. If you organize districts along political lines, you lose the chance of deadlock.
The West Coast of the US, for instance, has more environmental power as three (four, including Alaska) states than as one state. Since a majority (I'm just guessing) of voters in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California care about environmental issues, they can swing four 'games' instead of just one game. Therefore they have more power.
To maximize a voter's power on some issue, you want to spread your constituency across as many districts as possible, so long as you will win in each district.
-Paul Komarek
The current drug warriors think they ARE attacking demand - by locking up users as a "deterrent" and refusing to consider decriminalization/legalization in hopes of "sending the right message to children".
/. ID is lower than the real Bruce Perens'.
The real Threed's
--Threed
If you look at periods of time when you had massive unrestricted use of drugs (look at the 19th century England/America to see some good examples).
We have (somewhat) unrestricted use of a drug: alcohol. And alcohol addicts kill others (drunk driving, etc.) and themselves (overdoses, long-term ailments), so alcohol abuse isn't particularly preferable to the other forms of drug abuse. If one could wave a magic wand and make all other drugs disappear, do you think that people who used drugs would stop drug use altogether, or just get drunk more often?
As for your examples, the evidence seems at best anecdotal. Prohibition, at least, occurred after the U.S. started generating fairly complex statistical abstracts, so at some of the influence of that law can be reasonably measured. There's good evidence that overall consumption went down, but abuse of alcohol (and the subsequent negative effects) apparently wasn't affected. And we do know that Prohibition gave a financial shot in the arm to criminal organizations that still plague us.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
In response to (1), good for them. People have a right to be stupid.
In resposne to (2), killing others while driving drunk, shooting people, stealing money, and so forth are already illegal. It's not the taking of drugs that is wrong, but the illegal acts which follow or are done in pursuit of drugs. These acts should be punished; but there are many individuals who use drugs responsibly and don't go out and kill people or steal from them.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
Nader, at least, supports binding "none of the above" voting. (Near the bottom of that page.)
--Phil (I'm probably voting Nader, but I look forward to the responses from this interview.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
That's probably because treatment was targetted at heroin users. The government had the attitude that pot was a recreational drug on the level of alcohol and as such focused their attention on drugs which were actually causing problems (or which were at least correlated with problems). They (Nixon's administration) found a high degree of correlation between heroin use and people arrested for other crimes in DC jails and once they began treating heroin use in DC crime was reduced by 40% almost immediately. So treatment did work on the drugs that were targetted. Of course treatment didn't reduce pot usage - pot usage wasn't targetted until after the government's policy had strayed from treatment to punishment.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
--
? I would estimate that emergency rooms would be filled with countless pot heads
Now that IS funny. What would they be doing, choking on milk and chocolate cookies?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
The problem with 'size of government' questions is that they're never up front about what they mean. I beleive in small government -- let's cut the military by 50%. That would REALLY make it smaller. We probably should cut expenditures on interstate highways and development of foriegn markets too. That's good small government. In most cases, 'size of government' is code for whether or not we ought to have social programs (for the middle-class and poor). If that's the question, then ask it plainly.
Colombia receives the second highest amount of U.S. foreign aid. (The recently passed Colombia Plan package was $1 billion.) The governemnt of Colombia is considered by Amnesty Internation, amongst others, to be responsible for 75% of the violence in that country. Deaths number in the tens of thousands, refugees number in the hundreds of thousands. Do you favor continuing financial and military support to the government of Colombia?
Follow up: Our military actions in Iraq and decade long sanctions have resulted in the death of over 2 million Iraqi civilians. Do you agree with the actions and policies our government has engaged in toward Iraq, and would you change our position there any if elected president?
Please moderate this up (#471). These are the basic facts about the debates. The mathematical chance of winning should be a requisite for participating in the debates. Nader (and others?) meets this standard.
In light of these complex and delicate problems, I ask you:
How do you define America's National Interest?
--
--
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Serious crime decreases about 6-10% a year, and has been generally going down for the last thirty years (or some such).
Since all news broadcasts are now dependent on ratings, they all tend towards sensationalism. So we get the Columbine frenzy, and the subsequent hue and cry for gun control, when, in fact, gun control is working fine, murders are down, school shootings are down, etc.
They're just more widely broadcast, as shows try to promote themselves.
Hey, that leads to a good question for the candidates: would they support an easily-accessible, web-viewable archive for such socio-political statistics - crime, budgets, voting records, etc.?
--
--
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Religious organizations qualify for tax exempt status in the same way that all non-profit organizations qualify. While there is a specific "religious exemption" for tax purposes, they could likely just as easily incorporate themselves as a non-profit organization to acquire the same status.
-Dean
>we have freedom OF religion, but we in no way
>have freedom FROM religion. I can be
>any faith I want to - but if I am an Atheist I
>LOSE RIGHTS. Period, End of story.
Actually, the theists and atheists are in a similar position. The theist does not have the freedom from other religions, only the freedom to follow his own. The atheist only has to deal with one additional religion that he disagrees with than the theist does.
-Dean
In Dallas the autoworkers make > $40,000.00 per year building light trucks.
Why do (some/most) people who post on slashdot feel the need to talk about things they have no facts on???
Essentially, yes. In the western world, God is pretty firmly associated with Christianity. Sure, Jews and Moslems all believe in the same guy, but at the end of the day, that just proves they're all factions of the same religion (now that's *really* going to make me popular :-)
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Given the current number of people who are being killed and incarcerated because of the so called "War On Drugs", and given the statistics on drug use in the United States, do you feel this "War" is causing a positive effect on the people of the U.S.A? Do you feel this helps our relationships with other countries?
If so, could you please point out any studies that show this is true, or support your answers with verifiable facts? This is of great concern to many U.S. voters, who only want the truth, so we can decide if we want to continue to fight this "War", or find an alternative.
--Fac Iustum Nec Time-- --Veritas Prevalibit--
The USS Cole is a military ship. Blowing up a military ship is a military act. The president calling it a terroist act is what is known as propaganda. Next thing, you'll hear that the British calling the Americans in the Revolutionary war cowardly terrorists.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
The USS Cole is a military ship, blowing a hole in it was a military action.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
What is the most powerful effect that the internet has on American society?
:-)
(Their answers will tell more about them than about the internet, but you should delete this note first
John
for example if i was on the list my response might be:
i kevin lyda feel that these issues are important:
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
The San Fransisco Gate reported last week that neither Cisco (who owed 1.8 billion in federal tax) or MicroSoft (who owed double that) paid any federal tax last year thanks to big-corporation-friendly loopholes. Is it right that a graduate student such as myself should pay more federal tax than MicroSoft? If not, how do you propose to see that they do pay taxes, and how strong a commitment would you make to seeing your plan through?
--------
meta4
dw2-dont-spam-me-@opencontent.org
http://davidwiley.com/
My question is a different shade of the same issue, and more accusatory. I am am curious about how the canidates feel they represent characters in stories such as Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Animal Farm, and newer novels.
To me, Bush and Gore both seem to be nameless leaders from the world of Fahrenheit 451. The unpainted leaders who banished the unsettling realities to please their unwitting supplicants. I am truely frightened of this reality and the two canidates who are most prominant on television are prime canidates for the unwritten history of F451. Of the two, Gore seems the lesser evil.
Similarly, I wonder how aware the canidates are of how potent the feelings of intolerance to the injustices of {copyright law, corporatism, war on drugs, patent law/trend, post-columbine bullshit, ad nausium} are. I think much of the American reader base of slashdot have the sensation of a straightjacket either already on them (but not yet secured), or about to be forced onto them. Such a jacket would seem to be a required uniform to american citizens, like school uniforms, except for the mind and spirit.
/* Feel free to modify or borrow from this of course, the question is far more important than the credit */
----------
John Christopher Jones
Would Daedalus be able to get out of the Labyrinth he created after he went mad?
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
Q:
What are the canidates intentions for the United State's involvement in International Organization such as the World Trade Organization?
Background:
In recent past in Seatle, WA, there was a protest against the WTO and a myrad of issues. Not the least of which was the WTO's control over United States policy, and especially her laws. An example is the recently overturned clean air bill which forced quality control on trade goods with the united states. This law was overturned by the WTO's influence as it would prevent trade with WTO members of south african corporations who sell "dirty" oil and produce goods in highly polutant factories.
PS: "International" seems a little too benign for something like to WTO to me.
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
You're right. I am an ardent Nader supporter and can't stand the fact that in this supposed democracy, he is being shut out. Hopefully, this is a begninning of a major shakeup. It's disgusting.
Anyway, I agree with you. Even though I don't find much appealing about Buchanan, Browne, etc., they have EVERY RIGHT to be in the debates in order to voice their parties' platforms. WE are the ones who decides who gets the votes. LET THEM DEBATE!!
Boxers or Briefs?
Please tell me. How did you create the internet? I'd really like to know about every detail throughout the entire process
:)
(I'm just ASKING for it this time...
-----
So? What's wrong with letting Hitler join the debates? All viewpoints deserve to be represented, whether you agree with them or not. And after hearing the arguments of a candidate you do not agree with, you can simply explain to your friends and family (or the world at large) why you do not agree with them. That's freedom of speech. That's one of the basic tenets this country was founded on. And it deserves to be upheld in the policital arena just as much as anywhere else.
I'm Jewish. My grandmother lost a great many friends and extended family in the Holocaust. But if Hitler was where Nader is now -- a third-party candidate with 5% or so of the polls, I would still argue for him to be included in the debates. Agreeing with a viewpoint should not be a prerequisite for defending it's place to be heard. Silencing the opposition is the cowardly last resort of a person that cannot capably refute the oposition's arguments with logical discourse.
If you are truly secure in your beliefs, then you should allow different beliefs to be expressed, and then argue back why you disagree with them. What do we call this process? We call it debate. And it's exactly what is NOT happening on television right now because only two candidates are involved.
-----Chaz
pronoblem
What is the cost of milk?
And don't have one of your aides go out and check for you....c'mon, what is it?
No, it won't. The reason it won't is that gradual change is something that people don't really notice. Instead, they gradually adapt to it. For instance, the price of gasoline here in the Silicon Valley has risen from about $1.35 to about $2.00, but it took months to happen, and the end result is that people in this area just pay up and continue to drive their SUV's and luxury cars (I'm no saint myself, as I own a '92 Mustang GT, but I may be somewhat unusual in that I value performance greatly. Most people in the Silicon Valley drive like a granny, so it's obvious that performance isn't something they're interested in).
Drastic change, on the other hand, is something that people sit up and take notice of. The oil "crisis" of the 1970's is a perfect example. The prices rose drastically enough and quickly enough that people sat up and took notice, and the result is that the Japanese were able to successfully sell their (relatively) fuel-efficient cars.
--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Thank you for the informative reply and link. I have long believed the Commerce Clause was vasty over-interpreted by Congress.
In other words, where are the legal grounds for this War? I believe a bill should be passed requiring a constitutional amendment that authorizes the futher prohibition of various substances, and if the amendment is not passed (affirmed by 3/4 of the States, etc), all criminal penalities for the use of 'drugs' are eliminated, and amnesty is granted too all those incarcerated only on drug offenses. Perhaps a Constitutional scholar can comment.
Call me quirky, but I have to ask:
If a Presidential Nominee receives 51% of the popular vote(assuming there are only two candidates to vote on), but only 10% of the eligible voters actually voted...can you honestly say we have a new President that the citizens of our country actually want?
Why are voters so apathetic? Is it because they assume things will just keep on working regardless of their single vote? Is it because a single vote seems to do so little in light of the massive sway special interest groups seem to have with their block voting? Is it because they are truly dismayed that a nation as great as America can only produce such pitiful Presidential Nominees?
I say that a Presidential Nominee cannot be President until at least 50% of eligible voters actually vote. Truthfully the percentage should be higher. If a Nominee cannot gather enough interest in themselves or their platform to get more voters to turn out, then we just shouldn't have a new President until they can.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that quote is a myth. First off, the name of the author is a typo. There was a Scottish historian named Alexander Tytler, but the book the quote is supposed to have come from ("The rise and fall of the athenian republic") does not exist. My guess is that PJ O'Rourke may have invented the quote (or at least popularized it).
So it's a nice sentiment, but doesn't deserve the aura of authenticity granted by attribution to a centuries-old academic.
Here's a decent debunking.
I play Nerd-Folk!
Given that the presidential debates received coverage from only one network, and that the ratings from the debates were at an all time low, I would like to know why exactly people should care? Despite efforts such as MTV's "Rock the Vote" a large number of eligible voters have chosen to eschew the election on grounds that you are both subject to your financial contributors, and that there is no major relevant issues dividing you. Do you have a comment to these potential voters? Why is it that less than 50% of eligible voters vote on even a presidential election, resulting in less than 25% of the country deciding the next president? What do you have to say to the other 50% of America's registered voters? Why should we care if you get elected as opposed to your opposition?
Please moderate this up until I get points to moderate with. :)
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
Please moderate this up until I get points to moderate with.
Thanks.
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
Someone moderate this up until I get points to moderate with. :)
Fanks.
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
Will someone please moderate this up until I get points to moderate with? :)
Thankee kindly.
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
The topic says it all. :)
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
Thanks in advance for moderating this up until I get points to moderate with. :)
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
If a police officer pulls over a gun owner with a carry permit for a routine traffic stop, should he be allowed to disarm the gun owner? Why or why not?
I'm young, and starting to enter the "Real World" for myself. I'm also starting to see the government for what, I believe, it really is: a fake democracy which is not powered by the people, but rather by large corporations.
Your views may differ from mine, but I strongly believe that corporations, who flaunt their money, hold a lot more power than any of the people. This is very evident with acts such as the DMCA, which strips the public's freedom away in order to put more control into corporations hands.
So my question to you is, is this really a problem? If not how come, and if it is, what are your plans to change it?
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
Do you believe it is morally wrong for a group of people to take from one American in order to give to another?
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
1 quick google search later, it appears that the ruling wasn't quite as broad as I had thought it was; it relates mostly to first amendment (free speech) and the 14th amendment.
The link I found is from May 1998 and is here./p&g t;
+1, Funny :)
:)
:) )
But methinks I do detect an undertone of seriosity beneath thy persiflage [1] so here's my answer:
Frankly, I don't care what Bush or Gore answer because there's no way in hell I'm voting for either of them (and does anyone seriously think they're going to respond to this in person anyway?). I believe that some of the other candidates, Nader in particular, *are* actually capable of giving a straight answer. So I'd like to see what it is
Stuart.
[1] spot the reference...? (If you can I'm impressed, because I can't even remember what it comes from myself
The baseball analogy weakens his case. You may hear it said that "The great teams win the close games", but this isn't true. Sabermetricians have found that close games are largely a toss-up. The baseball postseason system is actually a poor system of finding the best team. The greatest team will still lose to the worst team about once in every four games. Obviously, it is harder for an underdog to win a five or seven game series, but it is still very easy.
1.) Do you think the "founding fathers" had today's society and government in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
2.) If a clear, unambiguous document were written, taking into account documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and defining the United States as not an isolated nation but a member of a world community, would you consider supporting it?
Both candidates from the two major parties are on the record as being in support of capital punishment. Among the arguments raised against the death penalty is that it is racist; blacks and other minorities are statistically more likely to be sentenced to death than whites convicted of the same crimes. If elected president, would you do anything about this inequity (and what), or prefer not to interfere in state affairs? In a broader context, how does your answer reflect your views on affirmative action, another topic which some say involves a double standard whereby minorities benefit over whites, as opposed to the above? Why, in your opinion, has national attention been concerned about minorities having an advantage over whites, rather than whites having an advantage over minorities in a matter of life and death?
Ahh, but here's the sticky wicket. I hate government intervention on principle as much as anyone out there. The problem is TMF-- that is, The Moron Factor.
There has to be a government to legislate stuff like drug use (including alcohol and tobacco) becuase a good number of people are 1) too stupid to know any better in the first place, 2) too stupid to "only hurt themselves" when they engage in stupid behavior... killing others while driving drunk, not locking up guns so kids kill their friends, etc. And we can't even count on Darwin to kill these Bozos off anymore, either. What, with medical technology and the availability of rehab being what they are today? Please, idiots have to try REALLY hard to invoke Darwin as of late.
I think the government's motto should be, "I'll try being smaller, if you try being smarter." If everyone was raised around guns and learned gun safety and knew what guns were for, and oh by the way weren't prone to fits of emotional outbursts and weren't dumb as a board (i.e. everyone had an IQ over 120), we wouldn't have to legislate so damned much.
It's a delicate balance; all you and I can do as rational intellectuals is work within the law with the acknowledgement that the minority of morons wandering around next to us are responsible for the limitations on our freedoms. With the hope, of course, that some day, the morons will die out...
Oh wait... "As soon as you make something idiot proof, nature makes a bigger idiot."
Looks like we're SOL. Best of luck to you all.
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
Why should someone's life be 'precious', when they don't consider other's lives precious. Someone who kills another human should have to die for they're crimes. Why should they live, if they have taken the life of another innocent human?
What do you think about hate crime laws? Don't you support the idea that criminals convicted of a hate crime should be executed?
-BrentSo, you don't think that the murders should die for their crime? You think they should be allowed to live to perhaps kill another black man in the future?
That is not to say you do not punish those who commit heinous crimes. Life without parole is an option.Why should they live if they'll be "chained" up for the rest of their lives anyways? It's not as if they have a chance to be a productive unit of society. So why not execute those who'll never do anything again. Unless, of course, you feel that they could do forced labor, like the criminals in China do.
-BrentYes... unfortunately. If men were held responsible for their actions - instead of shifting responsibility onto their partners - then maybe there would be less of this sort of thing going on.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Yes. They choose to have intercourse when they weren't prepared to deal with all the possible consequences in full... IIRC, the primary reason for contraceptive failure is improper use; so again, there's another incidence of a "bad life decision" - deciding to have intercourse with a contraceptive, without bothering to learn how to use a contraceptive properly.
There are few things in your life that you are not responsible for, despite what modern society would like you to believe. Claiming that you're a weak-willed coward unwilling to stand up to peer pressure or are so intellectually lazy that you are unwilling to make the mental effort to understand your actions does not absolve you; it just makes you an outstanding candidate for a Darwin award.
Blaming someone else for a problem doesn't help you solve it, and merely helps to obscure those instances where you truly are not in control of your life for one reason or another. The teenage kid who was conceived and born next to a toxic waste dump, and is dying from leukemia... A child living on life support because they were born with AIDS... neither of these folks had any control over their life. You want to tell me that there is some way they could have avoided their sitations? There isn't.
When you have a way to avoid living a life you'd rather not have, and you make a decision that takes you closer to that type of life... at that point, saying that someone else was responsible or that "life dealt you a bad hand" just isn't really true, is it? If you're unwilling to admit that your own choices and efforts, good or bad, brought you the life your living, then you're spending each and every day lying to yourself... so I guess it's no wonder that you wouldn't trust anyone else, either.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Do you thing Atheists, Agnostics, and Humanists should be protected by the constitution as are members of religion, and should teh be considered citizens?
Specifically, do you agree with the statement make by George Bush Sr. - "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."?
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
My bad - that is specifically the passage which I am speaking of. I have read it before, but it had been a while - so I just paraphrased what was said about it on www.religioustolerance.org.
scary isn't it?
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
The New Media has produced an economic boom that has been unparalleled in recent history. Yet that boom is in danger of collapsing because of laws championed by Old Media. Do you believe that these laws are a great begining for Old Media to become technically savvy or do you believe that these laws are a hinderance to truly innovative ideas from New Media? Where should Government's role in this situation be, actively molding laws to assist one side or the other, or should government be actively promoting both sides work together in creating a middle ground?
_ _ _
Actually, Gore did not claim to have invented the internet. He mis-worded a statement that he wrote a bill to provide funding for the invention of Internet2 which is used for academic reasons.
So please stop quoting something that never happenned. I think we get enough of that from the media.
(Alternate question for Al Gore: How come you never updated your "secret message" in the source of your site's front page?)
-jon (Vote Nader, rah rah rah!)
I don't think most people even understand the amount of money that is being taken from them in the form of taxes. One of the smartest things ever done to increase taxes is to make the employer pay half of the employment taxes and make the employee pay the other half. If people could actually see and understand how much was being taken from them there would be riots.
I for one am pissed about the amount of money being taken from me and for ZERO benefit. The worst thing about it is that the government is so damn inefficient I know my money is going to be wasted. I look around at the waste and it just makes me sick to my stomach. The last thing I want is piss more money down the hole.
As far as I'm concerned a dollar in my pocket is a dollar that I at least get to waste on myself.
This is a mentality that I don't understand (not trying to flame). Do you actually feel that the government will make good use of any money you give them? Don't you have the feeling that they are robbing you already? There's no way that the government can give me health care that I will accept. As for school, we as a parents are more responsible for a child's education than the government. You can choose where to send them, private or public etc... People need to be able to take their business/children elsewere if the nearby school sucks. Give the power back to the states at least so that I can get the hell out of a state if they are screwing things up.
The only reason I can understand this reasoning is if you aren't paying any substantial taxes (less than 5K per year for example) in which case things become very clear.
Unfortunately we seem to be very close to the end of this cycle. I have hopes that someday soon a president will show the people the results of gridlock, waste, partisanship etc... to the American people.
Maybe a weekly address which truthfully shows:
1 - Pork attached to bills
2 - Which members of Congress are blocking progress and why
3 - Where money is getting wasted
4 - Accurate performance statistics of government programs
and other information that would get the american public pissed off enough to do something about it then provide an easy method of allowing the public to voice their concerns over the issues they care about.
I just hope that people still care about the issues.
Who cares? It's their lives, not mine.
Completely privatize health care. Then if those stoners can't afford the beds, they don't get 'em. Let them experience the consequences of their decision in the gutter. Let them die. (OTOH, if they can afford the beds, that's fine and the ER will make enough profit to afford to buy enough beds to meet demand. Ain't gonna go that way, though.)
Short term.. until people wake up to the fact that if you do stupid things, mommy (uncle sam) won't kiss it and make it better.
No, they are worse off, and the rest of us are just fine. They will eventually kill themselves and the rest of us will look at what they did with their lives, decide we don't want to share their fate, and we'll throw away the fucking crack pipes and heroin needles. The crack and heroin dealers will find that selling drugs doesn't pay as well as selling shoes like Al Bundy.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I agree totally. thank you for stating the obvious that everyone continues to ignore.
hello america! wake up! THERE IS NO SURPLUS it is a PROJECTED SURPLUS over the next ten years... why the hell is everyone treating this projection as money in the bank, and why are our major party candidates so big on giving away something we don't even have yet?
Its smoke and mirrors folks, and nobody wants to confront it and call it the damned lie that it is. And why should we confront it? its for the american people, and they've already spent it for the american people.
the funny money keeps getting funnier.
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
This society gives women the right to choose whether or not to have sex, whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and whether or not to keep the child or put it up for adoption. Why is it MY responsibility to pay for the choices other people make? What gives the government the right to take my money and give it to someone else?
I made lots of choices and overcame a lot of adversity to get where I am. Some people will need to do more, and many will need to do less to get where they want to be.
My whole point is that where people are is the result of the decisions they made, decisions to study or not study, to work more or play more, to have children or not to have children. Immediate gratification versus delayed gratification.
As a society, the US has built up a huge safety net to protect people who choose wrong. As a result, more people choose wrong knowing that their big brother will be there to provide them with bread and circuses.
I'm projecting that Gore will win this presidential race. Why? Because he's promisng the most handouts. Only 43% of the people in this country pay income taxes at all. So, if he promises to hand out more money to people who aren't paying taxes, he gets 57% of the vote. So promising tax cuts and lower amounts of handouts is the losing strategy.
The democracy is ending people. The same way the Romans' did. What's next?
Very simple answer.
They're going to spend the money. Chances are good they won't use it to pay off the debt. I'd rather them give me my money back than spend it.
It's not a budget surplus. It's overtaxation.
OK, first I've seen what auto workers make. And I'm kinda thinking that it's a hell of a lot more than $20K. And we're not voting for president of Mexico or Indonesia, but if we were, at least the folks that are making $0.02 per hour are making that much, where if automakers weren't there the people wouldn't have any income at all. Oh, and I don't drive an SUV. Nyah.
Second, the examples that they're using for all of their campaign rhetoric involve people who have made bad life decisions, either decisions not to get a good education or to have children too early in their lives, usually both. I know not everyone wants to be a computer programmer when they grow up. I also know that if you choose a career that pays $20K per year you probably won't be able to support 3 children, and I happen to think it's not ethical to ask the government to help you with that by giving you money or reducing your taxes to the point where they are nonexistant.
Those of us who actually pay taxes get to pay even more taxes to cover people without enough responsibility to "keep it in their pants" until they can afford to have children. The tax code we have rewards irresponsibility and penalizes responsibility.
I'm actually in favor of a head tax. Everyone pays exactly the same amount of money every year. Parents pay for their children. We all derive the same benefit from the government, so we should all pay the same.
I'm only kinda joking.
Ok, your points, in order:
None of the things you mention are significantly funded by the federal government's income tax with the possible exception of education spending. I pay higher property taxes, and get better schools, a tradeoff I'm willing to make. I don't get significantly better services or roads, because I live in the city and not in the 'burbs. Other people may not want to make that decision,
One of the founding fathers said that any government that taxed its people more than 5% would be fostering a heavy burden upon them (www.libertarian.org has the exact quote if you're interested). 33% is way more than that.
As for your housewife example, I think you're missing my point. Why exactly should I be forced to pay for this? I am willing to give more to charitible organizations that help needy people, especially organizations that help build character and a sense of responsibility along with job skills.
Why is the government, which is the least efficient and most heavy-handed of organizations, handling this? Before we started this welfare state it was handled by churches and similar non-religious organizations. Since we started welfare programs, the number of poor (in absolute numbers and as a percentage) has increased. Government programs don't work to reduce the number of poor people.
Woohoo! great question! You should also point people to SmokeDot. There is a great article there written by TheDude about how Mary Jane was criminalized; read both part 1 and part 2.
Fighting the War on the War on Drugs.
http://smokedot.org/
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party USA, The American Nazi Party, The Ku Klux Klan, Greenpeace, PETA, or the Hollywood Squares?
What's your excuse?
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
It is clear that patents were created to protect innovators from monopolists, but today we have the opposite. A "pre"-patent example of innovator abuse would go like this : o Inventor invents something o Inventor demonstrates invention to company 'X', with intent to sell o Company X steals inventors idea "post"-patent examples of abuse are as follows : o Inventors A, B, and C all have the same idea, but Inventor A gets the patent and sues B and C for implementing THEIR solution. or : o Monopolies X,Y,Z,A,B,C etc. register 2000 patents a year each, thus starving their mutual industry of solutions to common problems. o Software developer A spends months on a piece of software only to find that several of the solutions that --HE-- thought of were apparently patented by X,Y,Z,A,B and C the year before. or : o Inventor A invents something through pure genius o 10 years later, Inventor B has same idea, but derives this idea through more recent technological understanding. o A sues B, even though B has done nothing wrong. Clearly we have an issue. Without patents, monopolies have the ability to deprive inventors of their livelihood, but with patents we have a far worse situation where monopolies can starve development by sitting on patents for the purpose of legally-extracted profit whilst not actually developing anything useful for societies themselves. Please comment on the above and how you intend to find a compromise to the current system. I personally feel that to protect inventors, patents should be abolished and replaced with strong "non-disclosure or implementation agreement" protection which an inventor can hold against anyone they have shown their idea.
I'm sure we, as the Leaders of the Free World(TM), will think of something, assuming we ever get to that point.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
three Idealists who were president (off the top of my head):
Thomas Jefferson
FDR
JFK
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
If the /. crowd can generate this many really good tough questions for the candidates why can't journalists even come up with one?
Why are you answering a bunch of pesky questions from a bunch of pesky geeks who aren't likely to donate anything to your campaign fund?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Don't forget to read my election-year .sig.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What do you think about "third" party candidates - who are on more than enough ballots to win a presidential election - being kept out of the debates?
Do you feel that the "big two" parties are afraid of exposing the country to views other than their own? If they aren't, they why don't they welcome all parties into the political process?
As such, gettting rid of it isn't something the President can really do. The only remedy that I can see is that the Supreme Court reject it as unconstitutional, which seems unlikely. If they do, then we have a conflict between the government and an NGO. I have no idea what would happen at that point.
I agree with q2k that it is the apathy to dependency phase. Gore's winning would further demonstrate that and lead this country to the bondage phase that FDR wanted.
>What will you do to restore democracy in America?
What do you mean by restore democracy? America has never been a democracy. America is a republic.
Since Social Security is an intergenerational Ponzi scheme and unconstitutional, I want to ask the candidates what they are going to do to wean us from this inheriently flawed system. I realize we can't stop it tomorrow, but what steps will you take to get the federal government out of a place it does not belong and allow me to keep more of my money?
Since the top one percent of American people pay a large portion of the taxes, I am not amazed to learn they will receive a large portion of tax relief. This does not bother me. Also, the economy is dynamic, not static. Cutting tax rates does not equal a cut in tax revenue. Will you choose a economic advisor who will return us to the Laffer curve?
Will you return the federal government to only its assigned duties under Aricle I, Section 8 of the Constitution?
I hope this question makes the list. The federal government is too large and has stepped outside its boundaries. Most American children are not taught what the Constitution really says and how far we have strayed from it.
This one is for all the candidates.
Many of you and your running mates have mentioned filtering programs such as CyberPatrol and Net Nanny as a way to keep children from seeing objectionable material on the internet.
Are you aware of the deficiencies of internet filter software? Filter software is known to block material that should not be blocked (example: a filter rule that blocks the word "breast" would block legitimate discussions of breast cancer, as well as recipes for cooking chicken breasts,) and failing to block sites that do have objectionable material. Additionally, there is great controversy as to what should and should not be blocked.
How do your policies for mandating internet filtering in public places such as libraries address these concerns? Also how can your policies protect the rights of consenting adults who should be able to choose for themselves what they wish to create and view?
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Do you support full voting representation for 500,000+ citizens of the United States?
If not, why?
--
It's Time - www.dcvote.org
___
Cognitive Overflow
more than yo
The original article asked about the "War on Drug", rather than the legality of drug usage. The recent "War on Drug" relies on heavy-handed arrest and putting a lot of people in jail. Even if you believe that drug usage should be illegal, this is NOT the only way to stop it. Critics of the "War on Drug" usually suggest that "treatment" and "rehabituation" are more effective and economical methods.
Fear of diverting public education funding into private institution has always been a central reason for the camp against school voucher. Nobody is against parental choices but money must come from somewhere. Whethet you agree with this argument of course is another matter.
What he's suggesting is that having school vouchers will move public money into private religious educational institutions, which are usually religious. His tone may be too argumentative and he may not have all his assertions factually supported but I don't have any problem reading the meanings.
Sorry. I think it's you who resort to name-calling rather than trying to engage into an intelligent discussion.
So you are saying that God == Christian?
Man, you're gonna be popular...
--- Mercutio was right.
he is sayin that po' people shouldn't make more babies than they can feed. Not a bad sentiment in my mind. Of course, the world is getting to the point where one wonder's if anybody shoudld have more than a couple of children. I mean, is population growth a good thing?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I was talking about rocketscientist or whoever. People that take money from the government and don't have jobs but keep having babies are unproductive(in some sense) and I would call that a bad life decision...
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
HOWARD PHILLIPS (Constitution Party)
a tes.html)
www.phillips2000.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4 or Windows 98
DENNIS I. "DENNY" LANE (Grassroots Party)
(http://members.aol.com/rootsparty/lane.html)
members.aol.com is running NaviServer/2.0 AOLserver/2.3.3 on Solaris
RALPH NADER (Green Party)
www.votenader.com is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) AuthMySQL/2.20 PHP/4.0.0 on BSD/OS
JOHN S. HAGELIN (Natural Law Party)
www.hagelin.org is running Apache/1.3.4 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.1 PHP/3.0.9 mod_frontpage/3.0.4.3 on Linux
EARL F. DODGE (Prohibition Party)
(http://www.prohibition.org/Meet%20the%20Candid
www.prohibition.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) (Red Hat/Linux) FrontPage/4.0.4.3 on Linux
PATRICK J. "PAT" BUCHANAN (Reform Party)
www.buchananreform.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4 or Windows 98
DAVID E. McREYNOLDS (Socialist Party)
www.votesocialist.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_frontpage/3.0.4.3 on Compaq Tru64
MONICA G. MOOREHEAD (Workers World Party)
www.vote4workers.org is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) FrontPage/4.0.4.3 ApacheJServ/1.1.2 PHP/3.0.16 on Solaris
Speak truth to power.
Very well, I have a question. A sensible question. A question that will tax your IQ to its very limits and stretch the sinews of your knowledge to bursting point. The question is this: Given that God is infinite, and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted tea-cake?
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Those who are on your ballot, but not on Slashdot's list are more than likely minor candidates on your state's ballot, but perhaps not many other state's ballots.
Common sense will tell you that inhaling smoke into your lungs and holding it there ...
Minor quips here, but according to High Times holding marijuana smoke in does not increase the high - it only increases the amount of ash in your longs.
While i can't state any statistics on MJ related lung cancers or other health hazards...
The only information I've ever read about this was (I believe) in The Emperor Wears no Clothes by Jack Herer. I believe there was a study quoted in there where smokers of both marijuana and tobacco had lower rates of cancer than smokers of merely tobacco. Presumably because marijuana opens up your open lung passages, whereas tobacco closes them off trapping the smoke in there.
My vague memory is that he's around 4%, but with a high voter turnout (which we won't have, of course), 4% is millions of votes. That's nothing to sneeze at.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Please comment on fact that current marriage laws and agency rules (e.g. IRS & Social Security) are based on Christian principles of marriage and therefore a violation of separation of church and state. Also, please comment on the idea of returning marriage to the churches and replacing the legal marriage with a Civil Union that would set rights and responsibilities for family members, however that family happened to define itself.
You're concealing a statement in the form of a question. Clearly your prime objective here is to voice your personal opinion concerning "digital rights". Additionally you can't jump from a specific example like "DMCA sucks" to a blanket statement like "business is stealing our rights" and expect to be listened to. If you're truly interested in the opinions of the candidates on this particular issue ask something specific like:
"In your opinion does the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) needlesly infringe on the freedoms of the American public? If so, how will you alter the DMCA?"
- If you look at periods of time when you had massive unrestricted use of drugs (look at the 19th century England/America to see some good examples).
Before 1914 in America, there was no 'drug problem'. The first anti-drug laws in this country were based on racism (criminalize opium for the Chinese, marijuana for the Blacks). Since then, the anti-drug laws have been used to put non-violent, casual marijuana smokers in jail, taking up room that could be better used to hold violent criminals.- Control of drugs has been a good thing.
No it hasn't. Control of drugs has brought criminal actions within the realm of the otherwise law-abiding users (not all users).Control of drugs has made it possible for the police to invade your life if they have the slightest idea that you might be toking up.
Control of drugs caused a 61-year old man in Lebanon, TN to be shot to death during a raid of the wrong house.
- Getting stoned out of your gord and becomming insanely addicted to something and the social, political, societal, health, etc ramifactions of such were quite bad hence legislation.
Give me proof that smoking weed is addictive. Give me proof that smoking weed leads to other drugs as a fact.- I don't know about you but I don't see too many opioum addicts roming around today.
I don't know about you but I don't see too many marijuana addicts roaming around today. I see people who might smoke weed after work to relax. I see people who smoke marijuana in the company of other consenting adults. I see people who lead great lives, whose only crime is to smoke a plant that grows naturally in the world. I see people like myself, who have a great job (20 yrs old and I'm a newscast director), who like the effects that cannabis gives them.If you want to see your rights eroded away one at a time, vote for Bush or Gore. If you want to see control of your life returned to you, vote Harry Browne.
Disclaimer: I am not paid by, or personally involved with Harry Browne in any way. I just believe in everything he and the Libertarian Party stands for.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
FC Closer
Nader's latest article discusses a lot of issues close to our (dark) hearts, including privacy regulation for e-commerce business, and patents on 1-click shopping.
Here's a great (although long) quote:
JMC
a DAMN fine question! Where are those mod points when ya need 'em?
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Personally, I'm quite happy that my folks got divorced, my father really never acted like it. I am not speaking by my mother's influence here, this is a real problem. Child support collection my father's five-figure debt accrued over the last decade will mean the difference between whether or not I will be able to complete my CIS degree or not.
I'm quite amazed how little consideration for the kids you apparently have here. Are you an interstate deadbeat?
Help us build a better map!
What do the candidates have to say about child support collection? As the laws stand right now, its nearly entirely impossible to collect child support across state lines. I'm vastly interested in what they think.
Help us build a better map!
Each candidate must qualify to be on the ballot for each state. Depending on your state, the minor-party candidates may or may not have qualified. I don't know how Robin chose the candidates to direct questions to; presumably the ones that seemed to have any sort of national organization behind them and thus would be on the ballot in a reasonable number of states. If Robin excluded someone you think should be questioned, send him some email.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
What else?
;-)
Know your audience
For Mr. Gore:
If you could invent the internet all over again, would you have stuck with the traditional copper-line technology or switched to highly-touted super-high-bandwidth can-and-string paradigm? and do you think the internet should be patented by the US Gov't, as bill gates did with the Bit?
but at least the American people one the whole can keep to a budget. Didn't the annual savings rate just pass -1.5% ?
--
+&x
According to DOE statistics (http://www.eia.doe.gov/), the United States imported 10.6 million bbl/d of oil in 1999, representing 54% of total U.S. oil demand. Around 46% of this oil came from OPEC nations, with Persian Gulf sources accounting for about 23% of U.S. oil imports during the year. At the same time, the United States consumed 19.5 million bbl/d of oil in 1999. Of this, 8.4 million bbl/d (or 43% of the total) was motor gasoline, 5.0 million bbl/d (26%) "other oils," 3.6 million bbl/d (18%) distillate fuel oil, 1.7 million bbl/d (9%) jet fuel, and 840,000 bbl/d (5%) residual fuel oil. U.S. oil demand is expected to increase by about 110,000 bbl/d (0.6%) in 2000. Considering that the approximatly 2.4 million bbl/d are less than a third of the consumption of motor gasoline, wouldn't you agree that an effort to improve gas milage by 28% or reducing general consumption by a bit over 10% would enable the US to significantly reduce their strategic interest in the Gulf, while helping the environment and a couple of other issues?
*tries to think of anyone, in the history of the world, that has gone to the ER for being stoned*
Hmm. Nobody.
Actually, I've seen it with my own eyes once, and heard of two other examples. Of course, they were messing with the famous marijuana cookies, a potent item that isn't for the weak.
I'm a big fan of decriminalization, and I don't believe for a second that we'd see a huge spike in hospital visits, I just wanted to clear up that previous statement.
Fair enough -- your party choice is up to you. However, I should point out that a party sworn to never "exert moral force" on another person (see your membership card, if you have one) would have an awfully hard time controlling crime, given that punishment (the main way to stop crime effectively) is a kind of moral force...
Just thought I'd set the record straight for ya: libertarians are against the use of force ONLY when it is used offensively, that is, use of force against someone else, not to defend oneself.
The sole job of a government is to preserve the liberties of its citizens from those who would violate them -- this includes external foes (why we have national defense) and internal foes (why we police, civil and criminal courts).
So... our national defense and police systems have the power to use force to defend citizens who are subject to the offensive force of others. Of course those citizens also have the right to use force to defend themselves, in the absence of the police.
- jonathan.
The Moral Majority was disbanded in 1989
The difference is that Nader and Browne are splitting the geeky 10% of the votes, and Gore and Bush are splitting the mundane 90%
My first reaction was LOL
Even though, as you say (and I agree) Nader and Browne are in many ways completely idealogically opposite, they speak with sincerity.
OK, I'm revealing my bias now... I'm a Browne fan, but no matter how much the Nader folks piss me off with their socialist policies (and they ARE socialist) and infringements on personal choice, this does not change the fact that I RESPECT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ACTIVELY TRYING TO MAKE THEIR VOICE HEARD...
Let me ask you all one question: would you prefer going to dinner and seeing a menu with 2 entrees on it? What about coming home after a long day, and picking one of two TV stations to watch (imagine the worst of WB + UPN...) ? How about beer? cars? websites?
The world is BETTER whenever there is MORE CHOICE. Yes, sometime is can be annoying when you try to manage those choices (surfing thru 500 cable stations...) but would you rather have no choice?
My own personal opinion: any candidate who is ON THE BALLOT in ALL 50 STATES should be included in the debates. But this would be dangerous because then the Demopublican-controlled debate commission would actually be allowing Americans to hear what other people had to say. We can't have that! What happens when Nader and Browne are onstage to call Bush and Gore on all the FUD!?!? It would be hilarious, it would be great, and that's why it will NEVER HAPPEN.
SO, if at this point you are even remotely as pissed off as I am about how the major political parties and the mass media have conspired to turn the election into an advertising platform, I URGE YOU to:
Trust me, you'll feel better having at least done something than having done nothing at all
- jonathan.
The Moral Majority was disbanded in 1989
From http://debate.wustl.edu/faculty/brick.html:
"For the protest movement," Brick notes, "the debates symbolize the restrictions on political life enforced by two parties closely wedded to powerful, self-interested donors." The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) -- a private organization constructed by the two parties themselves -- have taken over these public events since the more disinterested League of Women Voters withdrew in protest in 1988. This year the CPD set unreasonably high thresholds (15 percent support registered in polls of voting preference) to keep third-party candidates out of the debates, even though large majorities have told pollsters they would like to see Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan at least join the discussion. (Ross Perot had less than 10 percent when he joined the 1992 debates, and Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura had only 10 percent when he gained entrance to gubernatorial debates in that state.)
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Trust me, you'll feel better having at least done something than having done nothing at all
- jonathan.
The Moral Majority was disbanded in 1989
As a foreign national who, by necessity, must deal with the US, it's policies and systems, on a daily basis, I find it disheartening that the entire world is being "de facto" colonized by the United States. Cultural diversity and the right to self-determination is crushed by the need to feed the American Machine. Time and time again, one thing is proven: whatever is touched by the United States must comform to it, never will the United States comform.
The Cold War has ended. Most nations are well on their way to democracy and freedom, on their own terms. Do you foresee the need for the United States to change its role among the community of nations? If so, how?
THS
---
THS
---
"Poor girl looks as confused as a blind lesbian in a fish market." - Simon R. Green
pointing out that if "everyone had an IQ over 120" then the _average_ IQ would be higher than 120, but wait... 100 is _defined_ as the average IQ!
That thought fragment is disingenuous (or should it be "disingenius?") and reminds me of Garrison Keillor's little joke about "Lake Wobegone, where all the children are above average...."
But with reference to the "War on Drugs" I might sort of agree with you, except that this particular government mania is self-defeating and evil: prohibiting recreational drugs only makes selling them more profitable and increases the size of the drug-dealing underclass, thus exposing more people to drug addiction and so increasing both drug-trafficking/possession/use and real crime, clogging the justice system, decreasing the general respect for law, forcing incarceration of growing prison populations, and justifying ever more and larger prisons, etc. It is overly authoritarian government gone mad and spinning slowly out of democratic control. So,... this "War on Drugs" question is a good one (and I'll give you a hint - the candidate who favors further strengthening this oppressive, confiscatory abuse of the populace will certainly lose my vote).
Thanks for the input. It is good to get insight from a place that has mandatory enlistment. I do think you have some misconceptions about the US military.
As a disclaimer, I've never served in the military. However, I have had friends and family that have. For the most part what I've heard is that incoming drill instructors always assume that everyone comes in as a completel idiot who can barely eat without seperate instructions and oversight. This is in the current 'small but trained and well equipped professional army' of the US.
On the other hand, I do know that Israel has on e of the most effective armies in the world (withholding judgement on whether or not Israel is properly using their army). The biggest difference between the Israeli army and the US army is mandatory service.
Though, I'd love to hear some voices contrary to mine. Admittedly, I know very little about this topic.
have a day,
-l
I find it interesting that you would ask about a non-wartime draft.
While I am philosophically opposed to all war, I do see that war (at the present state of humanity) is inevitable. As such, it seems to me that a mandatory (akin to nations such as Israel) would do wonders for the nation.
If after high school, everyone would serve a two or three year term in one of the armed services, I'd be willing that we would see far less of the shortage of technical workers we see now. Not to mention that quite a larger segment of the population would see the importance of voting. Serving a tour of duty can (but necessarily will) instill a much better sense of civic duty.
As an alternative, what I think would really kick butt, is to send all non-violent criminal offenders to boot camp for varying lengths of military service.
have a day,
-l
Well considering the man can have his 10 minutes of fun then hop in a car and drive away never to come back again and live a fulling life not knowing that he has a kid where a female has to "deal with it" for nine months or "deal with" losing the kid or have "to deal with" raising the kid, no I never noticed.
MarNuke
This is too much bullshit in cfish's post.
If you want to see unproductive go to the projects or small southen towns where 90% of the people are on welfare. Go ahead, go down there, tell me if they are productive.
The point of it is, we don't our money going to support people that don't support thier selves.
And about that America don't pay the highest taxes, well yeah we don't, that doesn't mean we should start paying 50% of taxes to support the lazy lower class.
MarNuke
Here what the FBI says:
Gun ownership has increased
Violent crime has decreased
Violent crime on college and university campuses has increased. Guess what? Those are places where individuals are not allowed to own or carry guns.
MarNuke
How about this, in five to ten years, lets see how has more assets. If you have more, hey, you win.
MarNuke
The best part about that report is:
Once the emergency is declared, the common law is abolished, the Constitution is abolished and we fall under the absolute will of Government, public policy. All the government needs to continue is to have public opinion on their side. If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side of the government, statutes, laws and bills can continue to be passed. The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has been for 60 years. We're not under law. Law has been abolished. We're under a system of public policy, (War Powers). So when you go into that courtroom with your Constitution and the common law in your hand, what does that judge tell you? He tells you that you have no persona standi in judicio. You have no personal standing at law. He tells you not to bother bringing the Constitution into his court, because it is not a Constitutional court, but an executive tribunal operating under a totally different jurisdiction.
Seams as if the goverment has totaly fucked us. I'm moving.
MarNuke
Greenspan is a bastard. A tax cut would be for the people that pay taxes, the people that make money and incourage more growth becuase of more money injecting into the emocomy.
I don't know about you but I plan on being rich. I plan on having millions. You may be happy making your 30k a year and paying a very little if any in taxes. I rather keep my money. Right now the goverment takes $1000 a PAY PERIOD from me. ONE THOUNDAND DOLLARS!!!!!! That's more then my friend make in a MONTH!!
To pay of the deficit won't improve anything. The intrest is sooo low it doesn't matter. Here's an example, if you have a house, say a big 1/2 million dollar house. By taking a loan at 1% intrest on the house for say, um, 200k, you can take that money, buy renters houses, and easily make hunandard times more money then monthy intrest, but if you pay off the loan in a few months, you'll lose all profit and in the mean time would be unable to make more money.
It make more sense taking the money you have and make more money with it then wasting it paying off some low intrest long term loan. Oh, you went to school, they don't teach money there.
MarNuke
You have no right, you're an enemy of the state, the Constitution has no meaning, you're in a dictoriship, and you are asking if we should be concerned?
MarNuke
The goverment is growing at 3% to 4% a year. Currenty, 98% of the taxes comes from the top 50% income earners. This year there was a 1.1 trillion dollar surplus. As I write this the congress is spending the surplus on 1000's of new programs that most tax payers will never see and the few that do will see very small little of it. most of this spending will help goverment office and staff. The reason is simple. The way goverment work, is to take more money, spend all of it, and get more money. If a company did this, they would go out of business in a few months. The only way goverment can do this is becuase of thier power. They have the guns.
I would like to see goverment run more effective. What plans do you, as a presidential candidate, for taking steps to slow down this growth or decrease the overall size of the American Goverment and the resulting tax burden?
MarNuke
It's not flamebait... it's just a hard question.
How about:
Do you know what DMCA stands for?
Right now the goverment takes $1000 a PAY PERIOD from me. ONE THOUNDAND DOLLARS!!!!!! That's more then my friend make in a MONTH!!
ROTFL!!! Two points:
One: Most people making the money you say you make know how write and spell English properly.
Two: Most crack dealers don't pay taxes, so you must be doing something wrong.
Sounds to me like you have been "sampling" your product excessively!
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Minorities consistently favor affirmative action as a way to redress ongoing discrimination against them. Do you favor or oppose affirmative action as a way to increase the number of minorities in the IT field? Also, do you favor or oppose bringing in more foreigners to work in tech jobs in the U.S. instead of training American citizens to fill those openings?
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Typical whiny slashbot. If I didn't no better I would call you a troll.
It is obvious that you don't KNOW any better!!!
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
What do you think about hate crime laws? Don't you support the idea that criminals convicted of a hate crime should be executed?
Since you asked no. The very idea of a hate crime is simply stupid. I don't give a rat's ass if you hate me as long as you leave me alone.
The minute you do do something that affects me negatively then there are all kinds of criminal and civil laws that you can be prosecuted for. The U.S. guarantees the right to be different from everyone else (in theory) as long as that difference does not violate those criminal and civil laws.
Texas is going to execute two of the three people that dragged James Byrd to death (not three like Bush proudly bragged about in the last debate). Is killing these two (admittedly poor excuses for human beings) going to bring James Byrd back? No. Is it going to stop racist attacks on minorities? No.
I am atheist but I think the ancient philospher Jesus Christ was on the right track when he said that "turn the other cheek" was better than "an eye for an eye". The cycle of violence has to end somewhere, why not start by eliminating the death penalty?
That is not to say you do not punish those who commit heinous crimes. Life without parole is an option. I just think that it is hypocritical that Republicans run on a fiscal responsiblity platform when, according to the last statistics I saw, it costs twice as much money to execute a prisoner than to incarcerate him/her for life...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal nuclear accident.
You expect us to believe this "news" story when it doesn't even get the facts straight?!?
Election Day is ticking away. E-mail this to as many people as possible or we will be living in an Al Gore fantasyland.
As opposed to a George W. Bush fantasyland??? One where "life" is precious when you are an unborn fetus but not if you are on death row???
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
>I wonder how many other polital parties are
>international, and what would happen should they
>come to power in multiple countries simultaneously.
>Scary thought.
I supose old-style (Moscow-afiliated) Communist parties would come under that category.
And it was indeed Scary.
I would agree with you about sending money to debt repayment vs. a tax cut but what is going to happen is that it will be spent on expanding the government and when the economy slows down we will have a bigger yearly bill for expanded government services as well as a debt.
At least with a tax cut the government is still smaller and maybe there won't be a slow down as fast. Plus in the worst case inflation brings down the amount of money we owe in the debt (since that is measured in dollars).
The argument put forth in the article seems fairly weak. State to state differences have become less and less relevant. People of New York City have more in common with people of Chicago then with people of rural Upstate New York. He also seems to have a common flaw of 'group thinking' that I notice often among modern sociak theorists. States are imaginary. They are simply a area of land in which people live. They have internal governments, however this shouldnt affect the electorial process. Some proposing that Blacks and Whites and Asians (etc.) get their own electors that are winner take all would be laughed out of Washington. States aren't much different, with the growing irrevelancy of geographic location acting as the divider. Democracy isnt supposed to be about groups but about individual choice.
Because the other candidates had even less popular vote, duh. In kinder terms, those who were against him were split on whom to vote for so he got elected anyway.
cheese logs keep my wang warm at night.
Gore & Bush:
Do you really believe that the needs of your people are served with only a 2 party system where you just have to be better then one other person to get elected? Especially considering that so few people come out and vote on election day?
Other Candidates:
I am assuming that you don't like how the political system is set up now.. how would you like to see it set up?
I think the general consensus of the major news media is that this election is down to two candidates, Al Gore and 'Dubya' Bush, of the democrat and replublican parties, respectively. How long do you think it would take for the US electorate system to accept more than two parties as front-runners?
[ http://maur.litestep.com ][ maur@technologist.com ]
Do you see humanity ever leaving Earth, and if so, when, where, how and why?
The Executive Branch, working with Congress and the Judiciary, determines the structure and priorities of our legal system.
Our last President is leaving office with enormous personal debts to pay, having fended off numerous legal attacks. Undoubtedly you will be faced with a similar onslaught.
Many observers believe that our legal culture has evolved into an extremely complex, expensive, vicious, unwieldy, and stiffling monster.
What would you do, if elected, to change the processes of government and the administration of justice?
Socialism does not work.
If you believe in using standardized tests to evaluate students and prospective teachers, does that imply that you do not believe in the value of other forms of credentialling (i.e. completing a course of study) and that you would allow anyone who can pass the test to be free of any further obligation to demonstrate competence? If you (like me) believe that the test does not measure some (or most) important things that might be learned in a course of study, is the test really a good measure?
If we even began to pay off the national debt, the economy would implode so fast it would spin your head right off your body. Our monetary system is based on that national debt you want to liquidate.
Unfortunately, growth of the nationall debt is coming to an end, and it is going to liquidated one way or another. It ain't going to be pretty. Welcome to the new economy.
As an alternative, what I think would really kick butt, is to send all non-violent criminal offenders to boot camp for varying lengths of military service.
Why only Non-Violent Criminals? Maybe we should have a few platoons of Violent Criminals. Drop them over a country we don't like, and let them loose!
People see the world as they are, not as it is.
Yeah, I realize it's already taxed, but if I heard correctly, gas prices are at something like a 30-year low. Pretty much anywhere else on earth (well, besides the middle east where they drink it instead of coffee), gas is much much more expensive. We've just grown up with the crutch of unlimited cheap energy. Wasting energy *should* be expensive, and maybe a little painful too ;)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
About half our current budget is for Defense.
Is this reasonable?
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
One of the more interesting statistics to come out of the debates and the post-debate discussion is that the wealthiest 1% of Americans account for 34% of the money raised by the income tax.
If you could raise or lower this fraction to any level you wanted to, what would that level be?
Is there any amount of taxing the rich that goes too far, or is all their wealth fair game?
So where is it, dumbass? At least the
guy you're calling an idiot had the
brains to post a link.
Do you know when he said it? Where?
How about this?
And the word invent doesn't even appear in there.
In context, what he meant seems pretty clear. (although he was still stretching the truth.)
"As much as we can get; it's all the government's money anyway"
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Actually current federal defense spending is about 1/7 of revenues. Check http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/pdf/guide .pdf
Not everyone can get there. It's like musical chairs, there aren't enough 'good lives' to go around. How is the single mom who's working two or three jobs after her husband left her for another woman making bad decisions? The worker or middle-management type who gets screwed by corporate mergers or downsizing? Oh, and you US 'safety net' is a joke. If not the smallest, then close to it, in the western world. Why do I have the distinct impression of an early-30's white guy in a lexus (or maybe german?) driving past the poor part of town on his way to work, yelling at the homeless people to "get a fucking job" while remembering how nice the city was back when he was a kid living in some suburban wasteland?
Intolerant people should be shot.
And for those women of your Grandmother's age who don't have anyone who could support them? Anyhow, your Grandmother would just be dependant upon you instead of the state, the only difference for her would be concern that she's being a burden and occupying all of your free time.
Intolerant people should be shot.
I like to think of progressive taxes as easing up on the lower tax brackets rather than punishing the rich. Rather than considering the baseline to be the lowest bracket, with increase added at higher levels, consider the highest tax level (what is that in the US anyhow? I seem to recall it being 47% here in Canada) with discounts for lower brackets...
Intolerant people should be shot.
Now see, _that_ is a poll that needs an all of the above option...
Intolerant people should be shot.
So, we want elections to be like championship sports series so that the winners won't jail the losers and the losers won't riot?
Besides the arguement that the districting increases voter power is only true for votes for the underdog - it would be inversly reducing the power of votes for the favorite.
Besides, I don't trust mathematical 'theorums' that require the actual calculation of individual cases manually over 20 years to determine the tendancies. The guy sounds like a crackpot to me.
The article even pointed out the purpose of the college - to remove actual control from 'the mob'
Intolerant people should be shot.
So, everyone making less than $40K chose to get a crappy job? Gee, that's nice to know... You'd think that with enough good jobs floating around for every single poor person, the classifieds section would be a lot bigger...
Intolerant people should be shot.
This one's been done to death, Gore was misquoted and he DID play a big part in the 80's for getting federal funding for the, then academic and military, internet.
Problem is, in the Age of the Internet, you can't get away with that anymore. If you try to pander to opposing groups, one of the two sides is gonna figure out they're bein' snowed.
(Oh, wait a minute, Gore can get away with "talkin' da ebonics 2 da homiez" and "speaking white to the white folks" - changing his figures speech to suit the audience - so maybe I stand corrected. :) (In fairness, Bush likely does the same thing.)
Uh, i think the idea is that you put big taxes on people who make lots of money because WE CAN AFFORD IT! I have a new car, a new house, all kinds of gadgets and i still have enough coming in that I can go on trips all the time for fun and i'm still going to retire before i'm 50! All this while i'm I have this "burdensome tax" over my head. Sheesh, pay more so those $20k per year single woman with 3 kids can have a little more moeny to buy food with! Don't even try to tell me you are the one who is being penalized.
I think this is a great question, one I would really like to see an answer to.
Proposing a tax cut is a standard election lie. If a candidate doesn't propose a tax cut, they can forget about getting elected (see Mondale...). Once they get elected, that promise is meaningless (see Bush Sr. ...).
To which Supreme Court decision are you refering? (seriously, this isn't a flame or anything, I'm just curious)
Another way of looking at it is that the things that might be third parties in other countries are part of the two major parties in the US; whichever party can put together a winning coalition of these subgroups wins, so it comes out close to the same thing. For instance, the faction that was called "Reagan Democrats" for a while -- primarily lower-middle class urban Catholic voters, if I remember right -- was Democratic-allied for many years, Republican-allied in the 1980's, and I don't know where they stand now.
In general, the worry with 3-party parlimentary systems is that if the vote breaks 47/48/5 percent, the 5 can hold up the other 95 for whatever they can get in order to form the winning coalition. That's not obviously better than what we have now.
Nader didn't have an audience ticket; what he had was a ticket to what's called "Spin Alley", where the Dem and Repub flunkies are available for useless interviews where they tell how their guy obviously won.
I have no problem with socialism when it is by consent of all those in the socialist society. The most common example of this is the family unit. It is socialist, but by consent of all in the family.
An odd example; most family units of more than one person include children, who don't give their consent and usually claim to wish they lived in a democracy (well, I was one of three kids...)
In the past few years, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has taken a very aggressive position in approving patents on business practices and software algorithms. Taxpayer subsidies of this office have also been largely eliminated, requiring the Office to "pay their own way".
This has led to a slew of patents that should never have been granted, and never would have had the patent reviewer been familiar with the technology involved. For instance, the Amazon.com "1-click" patent is often referenced as an example of a business practice that should never have been patented. In case you were not aware, Amazon.com claims this patent covers all Internet business methods allowing customers to use "One Click" to purchase goods and services over the internet, using techniques that are obvious to those who understand how to create interactive web sites.
This is one example of a lack of quality control standards and proper understanding on the part of the USPTO regarding technology and the Internet. There are many more being awarded daily, as you can find out for yourself by doing a search for "patent" at http://www.slashdot.org/search.pl.
If elected, what are your plans, if any, for reform of the USPTO to prevent further abuse of our patent system? If you believe they are currently doing a good job and should not be reformed, how do you defend this position?
You can find many of these patent problems the subject of past slashdot discussions:
One Click Patent News
Barnes & Noble challenges Amazon 1-clic
Amazon takes round one in patent disupte
Matt Barnson
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
Both Gore and Bush are basing their dollar amounts for new projects based on very rosy best case estimates for the budjet surplus. What are the percentages various areas receive, as opposed to actual numbers, and if the surplus falls short, which items will receive the most priority and which will be axed.
They should know that he doesn't need their help! And that goes double for Bush.
A specific example of these two approaches could be the reaction to the high-profile DeCSS issue with DVDs. Should it be left alone, and force the DVD creators to come up with a better solution that is not so easy to circumvent? (leave it to evolve on its own) Do we pass laws saying that DeCSS is illegal? (legislation favoring corporations, and the current state) or do we pass laws saying that DeCSS is OK? (legislation favoring consumers)
No Laughing Allowed!
Wrong. the money is not wasted, it's just multiplied. (each dollar that is loaned can be loaned again at a smaller amount, the smaller amount depends on the federal reserve. this is called the multiplier effect.) As long as the banking system is healthy, this does not post too big of a threat to the economy. The gov cannot control people's spending habit. If the gov tries to do something dramatic, like changing the fed reserve rate, there is no doubt that the economy will immediately go to recess.
Why can't you BE A MAN and say, "OK, the government's highest tax rate is Y; but I want X, so let me go out and make X/(1+Y)."
But you can't. So instead, you just sit there and whine about tax rate.
Quit whining. Philip Glass, the master of contempo minimalist music drove a Taxi in new York City for over a decade. Was he unproductive? No. Paul Erdos, the great Mathematician whose work created the field of Graph Theory and generally regarded as the most prolifit Mathematician since Euler, had no bank account, no house, no job. Was he unproductive? No. In fact, graph theory is widely used in computer Science so he was way more productive than you. Your MickeyD drive through servers are all making 5 bucks and hour and what will happen if they all quit today?
You are reading slashdot. This forum was created by two young kids in thier early 20's. They were not making much money when they started. Just a few years ago, people would post comments like, "Rob, quit drooling at the toys and get a real job!" But were they "unproductive?" Yahoo is created by grad students in school. They weren't getting paid, were they unproductive?
You have never been down and out before, and that is why you have to whine like a loser. A true winner will never whine, even if he's making nil. Truth is, many extremely successful people have been homeless or poor. They will eventually become successful when something starts to click.
Why do you think you can measure people's intelligence and productivity with thier salary? If that was the case, then Larry Wall was not very productive when he started writing Perl because no one paid him. Linus Torvald is not even 1/100 time as productive as Ricky Martin. Did they whine about taxes? No. Because they are winners. Microsoft cannot buy these people, because they know their self worth cannot be measured with money.
Some people will never satisfy. Why can't you be thankful that you have good parents, good luck and that you have a nice paying job. You are not starving and why are you crying like a baby. You have a roof on top of you, be thankful. You have access to a computer, be thankful of that, too. Quit whinning.
You remind me of Tom Cruise in that film "Rainman." This guy got a good report card, showed it to his dad, and demand that his dad let him take his car out for a ride "because I deserve it." Then he left home and 20 years later after his father died, he "demand to have half of the estate." Because? he deserves that, too.
American's tax rate is not quite as high as that of European. If you want, you can move to Hong Kong or other extremely capitalised country.
Why can't you BE A MAN and say, "OK, the government's highest tax rate is Y; but I want X, so let me go out and make X/(1+Y)."
But you can't. So instead, you just sit there and whine about tax rate.
Philip Glass, the master of contempo minimalist music drove a Taxi in new York City for over a decade. Was he unproductive? No. Paul Erdos, the great Mathematician whose work created the field of Graph Theory and generally regarded as the most prolifit Mathematician since Euler, had no bank account, no house, no job. Was he unproductive? No. In fact, graph theory is widely used in computer Science so he was way more productive than you. Your MickeyD drive through servers are all making 5 bucks and hour and what will happen if they all quit today?
You are reading slashdot. This forum was created by two young kids in thier early 20's. They were not making much money when they started. Just a few years ago, people would post comments like, "Rob, quit drooling at the toys and get a real job!" But were they "unproductive?" Yahoo is created by grad students in school. They weren't getting paid, were they unproductive?
You have never been down and out before, and that is why you have to whine like a loser. A true winner will never whine, even if he's making nil. Truth is, many extremely successful people have been homeless or poor. They will eventually become successful when something starts to click.
Why do you think you can measure people's intelligence and productivity with thier salary? If that was the case, then Larry Wall was not very productive when he started writing Perl because no one paid him. Linus Torvald is not even 1/100 time as productive as Ricky Martin. Did they whine about taxes? No. Because they are winners. Microsoft cannot buy these people, because they know their self worth cannot be measured with money.
Some people will never satisfy. Why can't you be thankful that you have good parents, good luck and that you have a nice paying job. You are not starving and why are you crying like a baby. You have a roof on top of you, be thankful. You have access to a computer, be thankful of that, too. Quit whinning.
You remind me of Tom Cruise in that film "Rainman." This guy got a good report card, showed it to his dad, and demand that his dad let him take his car out for a ride "because I deserve it." Then he left home and 20 years later after his father died, he "demand to have half of the estate." Because? he deserves that, too.
American's tax rate is not quite as high as that of European. If you want, you can move to Hong Kong or other extremely capitalised country.
The rise of the Internet has created a new social class. This "high-tech" class is highly demanded in the labor market. In fact, there seems to be a shortage in the IT industry.
However, because there is a initial investment (a computer), children from low-income class have little chance of being introduced to the Information industry. This is a social problem because it is a waste of human resources and it magnifies inequality. What will you do about it?
Bill Hicks, the comedian I was quoting. I'm not sure who you're talking about.
--
Actually, prostitution was recently made legal, so it's not just a decriminalized leniency.
--
(Just a little insertion)
It seems to me that our national mission of today has become to "continually buy as much stuff as possible." Americans today save a much smaller percentage of their wages than in years past, so no wonder the economy is good; more is being spent. But couple the lack of savings with the unmanageable balloon that the national debt has become, and explain to the world how the United States can possibly avoid a major depression in the next 10-20 years. Do you think that either or both of the following needs to happen in your term? People need to spend less of their income, putting more into savings & investments; the nation needs to substantially reduce the principle on the national debt.
How will you, as President of the only superpower, and one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, accomplish this?
I would like to ask ALL the candidates:
Is it not true that there really is NO budget surplus? Is it not true that the dollar figures everyone is tossing around is actually the surplus in the social security fund? (true fact - I researched the "books".).
If "yes" is your answer, how do you plan on funding your new projects, tax cuts etc.. ?
If you rob social security to fund your "pet" projects, how will you fund social security, more taxes?
The Truth is a Virus!!!
but what it boils down to is we're doing better than they are, and they are jealous
Don't tell yourself that too much, or you might actually believe it.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
AND
The Commission on Presidental Debates is - like the candidates' party - bought and paid for by corporations that benefit from the status quo - building prisons for the War on Drugs, hooking people on Valium, when marijuana would be a cheaper alternative, etc.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
My question is:
Will the United States take military action against China if China attacks Taiwan?
There is only one right answer, and that is of course it is an individual right, not to be intefered with by the government in any way what so ever.
The question is, will either candidate defend the constitution and the People of these United States and do away with the utterly useless 20,000 gun laws already on the books that do not deter criminals at all, only criminalize otherwise lawabiding folks doing nothing but excercising their god given, constitution enumerated rights.
We don't really need the politicians to agree, but it does make it a whole lot easier to live in peace if they do.
Please note that the Supreme Court has ruled on this already, the government (and the police by proxy) are in no way obligated to protect you or your property, they have gone on to note that the 2nd amendment to the constitution already allows citizens to keep and bear arms for protecton.
What we need to do is to remove the 20,000 laws that are on the books that do not deter crime at all, but that do enable the criminals to ply their trade without fear of any kind of real resistance.
Interesting. Are handguns legal there? I've heard on tv that Great Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the USA. The story seemed to be blaming it on the fact that the British citizens have very restrictive gun laws, and the police force is similarly restricted.
The story was on the CBS evening news, but the first link to it that Google showed is the Christian Science Monitor.
In Indiana, the Republican and Democratic parties have set up a system in which $30 of the price for each sale of vehicle vanity plates (a $45 option) is split evenly between the two parties. This has given them each a $500,000+ financial jump on third party candidates for over 10 years (I can't remember when the sum broke the 1 mil mark, but the practice was ruled to be acceptable under the state constitution in 1984). The bureau of motor vehicles has been financially in the red for quite some time now, but neither party is even discussing the possibility of cutting their own free funding. This money goes to the Rep. and Dem. parties, btw, and not individual candidates.
My question is: How can ANY candidate not a member of the two parties currently in power realistically compete under such a system? Also, can any candidate realistically claim that the free air time for the "presidential debates" shown on the big 3 networks doesn't present the same problem on a national scale?
This is sort of related to your post but not directly. What I want to know is, why don't ALL the smaller parties get together and have their own debate? Everyone is so focused on getting Nader into the debate that they don't realize there are more than 3 candidates! This is, of course, better than thinking there are only 2 candidates ;).
Will you commit to freeing the American people from the unnecessary and unconstitutional Internal Revenue Service during your term? Why or why not?
--jbIf, for your youthful indiscretions (speaking mainly of drugs), you had spent 10, 20, or 50 years in prison, do you think you would be a better person?
I think we're getting very close to apathy Gore winning would be a sign for me that we are there.
Starting with current budget numbers:(in billions)
and assuming 6% nominal GDP growth and no
paydown of current debt.
ITEM 2000 2010
GDP: 10,000 17,909
Spending: 1,835 2,466
as % GDP: 18% 14%
Debt Service: 202 202
as % GDP: 2% 1.1%
as % Budget: 11% 8%
Principal: 3,600 3,600
as % GDP: 36% 20%
(sorry for the poor format)
These numbers are quite good, and compared to
just about any other country they are outstanding.
Also keep in mind that only about 1/3 of the debt
is owed to foreigners, the rest are treasury
obligations sold to individuals, corporations and
pension/retirement funds.
Now if that doesn't sway you consider two more
points - not necessarily compatible, but possibly.
1) The average rate paid on the debt is ~5.5%.
By paying down the debt, you are taking money
away that the government can *invest* in
various projects to improve the economic and
social well being of the country. In effect
you are saying that the return on government
projects is under 5.5%
2) By not returning the excess funds to the
taxpayers you are saying that individuals are
unable to invest this money wisely enough to
achieve a return in excess 5.5% after tax.
A final thought... much more concern should be
directed at consumer debt. It is increasing at
about a 10% annual rate, and is $1.47 trillion
or 18% of personal income, 21% of disposable
income.
This is a question for the poster, and not the candidates:
Why is it neccessary for an elementary or middle school to have faster machines than this? I work for a company that donates our obsolete equipment to community organizations (schools, churches, day-care, etc) and 99% of the machines donated over the last 18 months have been HP Vectra XU 5/90s, or Compaq Deskpro 4/66's!
What's this requirement for beefier hardware? At the educational level we're talking here, the idea should be basic familiarity with the machine, it's OS, and basic applications. A 90MHz Pentium will more than adaquately fill that need.
I live in Greene County, Tennessee, and our local high schools are over-crowded to the point where the gym, cafeteria, trailers parked outside, and any other enclosed, flat area is being used as a classroom. The average class size is over thirty. But they DO have modern PCs, and a 256k dedicated ISDN link running to a T1 shared between four schools. So I guess it balances out, huh?
Get a grip. There are far more important things to spend our educational dollars on than a faster machine from Dell that little Johnny can play quake on, run WMP, and use ICQ all at the same time.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
So women whose contraceptives happen to fail when they are in high school or college all just made a "bad life decision"? What did they do - fail to shop properly? Or someone with few qualifications thanks to being in some nowhere town with crappy education end up making a "bad career choice" as a result?
Give us a break. Maybe you got to choose how your life has unwound thus far - if so you'
re lucky. But get real. All people don't get to CHOOSE.
That's part of what (some) candidates are trying to say...But it's interesting to realize they have to keep hammering away at such a banal and obvious fact because there ARE people who simply fixate on their own personal income and taxes.
It's a big world out here; take a look around. You seem to need additional information about class in the good old US...not to mention a few pointers about the relations of workers in Mexico to their local and national governments as well as "the auto workers".
Telling phrase, "our wealth". If you know much about FDR (clearly you don't) he was no more a "socialist" than Tony Blair is.
Interesting you also make a personal claim on the Brits who founded the US. But there were "indidviduals" who couldn't live how they pleased and do what they "wanted": people who didn't own property couldn't vote, women had less rights than men and slaves certainly weren't such free & happy folk.
My girlfriend's old boss made a big deal of being a libertarian. Never met a more self-serving, sanctimonoius cuss. But his grasp of history was about the same.
Currently it seems that most people take privacy for granted. However, it seems to me that many people would like to see a more explicit privacy law that protects the privacy of individuals. It can be argued that many of the current "privacy" laws take the form of "trade secrets," "copyright," etc, so companies need not be more fully covered. The question is this: What, if any, personal privacy regulations would you support and/or push for? Would it have to balance "national security" (an often abused clause, in my opinion), and would it be as comprehensive as laws in Europe?
yours,
yours,
kbs
This debate has graced these boards so much now that it makes me sick. Who cares? Let's get to something substantial. Besides, everybody knows my Dad invented the internet.
...A twist for supporters of Federal hate-crimes legislation:
Why is it under Federal jurisdiction? The original justification for the Civil Rights Act and its ilk was that it was necessary and proper ('elastic' clause) under the 14th Amendment (equal protection) because many local jurisdictions were refusing to enforce their laws, and sometimes conspired with the criminals. This does not appear to be the case anymore.
Is there a SINGLE state or local jurisdiction today where this is a significant problem? If not, then why is it Constitutional at *all* anymore?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
a) What is your opinion on the balance of power between the three branches?
Some would argue that the executive branch has usurped legislative authority via executive orders -- will you use them as vigorously as did other recent administrations?
b) Why do you matter?
Seriously. Bills, nominally, should originate in the Congress. Before any major legislative action, like a budget, gets accepted -- a LOT of people on the Hill have to agree. Why should we care so much about the Presidency, and so little about the Congress -- so much so that the reelection rate for the latter is incredibly high?
c) Everybody seems to be talking about prescription drugs. Should these benefits take into account the frequently substantial life savings?
Right now, Mr. Gates could resign and forfeit all his retirement benefits -- should he qualify for drug assistance? It appears extremely disingenuous to talk about the elderly's low income, and yet to ignore the often significant income they should have accrued over their working years -- if memory serves, the retired may be the wealthiest sector in the country.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
yea those irresponsible teachers, making a mere 30K a year. and you assume that you have the right to have the good fortune in life (healthy, at least middle class parents; decent schools; no disabilities, disease, or mental illness). yes you have a god given right to your money, and screw everybody else. and since when are the ultra rich 'responsible'? children of the wealthy make equally 'bad life choices', but do they suffer?
nader had a ticket to the debate but was denied entrance.
according to nader, national polls have put him between 4 and 8%. also, since these polls only ask 'likely' voters, they leave out a lot of people who have never voted before (young voters) who tend to support nader (and browne somewhat). and although the poll numbers supporting nader aren't that high, the numbers in polls asking 'should third party candidates be involved in the debate?' are consistently answered yes. why should the polling criteria be used at all? why not just the electoral college rule?
What are your feelings on presidential term limits?
**Please Omit the following if this question is used**
I feel that term limits are in direct opposition to the democratic process. We pick and choose the best qualified leader and if they do a good job the first time, we have the power to keep them in office. Likewise, if they sucked, we don't vote them back in. This has weighed most heavily on my mind this year with the less then stellar canidates that we have to choose from.
www.linux-skunkworks.com
Well, I'm not a citizen of the US, but I'm,
naturally, I believe, concerned about where
is this country going. So here's my question:
What area, in your opinion, requires the most of
dedication, attention, planning, research,
development, funding etc from the public, democratic
institutions? And if it's not education and
bring-up of youth, then why do you believe you
can be a good president for this country?
Thank you.
KuroiNeko
If there were clear, irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial life capable of communicating with us, or detecting OUR existence, what would you do? Is this something that our government and the UN has a contingency for, and if so, what is that plan? Is this an area that the UN has a more clear brief to handle, or would it be allowed that each country would handle this on their own?
In so many ways, our politians don't seem to be working "FOR THE PEOPLE" anymore.
How would you as presedent change this?
and whatever your answer may be, why should we believe that you'll keep your word?
Is
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
In terms of how stable they are, I've never owned one. But I've had friends and family tell me that they tend to have more engine problems, god knows why.
I'd like to know how they intend to deal with the phenomenon of the internet, whether they plan to try to work it into current laws of taxation and representation and privacy or if it can exist as a seperate, independent animal. I don't think anybody's asked that straight up :)
Diehard
1). Why does every damn politician want to have the federal government do everything for the people. That is not the role of the government and nor should it become it's role. We do not live in a communist or socialist state, but in the land of freedom and liberty.
2). Who would maintain our country from becoming part of a global government? Globalization would destroy what our government is about and if the U.N. is a example of what globalization would be about, then may god have mercy on the U.S. with the smaller nations tearing us apart.
3). The right for us to bear arms is to protect the individual and allow for the people to throw out the corrupt government that has no longer following the constitution and the people. Unfortunely our current government treatment of land and personal rights seem to be afronted every year more and more. Why should the government fear it's citizens if it has been truly looking out for them? Is it that power brokers and big business have influenced our government to pass laws and carry out a program of action that has threatened the liberty and freedom of the individuals? Who would repeal those laws?
4). The military has been beaten up and sent around the world in pointless U.N. missions. These police actions under control of a third party that does not agree what the U.S. stands for and we should withdrawl from the organization as well as ignore their demands for changes to our government and people. We should specialize and rebuild the military's morale, since this Political correctiness has weaken our military and our society. The U.S. should do our own operation for our interests and force the rest of the world to work with us or go else where. Who would be willing to strengthen our military and prevent their use in police actions abroad or internally?
5). Politics and those who live in the arena seem to be acting against the wishes of the people very much like in ancient rome's senate. I believe that every politician should be limited in how many terms they are allowed, but with like them to be forced to have to rotate terms to prevent influence gathering over time as bad. Politicians in the U.S and abroad have proven their untrustworthiness over and over with a seeming goal of gain personal power, then truly serving the people. The entire system needs to be corrected and changed, so that the constitution and the people are served well. Who would be willing to force a radical change against corruption and abuse of the law? I am tired that the subject gets buried in the mud every year in congress.
6). Federal budgeting needs to handled properly with a tight fisted controller to ensure that funds are properly spend on what has been authorized. The departments get so much money and if they don't spend it all, then they lose the money next year. This causes huge unnecessary spending and possible one of the reasons that we so deep in the hole!! Who would be willing to change this to force that unspend money is not thrown in the wind and not returned to the people as being over taxed?
Just a few issues I have with our federal government and the lack of back boned state government that don't protect their right by the constitution and gaining anything not given to the federal government!
Howdy,
With the passing of the Digital Millinium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the passing of the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) in Virginia, the question of the purported rights of the holders of a copyright and the rights of consumers is now arising.
As an example: In the early 1980's RSA copyrighted their encryption algorithm which was then upheld by the courts. There have been many arguments that this uphelding of the RSA copyright set back the then-developing software industry by several years. Only recently did the RSA copyright expire.
On the flip side, current copyright law is what the GPL, the license under which the Linux kernel is distributed, is based on.
My question to the candidates is where do they believe the line is between the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the buyer. Some would argue that the buyer, if he or she dislikes the conditions of whatever stipulations the seller makes for purchasing the product, can simply walk away. Others would argue that the property was purchased by the buyer and therefore he or she has the right to do with it as they please.
Your insights into this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and attention.
Well, since Wicca is really just a modern invention, much like Scientology, a lot of us (most of us) don't have a lot of sympathy for it.
2000 years ago, Christianity was a modern invention. At that time Earth Mother religions were going strong and had been for many thousands of years previous. Just because wicca has been underground during YOUR lifetime doesn't mean it's the new kid on the block. And regardless of any particular religion's age or number of followers, freedom of religion exists to protect the rights of ALL citizens, not just the narrow minded and bandwagon jumpers.
That being said, I'm not Christian (in the religious sense) OR Wiccan.
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
There are some shocking human rights and sexual and racial discrimination abuses taking place in our country's jails and prison systems. Inmates are often denied proper physical or medical care. And on a pure gender or racial basis, female and/or minority inmates are often denied the same access to programs and facilities that male and/or majority inmates receive daily.
My girlfriend is an inmate in county jail right now. She is diabetic, and yet the facility feeds her totally inappropriate "diabetic" meals (high in sugars and carbohydrates) and refuse to give her proper dosages of (or the right kind of) insulin. This kind of treatment over a several month period can lead to permanent physical damage to her kidneys and circulatory system. However, whenever I place calls to the jail directly or via her lawyer, we are told that they are already "following standard policy" and "doing everything we can do". Obviously this is not the case, and the facility simply feels that they have no responsibility either to the physical state of the inmates in their "care" or to address the concerns of friends or family members in the general public.
If elected to the Presidency, what concrete steps would you take to absolutely halt the unethical human rights violations that are taking place in our country's correctional facilities?
What concrete things would you do to start forcing publicly-funded correctional facilities (among other government agencies) to live up to their responsbility to address inquiries and complaints from members of the general public without individuals having to fork out millions of dollars to bring a negligence lawsuit against the state?
Do you believe that simply because someone has committed a crime, that this means we no longer have a responsibility to provide accurate and adequate medical and physical care for that person?
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
But the difference between the non-drug examples of risk that you cited and the usage of "recreational" drugs is NECESSITY. It's necessary to drive cars and use fuel and produce energy in order to support our society and to survive within it. However, it is in no way NECESSARY to use recreational drugs.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
- constitutional amendment, if necessary, to prevent riders (or make removing them easier) on must-pass bills?
- enforcing extra-constitutional national policy on states via block grants with strings attached
- federal blue laws vs. local blue laws vs. individual liberties
- campaign finance reform (and how to deal with the court decisions that corporate contributions=1st amendment speech)
- effective enforcement of laws vs. right to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, if you're not harming anyone
- war on drugs - more of the same, or how should it be changed?
- Alan Greenspan - follow his advice on fiscal policy, or keep cutting taxes/spending at the expense of future debt? schedule for reducing national debt to sub trillion levels? don't offer a 20 year plan with all the pleasure at the beginning and pain at the end, or it will be replaced with the next such 20 year plan
...
- long-term plan for social security - raise taxes, or means-test? what is the justification for taking money from working class families and giving it to wealthy retirees?
- consumption tax vs flat-rate income tax vs progressive income tax vs corporate income tax vs capital gains tax (should income from shares of a company or bonds be sheltered at lower rates than personal income?)
- revision of patent law/policy to compensate for the glut of stifling, non-novel software/business-model patents being granted
- gun control
- abortion
- funding of basic research - what political strings attached?
- treatment of minority religious/moral beliefs; separation of church and state
- and last, but not least, foreign policy
- preferred legal scholarship/ideology of appointed federal judges (including an expected 2-4 supremes, see CNN article; which is more important - matching ideology, or competence and intellectual honesty and legal scholarship? (bonus points if the answer isn't "both")
I realize these aren't properly formed questions, but I would like to see the selected questions address these issues (and probably more I have neglected to mention), preferably without outright telling the candidates what it is we want to hear (don't make it easy for them by letting them know your turn-offs - I won't say "lie" - well, okay, I just did, but the politician will target their answers to avoid losing their audience).Do you think I should be able to choose how to educate my child?
Do you think I should be able to choose how to plan for my retirement?
Do you think I should be able to eat/ingest WHATEVER I want, even arsenic?
If not, I ask again, do you think I'm stupid, so only YOU are qualified to decide these things for me?
Many scientists no longer give the results of their research to the public even though much of the funding for the research comes in the form of a direct grant (many of which come from tax payers) and/or state/federal funding of the institution for which they work. Instead they quickly submit patents for the work allowing them to reap greater benefits for themselves, at the expense of those persons who initially funded their work (the taxpayer). Do you see this as a problem? If so, what will/can you do about it?
sorry "GORFS INTERNET LINK"leads to an expired link,an empty space.where a story may have been.
generated with god knows what spin.what matter?
he's detatched from reality far enough IMHO that
i couldnt stand to have another dem. in orfice anyway.
However this broken link rhetoric shit really
CHAPS MY NADS!waste of bandwidth!waste of skin!food tube!GET THEE TO OUTER SLACKLESSNESS!
Wait!Better yet!ELECT ME!for a $30 dollar donation to the subgenius foundation (link up by my nick^)and your vote and support(get me on your ballots)I will rid you of taxes.I will make the
federal gov't take care of itself.I will make the christian church an important part of the community(cause theyll be helping the poor when i cut all those excess programs)I will bring you SLACK!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
aren't Amtrak trains Diesel? isn't that also petrol-based?
willis/
there is no thing
what else could you want?
This guy made a damn good point -- please, roblimo, show some discretion.
willis/
there is no thing
what else could you want?
They will eventually kill themselves and the rest of us will look at what they did with their lives, decide we don't want to share their fate, and we'll throw away the fucking crack pipes and heroin needles
But what happens when they take 'us' with them by committing crimes to finance their habits, and hurting the innocent 'us' along the way?
mov ax, 13h
int 10h
mov ax, 13h
int 10h
Typical Slashdot herd mentality: All the questions moderated at 4-5 above have a heavy heavy liberal bias, with most of them being nothing other than the same old tired rhetoric and uninformed bullshit that you accuse so many of our presidential candidates and politicians of. Yet one person comes up with a fairly reasonable conservative question that I would have asked had there not been 800 posts when I first found this article and some dipshit moderators feel obligated to call this flamebait since they disagree?
Informed discussion and stuff that matters, my ass. If you morons care more about your petty little encryption than our nation's tax dollars and the national debt, no wonder nobody takes you disillusioned sheep seriously.
The idea of a Tax cut is something think is good. Yes you pay less money on your taxes. All this is doing by cutting taxes is restricting the government to less money to put into programs.
I don't feel we should be cutting taxes because we are only hurting ourselves. We want health care and a better school system but are unwilling to pay for it. And by taking a tax cut, we are putting money in our pockets that could have gone to much more important things.
I would go even so far as to increase taxes so that we can get better services from the government. You may disagree, but I think we will end up with more in the long run.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
I don't exactly like populists; I just argue that idealists have a tendency to rock the boat which isn't exactly good for those who like the status quo.
But then maybe it is time for a bit of rocking. I just wish that McCain were on the ballot; I don't think that Al gives a damn about campaign finance reform really, or even understands the danger of the excessive intrusion of corporations into politics. I think that a president who cared about the topic could (e.g.) mandate a 20yr moratorium on GMOs. (Campaign finance reform proper on the other hand can really only originate from the legislature.)
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
On a parallel note I've been trying to figure out why the Executive and Legislative branches have been so much at one another's throats for the last six years. The only reason that springs to mind is that of familiarity breeding contempt. Perhaps since the two parties have started overlapping so nearly completely in their positions (with the exception of abortion), there isn't any room left for professional courtesy.
Or perhaps we are losing our manners as a society.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Ah, then you'll probably be voting for Al or one of the third party candidates.
Personally I don't think that the office of President is very appropriate for idealists; populists can get a lot more good done, and putting an idealist at the head of the executive branch only leads to trouble. (Or at least when their idealism is driven by issues, and not e.g: honor, the net result is an executive branch that ignores the law that they are meant to enforce and spends all of its time trying to change something.)
Shrub on the other hand is very much a populist (IMHO).
Personally I think I'll vote for Nader. The guy can't win, but a decent showing will make him a much more effective demagogue so it isn't really throwing away a vote. And when it comes to demagoguery, idealism is *definitely* in.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
"Who controls the past now controls the future"
"Who controls the present now?"
"Now testify"
--
Poliglut.org: 75 Million gun owners can't be wrong
Just to take a completely different tack from the other excellent trains of thought being presented here, I would like to ask after each candidate's stance on this fundamental principle of the United States.
Where should the line, philosophically be speaking, be drawn between individuals' "Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and the responsibility of the government to maintain a safe and healthy environment for its citizens?
Rafe
V^^^^V
Rafe
Opinions expressed by the author may not actually exist in the wild.
Many citizens won't be voting in this years election, mainly because they believe that their vote does not count. How will you as president show people that their vote actually does count
Mr. Gore - Your campaign has attempted to portray you as a moderate candidate who will protect our freedoms and our prosperity. Yet through your affiliation with the PMRC, you have shown yourself to be alarmingly receptive to the imposition of censorship on artists and musicians. As the internet surpasses print, recorded, and broadcast media as the primary form of communication in our society, we face a new onslaught of assaults on our liberty by both government and non-government entities (Communications Decency Act, DMCA, RIAA vs. Napster, DeCSS, censorware requirements, and CPHack to name just a few). The constitution applies only to laws passed by congress, but the president sets the overall tone for behavior in the country. As president, what would you do to protect and preserve our basic first amendment right to freedom of speech and expression as the internet becomes the ubiquitous form of communication in our lives?
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
But corporations are people too. =)
Your website says that you would support the government by excise taxes and tariffs, but how are excise taxes and tariffs acceptable, while income taxes are not? Isn't any form of taxation a violation of the fundamental libertarian principle of noninitiation of force? Why should tariffs impede foreign trade?
Granted, a government would be difficult to maintain without taxes, but on what moral grounds would you collect taxes? For what purposes is the government allowed to collect taxes? Why is national defense a valid function of the federal government but not, say, law enforcement?
You would repeal all gun laws, but would you allow people to possess automatic guns? How about bombs? Biological weapons? Thermonuclear devices? Where do you draw the line, and why?
Daniel J. Peng
Probably not. It takes a clue to do something like that.
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
It's apparent that this country needs better parenting, values, and moral support for youths. This country needs competent parents that don't ship their kids to day care, don't beat the shit out of them, and treat them well.
As a Libertarian, I support a large tax cut, which could get many more mothers back in the home (where they belong...). The children will be better off for it, and don't think otherwise.
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
facts & figures, I would like to see hard numbers to back your claims
$var = <STDIN>
$var =~ s/\\$//;
$var = <STDIN>
$var =~ s/\\$//;
this is slashchomp
What are your views on space exploration and colonization? Namely, do you think NASA is doing a good job, and you will continue funding, or are you going to pull the plug? Would you support private enterprise expanding into space, or do you feel that space is for governments only?
Constitutionally Correct
Two simple rules:
Constitutionally Correct
That's a great idea, certainly better than my poll suggestion. The question is, who is the Hero Network that does this? BTW, were you aware than Freedom Channel already does something like this online? Not as good as TV of course, but better than nothing.
Constitutionally Correct
Phillips2000 is only the site for the current campaign. The Constitution Party site runs Apache/1.3.1.1 SSL/1.15 PHP/4.0b2.
Constitutionally Correct
(Slashdot, please read up on this before scoffing at it. There may seem funny, but they are legitimate questions. For sources read books by David Icke, the Liberty Lobby's "The Spotlight", and similar writings.)
Mr Bush, do you plan to give up helping your family traffic drugs into the United States if you become president?
Either way, do you plan to stop paying mexican drug lords for capturing U.S. Marines on border patrol?
On a side note, when was the last time you mutilated and raped a girl under the age of 14?
Finally, whose yes-man are you?
Below is a list of things which the US would like to see happen in China, either through intervention or through natural courses. (These are based on our past history with China)
Which two are the most important, and how should the US go about seeing they are implemented?
Will of any of these happen on their own? Through what means?
Lastly, what should be the overall policy towards China? Please, a definitive answer, no "proceed cautiously."
Interest rates need to be kept low because working class America borrows money to pay for homes, cars, etc. Those who are very weathly, on the otherhand, would benefit from the high rates. And although the stock market suffers when the rates go up, it does stop inflation. And inflation is Bad for people with a lot of money, but Great for people with a lot of debt.
Sadly, its the rich who make our economic policies.
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
by that logic, why have taxes at all? why just not let people decide where ALL of their money goes? i think that question answers itself
Moreover, say everybody gets this tax cut:
The wealthy : "another trip to the south pacific and a new yacht to go with it!"
The middleclass : "alright, a new big screen tv"
The poor: "well, guess I'm eating cold beans again becuase i didn't make enough money to pay taxes in the first place"
The whole reason that taxes are colleted at all just because people don't know how to (or moreso, are to selfish to) better spend their money.
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Last time i checked, we had a well regulated militia... it's called the national guard.
Oh, and if the 2nd Amendment *does* mean that the gov can't stop people from having weapons, would that mean i personally can have chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons?
The fact of the matter is that the constution clearly says that the supreme court handles matters of constituationality, not the congress. There's a reason we have seperation of powers. So when the supreme court says a gun control law violates the second amendment, that's when it does.
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
The only reason people want to pay down the debt is because they would have to pay down their debt. It's a warm-fuzzy thing.
p.s. I'm not saying it's not important, just not as important as some people seem to think.
How do you plan on cutting back special or un-needed programs so the cost of government is reduced. What means will you use to decide what gets the ax? Do you believe you can give back power to the sates and the people but still maintain good social programs?
Okay, assuming that is true, let's say that the government buys computers for anyone who wants one.
Hold up. Doesn't Nader think 'corporation' is a four-letter word? Because I can think of about five huge, multi-national (I'm just trying to push the liberals' buttons!) corporation who would die for this to happen.
What is your stand on corporate abuse, campaign reform, homelessness, human rights, hunger and poverty, labor rights, rape and domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights, separation of church and state, toxic and chemical waste, WTO IMF World Bank etc, and abuses of mulinational corporations?
This space intentionally left blank.
You are running on a virulently anti-gun platform which would, in effect, take away a freedom from otherwise law-abiding citizens. Why not push for enforcement of the already strict federal laws which cover crimes committed with firearms? The federal government has been so lax in this area that some cities (Richmond, VA and Ft. Worth, TX, to name two) have taken it upon themselves to apply federal sentencing standards to firearms-related crimes, proof that the Clinton administration has not seen fit to punish gun-carrying criminals to the fullest extent allowed by federal law.
Open Source fosters a spirit of exchange and sharing among computer users across the world. But in some cases it seems to conflict with US intellectual property and copyright law.
Do you recognize the potential that Open Source has in the high-tech US? And will you make it a priority in your administration to support the Open Source movement even when certain corporate interests may opposed it?
Thank You.
I like the idea of having 2 generals. There would be one in October. This would be the "open general" were you chose the candidate you like the most. Then in November you would vote on who you like better of the top 2 candidates. This way there is no wasted vote. I can vote for Browne, and not be worried about taking a vote away from Bush (aka anti-Gore vote) because I can vote for him a month later...
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
Right, a sudden increase (with a few years' warning to allow people to change their acts) would cause much more of an impact (duh! brainfart).
> BATTERIES ARE NOT ENERGY SOURCES
Okay... right, battery-powered cars rely on an infrastructure. But how do you propose to build this intrastructure? What's the incentive? Right now there is almost none. Something drastic needs to change to build this and other necessary infrastructures. "Solar power needs much more research as well, in order to increase efficiency." What better way to encourage research than making the product vitally important to a lot of people (and their pocketbooks)?
I'd like to see a president (err, Congress... the president can't do much without them) do anything significant about energy. Right now the government seems to care about as much as the people (which is to be expected).
Hydro is good. Which is more important to you, a few (hundred thousand, million, whatever) little fishies, or how we are going to get our energy in the future? But there's more problems to hydropower than just the fishies -- see the Grand Canyon, for example -- but in the end it's a balance that we need to weigh out.
And battery-powered cars are more efficient as far as energy usage overall anyway, because cars give off most of the energy in the gas as heat, using only a little for actual work (I saw a 25% figure somewhere once), whereas power companies can, and have price incentives to, utilize a lot more of the energy in the fuel, which is much more efficient.
1) The War on Drugs is a failure. What kind of drug policy would your administration articulate? 2) Is there really a budget surplus? 3) Should the United States be the world's policeman? What is the proper function for the defensive forces of the U.S.? 4) Would you make government smaller or bigger? How? 5) What is your position on tax relief (reducing or completely eliminating income taxes)?
Then you are in complete agreement with Al Gore... at least the old 1990s Al Gore. Just read his book _Earth in the Balance_.
Recently, he and Clinton have been blaming the oil companies for fixing high prices, when it has been Gore's stated goal to raise gas prices. Of course, we have no idea which Al Gore we will have if he is elected - probably both of the above and then some.
I mentioned that Gore Sr was Oxy's VP, but guess who the president was? Armand Hammer, the founder of the Communist Party and close friend of Joseph Stalin! (Free Republic)
Anybody still want to vote for Gore? Wait, there's more!
Last year, greedy Gore wanted Oxy to drill for oil in the jungles of Colombia, despite protests by the U'wa People who live there. Here is the Rainforest Action Network's anti-Gore/Oxy campaign.
I don't want the government to give me anything! Let me keep my money and I won't ask for anything. You whining pansies , if you want something go get it yourself. The government's responsibility is to protect your ability to get what you want.
I don't understand why some slashdotters want to be slaves (dependents) of the government. I don't want health care, medicare, social security, or anything else. Just let me keep 100% of MY money, you &*#@^ bureaucrat thieves!!! You take my money and give it to someone else...*enflamed* This practice is unjust, unfair, and immoral!
If we could keep our money we wouldn't need or want any handouts. Why do you people LIKE having strings attached to your well-being? These are like Microsoft EULAs for your life. And you say what can the government do for us?? All I want is a military to protect us so we can go about our business without worrying about foreign attacks. Let me keep my money, my guns, my religion, my land, and my FREEDOM! I don't want anything from you so get off my back and get out of my way!
One more thing... Most slashdotters are among the most affluent people in the richest country in the history of the world... and you cry "What is the government gonna do for us? *snivel*" Hasn't this country provided you with enough already? Words that come to mind: selfish, childish, ungrateful, greedy.
18th Century America: "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country." - Captain Nathan Hale of the Continental Army
19th Century America: "The State, it cannot be too often repeated, does nothing and can give nothing which it does not take from somebody" - William Sumner
20th Century America: "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." - JFK
21st Century America: "what goodies do you have for meee? it's my g0d given unalienababble right to have a Lexus with a 100 DVD changer and quad Athlons in every room of my house..." - spoiled geeks
But why the hell does he think republicans in general (and Reagan in particular) are saintly?
Republicans protect our liberties and our ability to prosper. Democrats usurp our liberties under the guise of "protection" and seek to equalize everyone's wealth with confiscatory taxes until we all live like Russian peasants -- equality, security, misery.
Reagan is responsible for the US's current prosperity. Reagan's tax cuts allowed American citizens (consumers and investors) and companies (suppliers) to keep, and hence, spend more of their money. This re-investment in the economy, coupled with the R&D investment in technology during the 60s, 70s, and 80s, has provided the current administration with today's great economy.
In general, taxes hurt the economy because they reduce the amount of money circulating in the economy. The government sucks out and consumes our wealth like a leech, but produces nothing in return. Every dollar spent by the government is a net loss to the economy. Reagan let us keep more of our money, thereby, growing the economy. Coincidentally, the bigger the economy, the more revenue the government gets from taxes. This allows tax rates to be lowered without reducing services. It is a paradox that the greater the tax CUTS, the more money the government receives. Attempting to increase the government's revenue by increasing taxes is a futile, vicious cycle that results in a poorer nation and a desperate, tyrannical government.
When you take money away from people and corporations (i.e. the wealth creators) they
- make less - income tax
- produce/spend less - sales tax
- invest less - capital gains tax
- inherit less - inheritance tax
etc., etc., etc. so the government makes less too.doubleplus clueful
Do you feel that the Electoral College is still a necassary component for Presidential elections? If so, please explain. If not, when would we see it removed from the Constitution if you were elected?
Do you believe we should protect the rainforest? Do you believe that spraying Columbia's rainforest with herbicide is counter-productive? Do believe that we have started an un-win-able Vietnam War in Columbia?
Do you support the International Criminal court in theory or in practice?
Do you support legislation intended to force schools to filter their internet access? If so, then describe one solution that you would approve. What blocking strategy would you use?
I would ask the candidates: Given the astonishing pace of technology in recent years, how would you propose updating our legal institutions, legislative, judicial and adversarial (lawyers) to cope with the effects of new technology on society? Some examples of important issues: (1) Freedom of speech vs pervasive encryption, anonomous email, controversial web content. (2) Property rights as applied to digital content. What is "publishing", "fair use", and where/who/how are royalties due. Does the Digital Millenium Copyright Act tilt the balance too far toward the corporation and away from the artist (now "for hire" by default) and the consumer (now a "licensee", not an owner). (3) How should the patent system be reformed to eliminate patents on obvious processes. Contrary to the purpose of patents, that type of patent inhibits trade and industry (Amazon's "single click", for example)?
The violence in the mideast has been disproportionate with most of the victims being arabs. How much overreaction is admissiable for an ally, and how valuable are israel/palestine as seperate religous states as opposed to pressuring them into becoming a state with no overbearing religon. (yes i know i religonless state in the mideast is far from being an easy possiblility)
A note, the only answer to the last part of this questions is "I am legally bound not to intefere."
Something many modern Americans don't understand is that we aren't a Kingdom and the pres. isn't king. The framers of the consitution udnerstood that too much pwoer in any one set of ahnds is abd and set up three **seperate but equal** bodies in our government. The Legislative branch (congress/senate), The Excutive branch (white house), and the Judicial branch (the Justice Dept and the courts.)
It is a high crime for the president to attempt to directly interfere with the functioning of the other two branches. The ONLY control the president has over the courts is the chance to propose justices on the federal level. Those proposals still have to be ratified by congress AND that Judge, once in position, has no responsability to the other two branches.
Keep in mind that Judge Jackson was considered "highly conservative" and was proposed for the office by Ronald Reagan. Judge's duites are to the law, NOT to politics and a great many of the supreame court Justices that have ended up handing down the most "liberal" conclusions we're considered conservative appointees.
Is it the responsibility of the government to protect "stupid people" (I do not mean the mentally disabled.) from themselves? Yes or No.
Better question: Should economic entities have greater rights them individuals? Yes or No.
i'm high at this moment and i can say of the few times i drove(very few) i actually drove with the same sense i usually do. if anything i was more freaked out about doing it perfectly and did it better. its not like a chris farley movie where you get all slow and stuff(whle you do actually feel slower, you learn to control it after about 2 times smoking). so when i go the speed limit of 45 it just feels like i'm going fast instead of feeling normal at 10. so many bad assumptions about weed it saddens me. i think i may move to holland or seattle someday but still can't decide which would be better. lol
i was gonna write this huge reply to this but i actually got high about 15 minutes before i read the article and am having trouble following my train of thought long enough to write it down. lol
haha. you are a funny guy. i find a person who anonymously calls somebody a loser based on something they do for fun to be just as much of a loser. especially when it has absolutely no impact on them(and no, it doesn't. i do it in the privacy of my own home and never bug anybody.)
Exactly. If any of you have gone to "W"'s web site and read his stand on the issues, you'll know that this is a very appropriate, timely question. George W. plans on establishing a cabinet position for matters of faith. It is my belief that this position, if filled by a Bush appointee, would be strongly Christian-centric, promoting Bush's idea of morality, Bush's idea of Christianity, Bush's idea of religion.
Now, I'm not denouncing typically-Christian values (whatever you may consider them to be)...my wife is on the ordination path in the Methodist Church, after all! So, obviously, I have some tolerance for "Christian values". But I really don't feel that such a post belongs in government. Since it would be virtually impossible to manage such a position in an unbiased manner, government should not be involved in promoting religion.
The question is a valid one and, unfortunately, looks like it is going to be glossed over in this lovely forum of ours.
(and just for the record, I know it sounds from this post that I probably back Gore, but I don't. Frankly, as a person, I like Bush more, but his conservatism frightens me. I really don't back any of the candidates - none have impressed me to this point)
The national debt is not part of the money supply. You are completely wrong. A loan from one member of the public to another mediated by a bank does -- as you say -- increase the money supply. But a loan from the public to the government (e.g. a treasury bond) does not. Money supply is essentially cash, various types of checking and savings accounts, and perhaps short term securities (I'm being vague because there are several definitions) held by the public. When the government pays off debt, they give cash to a member of the public (increasing the money supply) in exchange for a treasury bond.
Spending the surplus paying down the deficit has precisely the same effect on the money supply as a tax cut. To pay down the deficit, the government buys treasury bonds in the open market -- or forgoes new issuance. The effect on the amount of cash in circulation is identical.
The questions that went to the Carnivore reviewers were riddled with similar and repetive questions. Is there some way you can audit the questions without taking the meat out of them?
Nate
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Given the exponential growth of business done via the 'net, do you support keeping internet transactions tax-free? If so, how do you propose to recover the lost tax revenue as more businesses move to this new tax-free medium? If not, how should the difficult problem of taxing interstate and international purchases on the 'net be overcome?
With the current trend of NASA going the way of every other government bureaucracy (bigger and costlier), what would you do to allow corporations to start in the space race as Japan has? Isn't that the easiest way to ensure that our science continues to grow into a competitive and first rate entity?
-pf
Make affiliate bucks
Do you support our country's current procedure for holding presidential elections? If so, could you explain why heavily skewing the results toward the two major-party candidates is beneficial? If not, how would you like to see election laws changed?
Slash has nothing to do with Slashdot.
I typed"more people opposed than against" where I meant "more people opposed than in favor"
--
The mathematical analysis is an interesting read, but how would you rationalize the fact that a candidate can be elected president even when there are more people opposed to the candidate than people that are for him/her.
The article you linked to pointed out that Clinton had less than 50% of the popular vote in 1992. This means that more people were against Clinton than for him.
--
I understand that the other candidates got even less votes, but that still doesn't change the fact that there were more people opposed than against.
A runoff election or something might be used to narrow down candidates and eventually arrive at a winner. This might not be desirable though, since it would make the whole election process longer and more difficult to carry out.
--
How would a world work where everyone made the same "good life decisions" as you have. Who would be the waitress?
If someone has to be the waitress, then being a waitress needs to be a job with which a person can support themselves. Either she must be paid more, increasing your Restaurant costs, or she must recieve some form of additional support from society.
I do not claim that the latter is the better choice, I simply postulate that in either case, it would be the people with a higher standard of living who would support this hypothetical waitress, either through higher taxation or through higher "lifestyle costs".
You have imagined a world where your taxes are decreased, and the waitress gets no asssistance (and probably pays the same tax rate as yourself, just to be "fair"), yet would you consider it reasonable to pay 2-3 times as much for a meal at a restaurant?
Or, you have imagined a world where there are no waitresses. Perhaps it will be your manservant who feeds you in this scenario.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
To all:
What is your plan to pay down the debt? Many have said that they will be able to work with Congress. Bah! How will you be albe to stand up to Congress trying to spend more instead of paying down the debt? Will you be willing to shut down the government to prevent Congress from spending?
Thanks,
Poiu
---
---
"Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that."
Why there are laws and regulations that are targeted against or in favor of some religion groups? Do you feel this as problem? What are you and your party going to do against it?
In other words, how much in your opinion should government affect minor (non-Christian) religions by accepting or supporting laws that propagate some (Christian) moral values and inhibit other sets or subsets of moral values?
Don't you think that accepting of such laws will severly harm all moral values in the nation since laws are trying hard to replace (, dictate and enforce) moral values to people?
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
The people on your ballot in your state will vary because in order to be put on the ballot, the candidate must get a cetrain requisite number of signatures (kinda like a petition) of residents of that state. In states where a candidate does not have much support and therefore would not win the state anyway, the candidate tends to not focus so much on a losing battle to get signatures.
Hope that helps.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
I agree, the government shouldn't be involved with welfare, but come on think about this statement. Just because someone makes less money than you and may not be as financially sound as you, doesn't mean they're unproductive.
Do you have a source for any of this information? If you look at drug library you can find a wealth of information that does not support your claims. For example your main claim that alcohol consumption is currently lower because of a long lasting effect of prohibition is clearly false. Based on data from the U.S. Alcohol Epidemiologic Data Reference Manual which was published by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Service in 1985, in 1916-19 (pre-prohibition) the average legal alcohol drinker consumed 1.96 gallons of ethanol (this includes all types of alcohol) per year. In 1983 (the last year of statistics) that number was 2.690.
If you check out the reference you'll find the rest of your claims are also disputed.
Chris Mesterharm
Everybody wants affordable housing, but nobody wants a "housing project" in their neighborhood. There are many concerns about the perceived failure of previous government housing projects and their much publicized faults.
What specifically do you intend to do that would cause the supply of homes for the non-rich to increase in a healthy fashion, and why do you think no-body has done it yet? If you think somebody has, please give a specific example of a plan or project you can document the success of.
Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!
What will you do to restore democracy in America?
A cynic might suggest that the mere act of running for the job should be enough to disqualify you; what sane person would want it?
What makes you get up in the morning and say "I am the person who should do this job. I should be President"?
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
Can you say something nice about your major opponent, whoever you perceive him to be? If you could not be President for whatever reason, which of the other candidates would you prefer to win?
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
The Constitution strictly limits the law-making power of the Congress. One way the Congress gets around this is to over-tax citizens, then offer to return some money to the states if the states will make the laws that are prohibited to Congress. Will the candidate defend the Constitution by vetoing these bills?
1. Do you think it's about time to have the budget poured over by an unbiased third party that can REALLY cut out all the fat so that a tax cut (which is deserved) can be had by all without any debate? 2. There is abundant evidence that supports that the founding fathers wished to create a religion free government, knowing the damage that a theocracy can have. What will you do to maintain the current seperation of church and state?
Do you support hate crime legislation? If so, how do you defend such an openly racist policy? Explain how you can put the value of one person's life over that of another's based solely upon the color of the attacker and the victim.
I got curious after reading the statement that the Texas Constitution disallows athiests from being citizens of the state. I couldn't find anything specifically to that effect (no more than on the Federal level), but did find this: The Texas Constitution Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. HOW is this even close to being legal?!?!?!?!?!? Yes, I'm an Athiest. No, I don't live in Texas. (SC, smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt).
It is not the job of the government, nor should it be to take care of us. Should the government help out temporarily in dire situations, sure. But why should I give the government my money for them to choose my health care and education when I can do that myself and make these decisions myself? When was the last time the government was better able to spend money than the people that earned it? Not that it's relevant, if I make the money, I should be able to spend it however I want to. Income taxes were instituted as a TEMPORARY measure to fund a war. That war is over. Income taxes should go away. I think there should be a law (and I'm not a fan of new laws either) that states that any new tax must be earmarked for a specific purpose. Also, once that purpose has been fulfilled, the tax should have to go away. Then we don't have things like the phone tax that helped to fund the Spanish American War hanging around until the year 2000. Giving the government more money does NOT mean better services, it usually means more waste. Look at the educational system. We spend significantly more per student on education now than we EVER have and most would agree that the educational system is in the toilet right now (especially here in SC). The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It is, therefore, insane to continue spending more money on education. If you really think taxes should be raised, why not just go the whole way down that road and send the government your entire check and let them take care of you. It worked so well in the SOviet Union.
I see lots of comments about each. Lets think about this. Part of the oath for military service is to defend the Constitution(i.e. the people, not the document) against ALL enemies, foriegn, AND DOMESTIC. Yet here we are, fighting over oil, (read, yesterday's energy source) when our innocent citizens are being oppressed by drug dealers, and often being killed, some slowly with the drugs they sell, and others quickly with thier guns. Entire neighborhoods are being wiped out by this cancer on our nation. It is killing the U.S. as surely as any cancer. My point is, it is time (past time, you are late!) to send the troops in and truly FIGHT this war. Whoo, the thought sends shivers doesn't it? I don't want trained warriors in the streets of my neighborhood, either. But trained warriors are killing our children with drugs RIGHT NOW. Sometimes, Radiation treatment is ineffective against cancer. This time, the cutsie little "War on Drugs" is doing NOTHING AT ALL to cure the disease. All its doing is controlling a symptom, public perception. At this time, the only option available to save this country from self-destruction is a surgical operation. Remove the cancer from our streets. Kill all the dealers with a swift death. Even if it is mom and dad. Even if it is your own children dealing. Cleanse this country.
I will not lie: I fear such a thing. Noone likes war. It is an ugly business.
My question then is this: How many hours after you are elected before you declare officially the state of national emergency we are in and do something about it? Send in the troops? Allow them to fulfill the oath they swore? This makes it a tough issue, when it's laid on the line doesn't it? You'd be known as the President that declared war on the U.S. streets. But which of you is going to truly stand up to the greatest enemy America has? Only the bravest of you. That one will have my vote.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
Candidates,
Please give the (1)name, and in your opinion the (2)greatest accomplishment (3)action you are most ashamed with, of your largest financial backer to your campaign.
(yes, that is my question)
Why do you, Al Gore and George W, decide not to allow 3rd party canidates into the Presidential Debates? Such as Ralph Nader. A canidate has absolutely no chance at the election unless he recieves equal media attention. How do you feel you should rectify this?
huh?
When you compare Amsterdam to other Cities in Holland, and some in Belgium, then I'm afraid it is a joke. Also, let me clear up a few points you made. I'm not puritanical in the least, and I am certainly not a tourist.
Just because you approve of something (or don't disapprove of it) doesn't mean that you should want to see it everywhere. I like heavyweight boxing, but would also be the first one to shit myself if a spontaneous boxing match broke out in front of me at the railway station.
I've lived in The Netherlands for 5 years, and Belgium for 3 years before that, which kind of rules out the tourist thing, and I've seen many more Dutch Cities that Amsterdam. A trip to Utrecht, Haarlem, Maastricht, or any one of a number of other cities and towns would certainly back up my opinion that Amsterdam is a toilet.
I must admit though, I do like the idea that you seemed surprised that someone in a coffeshop would be friendly. It's impossible to be anything other than friendly after a few joints (if you rule out the being sick option, that is).
Like Bill Hicks said, "When a fight breaks out at a football match you know it's alcohol that's causing it, because with pot, it's a physical impossibility. You would just get the following; 'Hey Buddy!' 'Hey What?' 'Hey' 'Hey'" And one more thing; I'm not from a place as intolerant as America, and I've never been there, so I couldn't tell you the difference between someone from there and me.
Find funky gifts
I stand corrected.
Find funky gifts
Marijuana is NOT legal in Holland. Once again for the slower ones at the back. Marijuana is NOT legal in Holland.
It is decriminalised. This means that while not legal, people caught using it will not be prosecuted, and licensed traders can supply it. Being decriminalised, however, means that it can be made fully illegal in an instant, without consulting parliamant, the Queen or the public.
Also, while you don't see a nation overrun with potheads, you do see fairly large sections of Amsterdam full of hash bars, piss, and hookers (Holland other famous leniency). This makes this once beautiful city little more than a joke. It also means that while not many Dutch people are potheads, the majority of tourists go to The Netherlands for only one reason.
Find funky gifts
God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
I found this interesting little piece between Nader and one of Al Gore's advisors. It's sheds some interesting light on Nader's position; I think many people here would be interested in hearing it. Vote Nader!
Mr. Nader,
You have stated that you believe that people in the United States have a right to the use of the Internet.
Okay, assuming that is true, let's say that the government buys computers for anyone who wants one. It would take almost no time for someone to complain about the content available out on the Internet.
So then the Government says, "Hey, we bought those computers, so we now have the right to regulate what can appear on them."
How do you propose we keep this from happening?
-----
"You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."
How are you going to deal with all of the pressures of big businesses trying to make you make the decisions they want? How are you going to make people to trust you?
dnnrly
This is a great question for all the candidates. Very revealing in terms of overall political values, you need cajones to answer it, and there doesn't seem to be any way to pussyfoot around it.
-Erik
Among others, we already have these threads:
The main problem I have with these questions is that they are too narrow, too confrontational, and seem to presume what the proper position on gun control is.
I would like to see the candidates answer my version instead, because it cuts directly to what is the heart of the matter. That is, whether or not people truly have a "right" (in the strict constitutional sense) to bear arms.
I believe that knowing how a president answers this question is more important than knowing where they stand on any individual gun control measures.
In order to put all the jokes to rest here at Slashdot I would like to give Al Gore a chance to give an honest account of what he sees as his real involvement in the genesis of the internet.
Yes. They choose to have intercourse when they weren't prepared to deal with all the possible consequences in full... IIRC, the primary reason for contraceptive failure is improper use; so again, there's another incidence of a "bad life decision" - deciding to have intercourse with a contraceptive, without bothering to learn how to use a contraceptive properly.
It takes two to tango ;-) Ever notice how it's usually the woman who's expected to "deal with the consequences"?
My point is people who don't make as much as us aren't necessarily "unproductive citizens who have made bad life decisions." I don't care what automakers make or how many babies people want to have. I just can't stand someone who is obviously prejudiced against blue-collared workers getting moderated up as being "insightful." There should be a moderator label for "snobby."
Why should young americans who are conserned about technology related issues and the governments role/possition on them vote for you?
I have been asked by many people the reasoning behind funding basic research
while people in the U.S. are homeless or hungry. How do you justify budgeting the NSF
(National Science Foundation) when many people are in need? Is there a continued need
for public funding of basic research?
(By basic research, I mean fundamental particle research at leading-edge
accelerator labs, or theoretical solid-state physics research.
Research that may never end up bolstering the economy, or providing jobs,
but will aid in human understanding of Nature.)
nordman.
"A rolling stone gathers momentum."
"I suppose you think that's air your breathing?" -Morpheus
Rummaging through "Thomas" (The US Legislative website), I found a couple of instances of bills to eliminate the electoral collage, but it looks like they never even got out of committee. No doubt the representatives from lopsided states didn't want to encourage any other parties to get out the vote.
The other problem with the electoral college is the speed at which information travels today. The eastern polls close long before the western polls, and it is possible that voters watching the tube in the western states won't vote once they see the results from the east. The electoral college seems to have been designed around the pony express. Now that we get information instantly from coast to coast, its time to go to a popular vote.
As to Prohibition being effective, are you saying that all other countries have either never decreased their drinking levels or that the US was the lead nation in alcohol-related problems? From what I understand, US was the only country ( barring some Muslim nations ) to actually pass a law banning alcohol for consumption.
Does this imply that everyone else was wrong and the US is the only country that knew what it's doing? I highly doubt that.
Thank you for your intelligent reply, however :)
-----
This is SO a troll
Explain to me what a pothead would be doing in an emergency room. Extreme munchies? Bumped head on monitor? Bad vibes, man?
Pothead in hospital: Dude, you have to help me! I have this thing... and... oh look, jello.
Are our hospitals right now overflowing with drunk drivers, people with cirossis (sp?) of the liver and alcohol poisoning? Or are those just a few idiots who can't handle alcohol responsibly?
Hey, why don't we ban alcohol, since it's responsible for SO many more deaths than weed is ( 0 roughly )? Oh yeah, cuz there's a) a huge industry built around it and b) you idiots tried that once, and ended up smuggling alcohol from up here ( Canada ) and fostering a ton of organized crime ( like, say, the organized crime that feeds on illegal drug trade ).
-----
As far as I see it (read IMHO) the USA owns the World Trade Organisation anyway.
This talk of 'wasted votes' always makes me uneasy. Isn't it really un-democratic (if not stupid) when people try to 'vote for the winner' ?
Ok, few things. The "deficit" is just the amount the government spends over the amount it brings in. What you are saying is, the government should keep the money in the treasury.
::grandious gesturing::, we put a fraction of the budget surplus into the SSI trust fund and we are now saving Social Security! So you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the saying goes. If they would leave the money in the trust, and live with the fact that we still have a budget deficit, there would be no need to save Social Security, by robbing it blind.
I think you probably meant the national debt. Problem, those trillions of dollars of national debt are, gasp, owed to ourselves. The national debt is, amongst other things, money that was borrowed by the government from citizens like you and me who bought us gov securities. The US owes only a trifling amount of foreign "real" debt. Paying off the national debt is the same as issuing a tax refund/cut. The only difference is, you are cheating your citizens out of earned interest by issuing mandatory buy backs of national gov securities.
Besides, as another poster mentioned, there is no surplus. The surplus is creative accounting with SSI trust fund surplus funds. I laughed when I heard Clinton's surplus plan. Ok, we take the SSI surplus and add it to the budget, and whoosh, we have a small budget surplus. Then,
Here's an idea though. In 7 years you can not only balance the budget, but achieve a real surplus. Quite simple: one agency, one mission. No more agency overlap and duplication of effort. The Dept. of Agriculture could be cut by more than half saving billions of dollars and not affect the current programs to what few farmers we have left, for example. Second, a moratorium on all new gov. real estate or furnishing construction. You laugh, but the gov. wastes billions a year on furniture. And decorations. Like Gingrich's gold leaf stenciling in his office when he became Speaker. Third: cut the gov. bureaucracy by half, by attrition (dont hire new civil servants except when necessary for vital positions), in seven years. All told you would balance the budget and come up with a real, that is via double entry acct. (imagine that), surplus.
Derek
A tax cut won't inject more money into the economy, the money will just be spent differently.
What does the government do with your money? Save it? No, it spends it. Same with consumers.
The U.S. savings rate is -0.04%. We are spending more than we are making. I'd like to think that a tax cut would allow Americans to save, especially with the high interest rates but we'd just spend it.
Back to my point, a tax cut doesn't directly undermine what Alan Greenspan is trying to do. Whether the government or consumer spends the money, the bottom line is the money is spent. A tax cut has an indirect effect on the amount of money, but no direct one.
If you are worried about the amount of money, one of the reasons for our boom is foreign investors wanting $'s. The Dollar is the currency of choice right now. Until that changes it will be hard to cap inflation.
I do agree with you though. The money should be used to pay off the debt. But consumers need to do their part. Until consumers learn to save, the debt won't go down.
National Debt = Debt Held by the Government + Debt Held by the Public
That Negative savings rate doesn't help.
September 13, 2000 the NATIONAL DEBT was $5,685,088,778,465.03
Interest Payments are over $350 BILLION a year. Ouch.
When you backed up Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky joke. The man committed a felony. Are we to understand that you will protect the office above and beyond any commitment to the public?
You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco
Can you say "NAZI"? I think so. Forced military service service is no different than forced slave labor. It's a poll tax. It's fascist. It's a lot of bad things.
Wow! I actually completely agree with this. I had to take drug tests when simply *applying* for positions where I *might* be asked to do government work. I actually like this idea quite a lot. I am guessing that this is already the case, and if so, then I would like full disclosure of test results. If not, it should go into effect immediately! In other news, in reading around researching what to ask, I found the following amendment to the constitution to be nearly hilarious: AMENDMENT XXVI Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971. Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment. Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
- Harry knocks up Sally. Sally wants to have an abortion. Harry gets a court order preventing this abortion. Sally smokes like a chimney throughout her pregnancy, and Harry's son is born premature and with no lungs or brain.
- Harry knocks up Sally. Sally wants to carry the baby. Harry gets a court order to force Sally to have an abortion. Sally, not believing in abortion, spends the remainder of her days as a nun, unable to reconcile her religion with having had a doctor kill her baby.
Definately we have a TON of problems in the US, not the least of it is poor sex education. There is a fundamental lack of sexual responsibility. I don't have any kind of moral problem with people having as much sex as they want with whomever they want. But before you have sex with someone, find out what they would want to do were they to get pregnant. If you don't like what they have to say, find someone else to have sex with. Have a nice day... as usual I never can say exactly what I mean.The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
Slashdot Gods:
I must agree on this topic, I hope it is included in the questions list. This sums up a majority of the questions, plus we will not receive any BS answer if they do not explain their reasoning.
Ever need an online dictionary?
Why won't you go onto the O'Reilly Factor?
This concept originally came from my father... he mentioned it to me once in idle conversation, and I thought it was a rather interesting concept.
Eliminate all income tax. Make all of the government income in sales tax. Tax luxuries at a higher rate. Place no tax on investment or basic food supplies. The more nessisary it is, the lower the tax; the less nessisary, the higher the tax. This would change the situation that we have now, where a family living off a 40,000/y income is not half as easy as living off an 80,000/y income, but much much less, due to the fact that most of the first 40,000 goes to nessesities, while most of the latter goes to luxuries; thus, the 80,000 income, as we currently have it, gets, maybee, 10 times the money spent luxuries as the 40,000 income. If taxes are scaled according to "luxury" and income tax abolished, I think it would really help even out social situations, but still reward hard workers (hence, capitalism), and encourage investment into the economy. And be a lot simpler than "tax brackets" and more fair than the flat tax to the poor.
- Rei
If a tree falls in the forest and no engineer observes it, does it have a drag coefficient?
Sincerely
former CPL USMC
all persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. - Kurt Vonnegut
No, but crackheads are a dime a dozen.
1) Would the candidate who made the reference (Al Gore) please clarify what exactly "Cultural Pollution" is.
2) Would all the candidates state their view of the role of government in the raising of the children of this country vs. that of their parents.
Much of the hot air being wasted on this topic is, once again, being done "for the children" (tm). Many parents seem to think, or at least the candidates seem to think that parents think, that it is the job of the government to raise their children. IMO if people choose to become parents, they should accept the responsibility of raising those children themselves. They should not let the Magical Talking Box, the Electrical Adding Machine, or godforbid the US Government do it for them.
"Tu stultus est" -The Onion motto
The images of Democratic and Republican are carefully constructed so as to appeal to voters. Statements and speeches are crafted so as to inspire without taking a position; stating concrete intentions means alienating voters. Candidates and leaders require weekends to carefully come up with non-incriminating answers like, "I smoked but did not inhale." A politicians intentions have to be hidden, and then "interpreted" by political analysts. Apparently a "thousand points of light" meant that the Bush wanted to cut funding to social programs, hoping individuals and volunteer groups would pick up the slack. Is this the democracy that the Founding Fathers had envisioned? Do you feel that this watered-down version of democracy is of any value any longer?
You would be correct if this was a zero sum gain system which it is not. Kennedy (FJK) Economics clearly has shown that money returned to those who make will will reinvest it making a strong economy. Reagan who used Kennedy's fiscal planning during the 80's had a much stronger economic growth % then what we have seen in the 90's (guess it helps not having the economy so closely tied to the NYSE). Problem Reagan had, the US Congress was controlled by those who spent money faster then it was being confiscated and spead up deficit spending. If you take a look at US Government's revenue from Reagan years, you will see that revenues nearly doubled under administration because we had tax cuts and high growth, yet with low inflation.
To answer your question, yes you can pay down the house morgage faster then the note requires or you can plow that extra money into investments that generates more money. If I can double my revenue via different revenue streams, how worried should I be when I was paying the morgage at half the revenue?
For those who haven't seen it, the interview is available on the Comedy Central web site. Or just click here.
The military own the freeways... (serious!)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
If every state does this, then there is no point at all in having a electoral system. Might as well just have direct votes.
Who are your top 3 choices to appoint as supreme court justices, and why?
Thanks,
garc
Would it be possible to engineer an "Open-Source" government with todays communications technology, where people could collaborate on social programs, directly vote on budget issues and the like, and participate as individuals? How could the difficulties of the "Digital Divide" and thus, uneven access to government participation, be overcome? Would this indeed lead to the most effective possible government emerging in an evolutionary fashion, as in software?
"Why do you think you can measure people's intelligence and productivity with thier salary? If that was the case, then Larry Wall was not very productive when he started writing Perl because no one paid him. Linus Torvald is not even 1/100 time as productive as Ricky Martin. Did they whine about taxes? No. Because they are winners. Microsoft cannot buy these people, because they know their self worth cannot be measured with money."
For that matter, even Billy-boy himself lived on a shoestring when Microsoft was in its infancy, and they were trying to peddle BASIC for the Altair
Pine produces about 1/4 as much pulp per acre as Industrial Hemp.
And the blossoms on Industrial Hemp do not contain THC.
1. Does an American Citizen own his/her self - mind, body, and spirit - or are we owned by the government? Yes or No please.
2. Can an American Citizen claim for him/her self, any right not specifically abridged by the Constitution, so long as the right they choose to exercise does not infringe upon the rights of others? Yes or No please.
These issues may seem simple - but the various political factions appear to have very different beliefs.
Consider whether a person does or does not own their body and mind - for lack of a better word - their "being". If a person owns their own being, then government intrusion into things like abortion, assisted suicide, drug use, etc. would be viewed differently than if the government owns us. At this time, we seem to have a mixture of the two beliefs - we own part of our lives and the government owns part. (I profoundly believe that the government is not entitled to even one second of my life, except that I agree to give up through representative taxation for specific services.)
The practice of using taxation for social engineering - attempting to force behavior modification by demanding pieces of our lives - would certainly be curtailed if the government drones quit believing they owned us.
If the candidates would give answers to these questions, it would be much easier to understand their positions on most other issues.
"Reality is independent from perception." - RDH
Um... what kind of bad crack are you on? The chances of being harmed by terrorists in this country is far less than that of being killed by lightning. When was the last time you heard of a terrorist attack on the United States (aside from nutso militia punks)? And the reason other countries dislike us is because we're doing better than they are economically... they can say whatever they want - but what it boils down to is we're doing better than they are, and they are jealous.
How do you define Free Speech? How will you protect it? I am especially interested in your commentary on the deCSS case (see this article and visit this gallery) - do you support the MPAA in their lawsuit? are you concerned about the effects on free speech that might result?
if you can't get to WhiteHouse.gov, there's always WhiteHouse.com...
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
ok - this is unrelated to the thread under discussion, but you can blame my relative infrequence posting to slashdot... in particular i read at mod +4 and couldnt find abortion mentioned, so i did a search and this was one of the 10 or so posts that came up... the question is: what is your position on abortion? simple enough, but if the candidate actually decides to answer with more than a for/against - we could ask for clarification... in particular, (if you have never needed an abortion, be thankful - but this is from my own experience) how do you protect the PRIVACY of the person requesting the abortion? privacy is always a hot-topic among /.-ers (myself included), but it comes up CRITICALLY when dealing with subjects that are contested politically. most "revolutions" start with semi-private communications that eventually become spearheaded to non-anonymity. if we are going to have anything more than our current 2-party system, then we need a "revolution" in politics. many of the people posting to /. do so as "Anonymous Coward" - and i'm sure many of those ACs would like to know your stance on abortion...
as you can see from my sig - i think of myself as an AC! :)
To all candidates:
..." but I don't think many people have a clear idea about what you have actually done in the interests of public service.
We hear a lot of talk from candidates about "my record shows..." and "I worked to do
Would you please describe three things that you (not your party, not your advisors/staff) have done that has resulted in concrete, quantifiable improvements in the quality of life for your constituency? Please provide statistics or other verifiable information that clearly show that the result came from the action you took.
One qualifier: I don't mean photo opportunities where you helped a sick girl get a kidney or wrote a check to an animal shelter. You're applying for a job where you are accountable to the entire country. You should have a strong history of of making life better for the people whom you serve.
-------------------------------
What 'rights' should these people have that they don't already have?
I don't think there need be any more rights, simply the protection of the rights that are alread there. Re-read what I said. For an example of minority religions losing rights, you should look at how Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia) tried to tack on a measure that would forbid Wiccan soldiers from worshipping on Military bases to a budget bill. Fortunantly, the bill failed, but unfortunantly, this issue could come up again. This isn't a special right, it's the same right that every religious soldier has, and shouldn't be denied anyone because of the popularity of their religion.
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
While we are trading with China, supplying arms to both the Isrealis and Palistinians, and giving gobs of bucks to Yugoslovia, we are preventing Cuba from being all it can be by our economic sanctions against it. How can this be justified? Do you feel that this policy is good for the people of either country? What is the "worst case" scenario if Cuba were allowed to enter into say, NAFTA? Do you favor lifting the embargo to Cuba, and if not why not?
One of the attractions which drew me on-line was the fact that it was the one last frontier where the rules and regulations were still being developed. Those rules which had developed came about organically:
- HTML was used because it was effective
- Tags such as <frame> etc. remained because they were popular
- Tags such as <blink> left because they weren't
- etc.
My question for the candidates is:"What is your policy on regulation of the internet? Do you believe it should remain the Last Untamed Frontier it is at present or does the government have a role regulating our conduct on-line?"
Cheers Koz
A major issue in this election has been the impending Social Security "crisis"- that in about 15 years Social Security will be taking in less money each year than it pays out in benefits.
But there is a very important fact that has been completely ignored by every candidate I've heard speak on the issue. Social Security currently collects more money each year than it pays out in benefits. This has always been the case, and will continue to be the case for the next 15 years, until the "crisis" hits. The problem is that the government has always spent this extra money on other, non-Social Security programs. This is fraud, plain and simple. The government is collecting X dollars in the name of Social Security, and then only spending some fraction of X on Social Security, with the rest going to other programs.
If, instead of siphoning off the extra money collected by Social Security, we were to invest (or simply *save*) it for use when Social Security's books go into the red, the program would stay solvent for a significantly longer time than is currently being projected.
My questions are: Why aren't each of you exposing the government's fraud with regard to Social Security's funds? And why isn't anyone announcing the simple solution to the impending "crisis"- stop spending the Social Security surplus on non-Social Security programs?
For most of what is done in the schools, that is enough.
Waiting for a time when I can finally say, this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way -Phish
It is ironic that your sig mentions freedom. Yet in your several posts you seem to want to deny others the basic freedom to injest things of their choice.
So, I'm just asking you to please not be a bigot. Think rationally.
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
The United States currently, as you probably know, has a "rather large" national debt. As of 10/11/00, this debt totaled $5,660,113,029,266.52 according to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov /op d/opdpenny.htm. This worries me, and I suspect does the same to many of my contemporaries. It would seem that these prosperous times are the best to consider beginning to pay this off.
What is your plan to reduce our national debt, and how long would it take under your plan to pay this off?
-(())
Boxers or briefs?
-(())
Many of the readers here, I suspect, are tired of candidates spewing positions that could be lifted from the party handbook--that is, with no new ideas, no originality--just "the party line".
In what ways are you a free-thinking individual and *not* just a replaceable member of Party X?
-(())
Presidential candidates, I'm sure, aren't exactly blessed with large amounts of spare time. Why did you feel that responding to these questions was a productive use of your time?
-(())
I'm tired of hearing one candidate make a claim as to the efficiency of his plan, or the inefficiency of his opponent's, or some other claim to "facts" about himself or his opponent WITHOUT GIVING REFERENCES!
Even the lowliest high-school debate participant knows that without references, he or she is toast. For all I know, all the numbers I hear thrown out by the candidates are fiction. Why don't you attribute these to a particular study, so they're verifiable? If not, I know *I'm* not just taking your word for it.
-(())
For the sake of credibility, it would probably be best not to use 'ignorant' and 'faschist' in such close proximity....
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
How about splitting "Protecting the vulnerable (i.e. environment)" into "Protecting the vulnerable" and "Clean air/water/soil, and sustainable environmental practices."?
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
Where do you stand on this issue and what would you do?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
A bit vague. Might get something like: He's got a good barber.
The UK media gave the US media a low grade for journalistic merit. Who knows which is true, but you can read something about the story from this side on the BBC .
We have a different culture when it comes to guns. We do have problems with violent crime, but when people start waving guns they find that we do also have armed police.
When will the USA pay their debts to the UN ? I come from Norway, and pay a lot of taxes to our government, so that they can fertilize the rest of the world with them, but the USA has a large debt to pay. If they pay what they should, then I may have to pay less.
When Social Security numbers were created, they were not intended to be used as federal identification numbers. Unfortunately, over the years, the line has become blurred and the number has been used for a variety of different uses. For example, there is now a federal law that requires people to give their SSN when they renew their driver's license. You also have to give your SSN when applying for a hunting, fishing or marriage license. This law was passed to track deadbeat dads. I am pretty sure that a) I am not a deadbeat dad (I am a woman sans children) and b) this was not what Roosevelt had intended when he started the program.
Currently, one can buy anyone's SSN on the internet. With this, a person can either steal a person's identity or use this information for stalking. Think of all that someone can do with a SSN. They can discover where you work, apply for credit, or call and demand information on certain types of accounts.
If you are elected president, what specifically will you do to stop the movement towards a national database with the current addresses, fingerprints and DNA of each American. Also, will you suppoprt a movement towards reverting SSNs to their intended purpose?
What is wrong with our prison system? Why are we spending billions of dollars per year to jail nonvilolent drug offenders, who are mostly young people and minorities? Is this system fair and is it working to combat the "drug problem", if such a thing exists, or is it just making money for the prison corporations? What are the alternatives, and how do they compare in terms of cost to taxpayers and benefit to society? Is the death penalty working? Does it deter homicides? Is it discriminatory against minorities and the poor, who often cannot get competent legal counsel? Is it justifiable, when it costs more of the taxpayer's money to pursue a capital case toward execution than it does to have full life imprisonment without parole?
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
Both major party candidates have come out in favor of some means of censoring "inappropriate" material on the Internet so that it is not accessable to children. Would you and/or your party support some type of Internet Censorship?
If so, how do you reconcile your position with the fact that in the last 20 years, when interactive violent entertainment has become widely available, youth violence as a whole has seen a decline? Also, how would you implement such restrictions affecting an international data network while still respecting the sovereignty of other nations?
If not, who should be able to dictate what material is available to children? Is it a job for federal, state, or local government? Should it be left to industry self-regulation? Or are Parents the only party with a legitimate right to decide what constitutes acceptable material for children? Should the federal government provide tools and information for parents to use at their own will?
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
On my privacy.
www.hiredinsight.com
Right?
- estimate a 22-25% tax bracket
- 15.3% "social security"
- 7% sales tax
- ?? % gasoline tax
- ?? % property taxes
etcAnd how much is any of this going to change depending on whether Al or George get elected? And do you think that "Read my lips: no new taxes" Bush is going to actually get anything done, after his tax-cut plan is watered down and pork-barreled out? Or am I the only non-college student on here?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Probably the same number of people that are in the emergency rooms now from drug-related/gang-related shootings, stabbings, muggings, etc.
Not nearly so many innocent bystanders though.
Sorry, presidents don't vote like legislatures. They enforce the laws already passed. (Although Clinton has used a few "mandates" to get his way about things that are not laws.)
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen. Ludwig Wittgenstein
I thought Linus would have been on the list of Presidential candidates? I mean, shouldn't the leader of the free source world also be the leader of the free world?
Daniel
If you were in president Truman's shoes during World War II, would you have dropped the bombs on Japan? Why or why not?
Daniel
What are your campaigns policies about accepting contributions from a) corporations in general, b) persons or corporations which have contracts with the federal government, c) unions, d) 'soft money' in the forms of donations to party war chests, advertising for either a party in general or for a candidate but paid for by a person not identified as with the party (eg: the AFL-CIO advertising for Gore would be an example of the latter).
.sig follows. Amen.)
Also, how would you reform the debates process? Many people have spoken out against the CPD and its acceptance of corporate sponsorship. Would you amend the current debate standards? Would you revert them to the League of Women Voters (or whomever held debates before the corrupt CPD)?
(Shamelessly political
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
How do you propose to change the electoral process ( including campaign financing and debating ) in order that, in 2004, the American people are not again faced with a lopsided, unfair decision in which dissenting voices are kept silent?
<3x, kevin
Governor,
Please describe issues where you will vote against your largest campaign donors
This questions should instead read:
Candidate,
Please describe issues where you will vote against your largest campaign donors.
After all, they all get contributions. By the way, I think it's a very good question.
Do you believe that source code is speech and
thus should receive full protection under the
first amendment?
If not, how do you reconcile the copyrighting
of things not protected by the first amendment?
On the other side I have to deal with a part of the Administration, the INS, whose audience has no voice nor vote nor organization to complain and get it reformed.
If you were elected what would you do to reform the INS and clear the backlog of green card applications that we have to suffer?
Do you realize how this could make your economy a lot more robust?
As president, how would you protect our rights as citizens to personal privacy, whether it be internet-related, or not? For example, on the most extreme end, how do you feel about suggestions regarding requiring DNA samples from anyone who is arrested for any reason (advocated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police) to taking DNA samples from all newborns (an idea floated by New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani).
On a seemingly less intrusive note, also related to personal privacy are new proposed Federal Communication Commission rules which seem to be designed to empower the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the SEC's plan to create an internet snoop system to "monitor fraud"? And finally, what is your opinion of Echelon?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The Internet empowers people politically by giving them direct active access to information rather than the passive access that the news media provides. However this empowerment only empowers those who can are computer literate, who have physically access to a networked computer, and only then if the information they want is available. What measures would you take to extend the breadth of civic information available to citizens? What measures would you take to address the digitial divide in our society and ensure that all citizens are able to access vital information on the internet?
Which religion (or lack thereof) and denomination (if applicable) to you follow in your everyday life? If elected, how would it affect your actions? Please include examples. Lastly, how do you honestly feel towards those of other faiths (or choice of no faith)? Thank you. Your honesty and effort is appreciated.
You've been quoted as saying (during the second debate with Gore) something to the effect of the Internet can turn an otherwise healthy person into a dark-hearted killer. Was this your intended meaning?
Why can religions based on the non-belief of God be allowed to teach their theories or evolution and the "Big Bang" but Christian, Jewish, etc. theories of creation are against the law? It's even lawful to teach the views of ancient cultures' relgious texts but not those of the Bible. Should all valid theories be presented?
In my Oregon ballot, I only have Nader, Gore, Buchanan, Browne and Bush I believe.
The Vermont Grassroots party probably isn't running a very agressive presidential campaign in say, Nevada (but you never know).
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
I'd love to see your sig "-- "If PRO is the opposite of CON what is the opposite of PROGRESS?" ~Paul Harvey" make it to the canidates...
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Well, maybe not in the U.S. , but in some other countries you can. Instead of putting a piece of paper with one of the pre-defined choices, people can write their own choice on a blank piece of paper or even vote with a blank one.
It's a way to say "It's not that I don't want to take the time to vote, but that I have nobody to vote for.
Mind you, sometimes you get people voting for murderers, supermodels and such.
(splutters) Wiccan soldiers? What the bleep use would they be in a bleeping war?
Christianity was invented back when people didn't know any better. Wicca doesn't have that excuse. It's a religion for people who basically acknowledge that religion is dead but need something to cling to (unlike fundamentalism, which is religion for people who just refuse to acknowledge that religion is dead).
You can call any old bunch of shite a religion. Hell, I worship the moose-god Anthea and her many-angled minions Huey, Dewey, Louie and Arsehole. But any military that wants to let me worship the divine Anthea (makes sign of holy antlers, tightens nipple clamps) apart from the rest of its serving officers is guilty of pandering to my mental enfeeblement, and is basically beeped.
They should burn people who call themselves "witches". That'd give them some justification for all the stupid whining they do about the repressive Judeo-Christian patriarchy...
"Knowledge is the continuation of ignorance by other means"
I would ask: ;-)
How is your current sex life?? - plz don't aswer with "none of your business" or something like that
Mergers have been heavily in the news, from AOL and Time-Warner to the near re-establishment of Standard Oil. Further, Microsoft has a monopoly on desktops.
What is your opinion on the growing monopolization of many products? If you were elected President, what would you do about the monopolies?
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. Or a juggernaut.
One function of the federal government that has yielded great benefits in the past has been basic scientific research. In general, I believe that most functions now being performed which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution should be privatized. However, basic research (with no immediate "payoff" or commercialization) is typically not economically feasible for the corporate world, and like military defense, is an acceptable endeavor for public support. I am specifically interested in the roles of organizations such as NASA, Livermore, Sandia, and other federal laboratories.
My question then, is what your position is on the use of federal funds to support the efforts of these federal "big science" entities, and do you feel that the focus on commercialization (i.e. projects do not get funding unless the results may be readily sold to industry, a common occurance within NASA) should be re-evaluated, and the federally funded labs be allowed to return to the function of basic, long-term-payoff research?
-- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
We all know that Lee was a martyr that the administration sent up as a scapegoat and diversion, like Kosovo and the aspirin factory in the Sudan. Like the Chinese Embassy. Waco. The list goes on. Which candidate is going to stand up for what's right and give Dr. Lee his life back?
Jeff
Jeff
What were you implying when you said in your second debate with Gore that the Columbine killers' "hearts were blackened by the Internet"?
I know I'll probably get slammed for posting this on /. instead of on some highly religious web site for the simple fact that the trend tends to be toward anti major religion and on occasion anti conventional patriotism. However, If we are going to post a question to the candidates in regards to religion, it would be nice if for once we included major religion's and organization's rights as well.
Take the Boy Scouts for instance. Here is a major private,/b> organization that chooses to hold a set of beliefs that a minority organization (gay rights movement) disagrees with, and the Boy Scouts are being dragged through the trenches for this by having their rights to use the same public facilities (as the gay rights movement) removed.
When Sunday comes around, you don't start the Cleveland Browns on the 40 yard line after a touchback just because their organization is not as strong as the Rams'.
I'm trying to post this opinion with as neutral a tone as possible, and apologize if I failed to succeed. I don't like either the Browns or the Rams.
To the gov and veep: All of the political ads so far seem to be advocating more socialization, particularly in regard to prescription benefits to senior citizens. Has privatization lost out as a political agenda except for the libertarians? Do you plan on privatizing any particular industries?
Many of us in the open source community wonder if it's right or safe for a government to rely on a commercial vendor for its software needs, whether for word processing or email or space flight simulations. What especially concerns me is that vast amounts of government data may be stored in proprietary file formats which cannot be read or converted without the commercial software that created them. Thus the government can almost be held hostage by a commercial software vendor that refuses to describe its file formats or write a program to extract the data from them.
Government use of software is not too different from, say, an order for airplanes or a contract to build a block of offices. In these cases, the government would surely demand access to blueprints or information about parts and building materials. Imagine if Boeing delivered a new Air Force One with a "License Agreement" prohibiting mechanics from opening up the plane if it had engine trouble!
Why does our federal government not demand the same access to the source code of the software it uses?
"If we couldn't laugh at things that didn't make sense,
My bicyles
Good question.
A budget surplus means that we are being taxed above what is needed to run the government. And we have no complaints that we don't get our money back? Come on. In any other industry money made above costs is considered profit but why should the federal government profit at my expense?
And who moderated this as "Flamebait" ? Someone who has no use for their money I guess.
I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work the more I have of it. - Thomas Jefferson
Isn't a flat tax, to an extent, progressive?
A flat tax will take a larger amount from the wealthy and with the modified flat taxes that have been proposed the "poor" (by US standards) wouldn't have to pay anything.
If that is not progressive what is?
I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work the more I have of it. - Thomas Jefferson
Many of the laws passed in our nation, at all levels, are aimed at specific situations in response, it seems, to the 'crisis of the day', rather than being well-thought out or considered in the light of calm and rational logic.
Do you believe that laws are to be passed and enforced to prevent harmful or deleterious acts by individuals and groups to other individuals or groups, or are laws to be passed and enforced to impose a common 'standard of behavior' to which all citizens must comply without regard for harmful or deleterious acts by individuals or groups?
"Eustace? Eustace? Are you there? Are you there?" = John Leeming
I feel if they dont find an alternitive to petro soon we coul have a real big problem on our hands. You see I feel we are too dependent on this fuel(due to oil companies who are to afraid to give up the cash for the betterment of mankind) The alternitives I beleive are already out there, its just that they have to be refined to a profitable use. Since money is the root of all evil. When the Petro runs out or we kill the ozone layer what are we going to do, well what are our children going to do. Its a lot to think about. The two generations befor me, being my mothers parents generation and my grand parents generations really screwed things up and are not going to do anything about it because they will be dead before anything really bad happens. Cold but true.
If we refuse to be flexible, we are in effect opting out of the game of life. The world moves on without us.
Well, that hospitalization would be because the person couldn't handle what s/he took mentally, not that it was physically life threatening or something.
I have to admit to not having extensive experience with drugs, but as far as I can tell, smoking pot makes you:
a: sleepy
b: hungry
c: think things are funny when they are not.
I don't see how anyone would not be able to "handle what s/he took mentally". LSD maybe, but not pot. However, I can see a rise in late night Cheetos and Beef Jerky overdose 911 calls.
Josh Sisk
Your idea of getting out more is listening to Matt Drudge on the radio?
Hmm, yeah, over extended periods of time I agree any intoxicating substance can have a big effect on you... Even caffiene, I'd imagine.
The amusing thing about this fellow's post is that he is basically quoting statements made on today's Rush Limbaugh show.
Now, I'm not saying that his facts are wrong... I don't know if they are. But neither does this guy. He just knows that Rush said it on his show today. I listen to Rush most days while I'm at work (I don't see eye to eye with Limbaugh, but his show is very entertaining), and today was the first day that Gore's homosexual comments came up...
Josh Sisk
Hmm. I wonder what religion this guy is? You'd never catch one one God's Chosen PeopleTM saying something like that. :)
Umm, last time I checked, only religious people were having trouble using civic auditoriums. Frankly, the entire public school system already teaches humanism. Or at least it is areligious. Not that I care, but your point is rediculous.
But if you want religious rights for atheism, go for it. For by doing so you actually admit the truth- that Atheism is in fact a faith based religious viewpoint.
Who do you feel is responsible for the booming economy that the United States is currently experiencing?
How computer literate do you consider yourself, and how important do you think it is for computer skills to be taught in our schools?
As if taking less money away from us is a gift.
Why thank you government. Thank you very much for not raping me of my money.
If someone smokes crack in their bedroom at night and is a law abiding citizen the rest of their day how can we justify making them a criminal? If anybody who does something unhealthy is a criminal then lets imprison all the meat eaters.
This remenant of puritan ideal left over from colonial america is pointless and stupid. Lets grow up and acknowledge that the government has no business enforcing morality.
tingaling
For example, currently if major candidate A states "I am in favor of X", there must immediately be an other candidate who says "I oppose X". I would love to see a period of time where the candidates are not campaigning solely against each other, but instead campaign to the population.
I will not vote FOR a candidate merely because they say they oppose something I don't like - that does not tell me what the candidate favors!
"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
Currently there is (approx.) 300 billion spent on defense and 2 billion spent on health care. If the defense budget was reduced to 275 billion and the health care system was given a 25 billion dollar kick in the ass, would more American lives be saved or would the evil countries of the world who have a combined defense budget of well under 100 billion a year come to my house and kill me?
[pink beam of light]
Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the internet." That whole thing was simply a gross display of sloppy journalism to make Al Gore look like an idiot. Refer to http://www.rightbot.com/dpo lit ics/messages/371.shtml for more information. This was a classic example of rumor mongering among the media that led to a permanent tarnish on a public figures record. Always check your sources before relying on statements such as "Al Gore claims to have invented the internet"
Brandon T.
Do you back the H1B Visa hike and why? Do you honestly believe the small increase in application fees will make even a small dent in training availabillity for US citizens?
Got Code?
Governor Bush, Please give a detailed answer to this question -- one which demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the topic. Well... such an answer to ANY question will do, actually.
What the fuck?? Why do atheists NEED religious rights? Isn't atheism the belief that there is NO god? It's not like there's any religious practices that need protection, or institutions that deserve tax-exempt status.
And I looked, and behold, the pokemon all spontaneously combusted.
Please document the history of your commitment or opposition to this measure.
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
I think this is the best troll I have ever seen. Congrats.
Sorry bub, Gore isn't explicitly making that promise. If you state that he implies it, then George W does too...you can try to be a partyline lover, but face it...Democrats and Republicans are VERY similar now in the government.
One thing I don't understand is...Republicans always preach about local control and a smaller national government...and then they talk about their nationally imposed right to own guns, or their desire to limit women from choosing abortion. You cant have both pies...if a women wants to get an abortion then republicans cannot say she isn't allowed to at the same time saying that the government shouldn't tell people what to do or to force them into any certain lifestyle.
and just so we don't misinterpret your last statement, this isnt a democracy. we have evolved into a capitalist state of sorts with a slowly shattering framework that still gives a small nod of respect towards the comman man, but is influenced entirely by corporate interests and the well-being of the economical situation of the country. Maybe in future governments, the decision to seperate economics and government will be made, similar to church and state...if such a thing is possible.
I will agree there are a few things left that are more 'democratic' and many of these are what you would call socialist I guess...the majority is still pretty poor and as you said, this is a popularity contest.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
hehe. sounds like your asking for a paper in school...do you teach?
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
would you people get off it for once? he made an exaggerated statement about the effects of his lobbying for funding of the emerging internet.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
They are politicians, it may be hard for them to describe their actual opinions on those subjects without pissing off either side of each topic.
All questions contained herein must be vague and generalized sufficiently so that each candidate can take the question and refer to their financial reforms and educational plans as the solution that the other candidate is lacking.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
1)Presidential promises
2)Politicians
3)Taxes
Oh, wait...I'm not running, nevermind.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
George Byron?
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
There is still no official body that's purpose was to do this. Bush has also exagerrated his figures and quite frankly, any examination of the figures to this point have been partial and non-conclusive.
The news media...yes we all have learned to trust them well haven't we now? C'mon, wake up.
Independent watchdog groups? yeah....name one thats not officially politically involved...I dare you.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
Apparently you had no questions he could answer.
Jimmy Carter's policy was exactly what you propose and it didn't work. Fundamentally,"alternative" forms of energy cannot provide the BTU's required to provide the economy and lifestyle we enjoy and oil is used for a lot more than gasoline. Large population centers are habitable only because of massive heating, ventilation and air conditioning efforts based on electricity derived from oil. Food distribution requires long-distance low-cost transportation. Oil is found in some form in almost every product we use from the keyboard you type on to the seats you sit on in your ULEV Civic. The answer to your question - the only viable "alternative" energy source to oil is nuclear energy and no politician would admit that. Even nuclear energy only addresses some of the need since even a Civic is hard to drive with a sail.
The resources clearly exist to handle this kind of thing, as high school debate competitors all over the country do it all the time. Throw in a little mass media data collection tactics, and everything would be hunky-dorey. Okay, so here's how it works. Currently, there are 16 candidates who are on at least one general election ballot. For each to debate the other one on one, there would have to be 120 debates...a few too many for me to handle. So lets bust it up and have a first-round of 4 4-way debates, with the candidates appearing in each debate selected randomly. Use a system of weighted averaging of scores from judicial and congressional judges and people who actually watch the debate to pick the top two candidates out of each debate. Then have another set of 4 4-way debates as the only elimination round. The two winners of each of these four debates would reduce the number of debating candidates to 8, thus reducing the number of remaining debates to 28, plus the 8 that have already occurred, for a grand total of 36 debates. Way more manageable. After that, it goes to one-one-one, with no scoring or winning. Each of the remaining 8 candidates would have a chance to debate each other. Spread this process out over a year, and I think that most Americans would have a much better ability to evaluate which candidate is best for the country.
i have no legs.
I beleieve that what he was pointing out is that (and this applies to most minority groups) selective enforcement of the law at all levels but especially at the local or state level, denies these groups the rights that majority groups hold, hence special attention in needed, often at the federal level to redress the situation
If Nader's your guy, then I understand why you're upset. But I have to be honest -- to me, Nader is on the same level as the Peace and Freedom guy or the Socialist guy. Granted, he has a small amount of support more, but the support level is pretty small. And I don't think the support level is small because nobody knows who Nader is or what he believes in. I think he and his ideas have simply been rejected by the voting population.
Like I said, Perot proved that someone can capture a fair amount of the vote if he can take hold at a grass-roots level.
My gut feeling is the standard should probably be about 10%. If someone can't get 10% support, then they don't belong on the national stage.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
not the unrealistic 15% set by the Republicrats as a criterion to get on the stage
I believe that figure was 5%, which Nader doesn't even qualify for.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
So, um, why shouldn't we let these "minor" candidates speak? Oh yeah, they might win by accident.
While I don't doubt that some candidates want to remove "dangerous" candidates, there does need to be some standard. There is an infinite about of time in a debate, and letting in every nutcase who runs for president just wastes time.
Put it this way, Perot was able to get to a reasonable level of support, and he was included.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Clearly this ruffles the feathers of traditional businesses of many sorts, but if you truly believed that it would help free enrterprise in the long run, it must be addressed through policies on patents and copyrights concerning information technology.
That is, do you think that basic premises of what "wealth" is need to be rethought in this age, and how far are you willing to go to do so?
I'm Bingo Foo, and not only do I vote, I volunteer. I walk precincts. I call voters on election day.
---
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10), the first sentence reads:
"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."
To this day, no president has ever repeled, terminated or amended this act. It remains in effect today, and basically suspends the constitution as it is known, giving overbroad powers to the government. If you were elected president, would you be the one to FINALLY terminate this ACT, and bring back the constitution of the United States?
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
How do you feel the government has handled privacy issues as they related to the internet in the past, and do you feel that any changes need to be made in the way these issues are handled?
--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
"we'll select 10 of the highest-moderated ones and send them to some of the highest-profile people running for the U.S. presidency this year to answer or ignore as they choose. "
The staff of each candidate will then say a collective "Who the HELL is this Slashydot person?"
That question will be echoed by a meek computer science intern fixing a laptop in the background. That intern will then note the audience involved, and will prompty be handed the question sheet and told to answer it for the future president.
Does anyone think that a major candidate will ever really SEE these questions? Do they ever see ANY questions from the outside?
------
Let me give you the lowdown
do you believe that a woman's right to choose is based on an implied constitutional right to privacy? If not what do you believe it is based on? If so, do you believe that this constitutional right to privacy extends to the right to encrypt your data any way you see fit? If not why not? Finally do you believe that this constitutional right to privacy protects the right of patients to get medical marijuana? Again if not why not?
As I understand it, Ralph Nader was denied entry using someone else's ticket.
Furthermore, the rules of the debate specified that all audience members were to be completely quiet. If he was to follow the rules (I don't believe he had any intention to.), what would have attending the debate done for Ralph?
I never said idealism...I merely want someone who is swayed by facts and truth and their opinion, not by the media, money, nor polls.
I would like to know how the canidates will protect our bill of rights. It seems like the government wants to take away our right to bare arms, freedom of religion (ask david koresh), even our rights of free speech (have you ever seem someone call a cop an asshole? if they dont get beaten up first, they go to jail real fast). Many people feel that we are living in a policed state, if we havent already reached this point, i strongly belive we are heading more and more in that direction. how will the canidate, if elected protect the values that founded this country.
if you read your history books, the first thing a totaliatian govnernment dose is disarm its citizens. you take a away our guns, and we loose our ablitly to protect are selfs. with our constitutional rights slowly being taken away from under us taking away our guns will be a final blow to the liberties and freedoms this country was founded on. how will the canidate protect our rights?
Which would be more important to you as President? Protecting the children from what you consider to be immorality or protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to every citizen? "Those who would trade freedom for safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety!" -Ben Franklin Noble
Certainly one thing that I do admire is someone's ability to reverse engineer a program. Certain reverse engineering has been quite helpful (WINE and Samba comes to mind so that Win32/Windows Networking may work in an UNIX enviroment) and yet others have been struck down by a flagerant DMCA (Say, DeCSS). Certainly I am not happy that I can't watch a DVD on my Linux machine, at least not legally without a MPAA-approved driver and a fat royalty. Heaven forbid the MPAA lose a dime...
Also, don't you think that some patents are rediculas, like "One Click Shopping" and algorithms? I don't believe that someone should be allowed a patent on a mathmatical algorithm! (Say, the MP3 format is pateneted.) Copyright is a different issue; I would like to write and copyright my own work. But a patent? No.
Karma whorin' since 1999
This is not a question, but a request. I request that all of the candidates respond in clear, normal speech. The intended audience for your answers is not the lowest common denominator, it does not consist of people who plan on making mostly uninformed decisions based primarily on emotion or party affiliation. The readers of Slashdot are intelligent, educated people instead who prefer to make choices based off of factual information. Please don't answer the questions in a vague manner, or dodge the question to talk about something unrelated, because that's the best way for you to lose our votes. If some of the question topics are not familiar to you, please take the time to educate yourself and form an educated opinion and address the specific issues brought up in each question. Some of these questions may seem highly technical, but the technological nature of our society dictates that many important issues are highly technical ones. Most of us here have little faith in politicians, and would love to see one of you answer our questions directly and completely. We want to be good citizens and make an informed choice when we vote in the upcoming presidential election, now all we need is politicians who give us specific information for us to know.
Mr. Spey
Cover your butt. Bernard is watching
Cover your butt. Bernard is watching.
I guess the only real 'answer' is to have access to the candidates, have them willing to offer real/meaningful dialogue. As it stands, the US 'democracy' is 'broken' and the system dosnt allow for the free expression of political ideas in a public arena. It really is too bad about the debates - that the Reform/Green/Libretarian etc (anyone with a mathematical possibility of winning (or some other more reasonable criteria)) isnt applied. I cant understand how the Republicrats get away with locking the debate down.
The real light and hope in all this is you see the cracks starting to form - more vocal 3rd parties than ever with real concerns, and public support... if only your government was interested in facilitating democracy.
How about more debates, starting with ALL The Candidates, then 'weeding' them out and promoting them to a more 'select debate'. Based on public opinion (or something else.. but what??). But continue the '3rd parties debates' in a 'second tier'.
;)
Ie:
Debate 1: ALL (say 100 candidates) Candidates.
Debate 2A: 20 Candidates, Debate 2B: 40 (B-pool candidates)
Debate 3A: 6 Candidates, Debate 3B: 30 (B-pool candidates)
Debate 4A: 3 Candidates Debate 4B: 10 (B-pool candidates.
More like a decending selection process, where the most viable, sensible, popular candidates are 'moved up front'. But everyone is given a chance. Sorry this may not make complete sense, but its modeled after Travel-Hockey Team selection system they used in my home town in Canada when I was young.
Hey America: Do the WORLD a favour:
Would you be willing to change the present 'plurality' voting system in America? Some voting theorists find that the present 'Pluralist' system has many faults. Would you consider a system such as 'Borda Count' or 'Approval Voting' that many consider to be more fair and democratic?
So Umm George: Whats it like to snort Cocaine? And why arent you in jail for doing it?
What, Flying Yogas less believable than christians walking on water? Birth without conception and Zombies? Puh-leeze.
One reason why Ralph Nader is not going to allowed in the debates: Jesse Ventura. Knowing that America WILL resond to ANYONE outside the Republicrat party, you will see no 3rd party this time. Next time will be different. Its just too damned obvious, they slipped under the gun this time... wont happen again.
Use Democracy! Choose who you WANT to be president! It dosnt matter which Republicrat you elect... tell your friends/family/neighbours/coworkers to:
What is your position regarding the present relations with Cuba? While president would you continue the embargo against Cuba? Under the pretext of your relations with Cuba, should or should not you change your relations with China or North Korea? How are the situations different or the same?
since we're always going to need trucks, no matter what
We need 18Wheel trucks _MUCH_ less than we think we do. 18Wheel trucks are used to support the just-in-time production of BigBusiness(TM). And our highways essentially become a war-zone because they are basically using them to warehouse their products en-route versus in railcars in warehouses and stock yards. All this is underwritten by the taxpayers. Why would the corporatist pigs want to use a Rail-System which they are the primary supporters (much more freight than passengers(another problem: viable public transit)) vs using a highway system the citizens. I believe all 'delivery runs' of greater than XXX miles should have to go by rail, XXX being some amoutn I am unable to give. Lets get the damn trucks off our highways. Then we wont all have to drive SUVs for fear of being crushed in a truck accident.
Candidates:
Under what conditions, if any, should a Corporate Charter be revoked? Would you support a measure to overturn the 1886 ruling of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad? which ruled that a corporation was a "natural person" and was protected as such. Are you aware of the movement to revoke the charter of Unical? What is your position on this action.
What, if any, changes to copyright law will be necessary in the 'digital economy?' What, if any, changes are necessary with respect to more 'traditional' fields
;)
Wont a question like this just invite BS-PR-Markatroid-Politicking that they want to skirt the issues and avoid taking a clear position. Questions like: Would you keep/repeal the DMCA? Why? Would you keep/repeal the copyright extension from 14 years to life+? Why? Basically, dont give them open ended questions...these are politicians for gosh sakes
What is your stance on man / man or woman / woman marriage? Why is it that you (the main candidates) seem to be against this right yet most of the world (my country included) has acknowledged a gay couple's need for the security and privilege of marriage. Are you against same sex couples? Is there an ingrained religious reason?
What initiatives would you implement to ensure that all students receive a basic level of competency in *all* areas of modern science? This, of course, includes such disciplines as evolution and cosmology (and no...the universe is *not* 6000 years old!)
Why do you think religious groups "deserve" tax-exempt status? Is there any logical reason why my tax dollars should go toward funding an institution which (probably) holds views that I strongly disagree with? That is what we are all being asked to do when religious groups are given tax-exemption.
As an interesting aside...the Church of Satan is the only recognized Church that doesn't take advantage of any tax-exemptions. Yep, that's right...those evil, nasty Satanists actually pay their taxes even though they don't have to! Let's see the "mainstream" religions try that on for size!
I think that's a bit of a "crime" too... I personally have not decided who I'm voting for yet (sad, I know.. it's such an important decision). I was just using Nader as an example because it's the most well known one. I think that if the "3rd" parties could get exposure in the debates (host a debate w/ just the 3rd parties... let the top 5 candidates overall in the debate... SOMETHING needs to be done!) the poll #s would be much higher. The other problem is in the polls themselves.... I read somewhere (I'm currently looking for the reference) that Nader has such a low % because most of the people that WOULD vote for him are people that don't habitually vote... and the polls are only contacting/counting people who voted in the last election. (That's obviously not the "gospel".. I'm looking for a reference right now).
*sigh*
--Insert catchy
If you want to vote for one of these candidates and s/he's not on the ballot in your state, you should be able to write your candidate in.
Do you believe that our judiciary system has fallen short of being able to rule fairly in cases involving innoative technology? And, if so, do you believe that there should be a court in place that would be able to effectively and justly rule on matters of technology?
Intelligence is like four wheel drive, having it just means you'll get stuck in more remote places.
Instead every tax payer would have to write a check (or get a money order, etc) to pay their monthly tax bill.
Iraq and Serbia are getting pretty boring. How about some fresh targets?
:)
Columbia is looking pretty ripe, and they fit the required criteria of not being able to bomb you back. It'd be nice symmetry - help the Albanian drug runners, hurt the Columbian ones. Maintain equilibrium in the world
Software patents delenda est.
"one nation under god ..." is part of the facist "pledge of alleigance" and I don't think that the phrase is anywhere to be found in any documents that mean anything.
--
But what has really happened? Now instead of 40 hour work weeks, we work 50, 60, and even more. In the high tech industry, some people work 80 to 100 hours a week. How would you, as President, deal with this issue?
On a side note, did anyone ask a question about the H1B visa issue? I think that and the "IT shortage myth" would be good topics to ask about.
Hey, mod this back up if it's not too late. It's flamebait, but good flamebait.
sulli
RTFJ.
Major Party Candidates: The Republican Party platform seems to generally trust an individual to better manage their tax dollars than the government, but doesn't trust them to better manage their private lives than the government. The Democratic Party platform seems to be the reverse, trusting individuals with their private lives, but not with their tax dollars.
Please justify these conflicting policies on behalf of your party, and please identify specific examples where you disagree with these policies.
What is your vision for the role of government in the internet? For example, what types of legislation would you pass into law/veto dealing with technology? President Clinton recently signed a law giving digital signatures the force of law- do you believe this lays more of the internet open to fraud, and if so, what are your suggestions for resolving this?
Are you more honest than Al Gore?
We just watched the reform party disintegrate. What makes you think you can do better given the composition of the Green Party? Is it worth it to have 4 to 8 years of clear cut forests and Alaskan oil slicks so that you can get the 5% of the vote necessary to get federal funding for a bunch of poorly tattooed, infrequent bathers? Can you really not see (you're Phi Beta Kappa for gosh sakes) the difference between Gore and Bush or are you just saying that because it sits well with morons?
try to predict the "canned" answers the candidates will give us. For example, something like this:
Al Gore
"As the inventor of the Internet, I promise to..."
George W Bush
"I promise not to use any subblibblibminable banner ads on my website..."
Ralph Nader
"The Internet is unsafe at any speed! Our reseach shows that the exponential growth in packet collisions...."
Also, dont the major party candidates feel a little hypocritical punishing americans for activities which they took part in and didnt seem to stop them from rising to the top of us politics?
There's an article in the November 2000 Discover Magazine (unfortunately not online yet) on why our electoral system is mathematically flawed. They give 2 intriguing possible solutions. (Working from memory here so please excuse any mistakes.)
In one system (forgetting the name now), you'd vote for as many candidates as you feel deserve the job. Only one person would win of course, but voting would be more of a "Who do you think is qualified to be President of the US." 3rd party candidates would get a higher percentage because people could vote for their 3rd party favorites without feeling like they're wasting their vote. For example, I might vote for Al Gore and Ralph Nader as qualified.
The other system was Borda count. In this you'd rank the candidates from first to last based on your preference. So I might vote Al Gore as #1, Ralph Nader #2, Bush #3, and Buchanan (a so distant as to be nonexistant) #4. As the results are tabulated, candidates getting a #1 would get so many points, #2 a little less, etc all the way down to 4.
Either system would provide more strength to 3rd party candidates and would let the vote more accurately reflect the will of the people.
To get this back on track, I would ask the candidates, given these options, and given the obvious flaws in the current system, how would they propose to change the system (or would they even want to).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
He created the Internet! In seven days, if I remember right.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
The Reason why Monica Moorehead and Earl Dodge isn't on your ballot is that Ms. Moorehead is only on the ballot for Colorado, Florida, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin and Mr. Dodge is only on the ballot in Colorado. Why Mr. McReynolds is listed under Liberty Union, I can't answer.
What is your [canadate] posistion on Napster? Do you support laws like the DMCA? Also, what do you think about law on the internet in gerneral? How should it be enforced, who enforces it, and should it even exist at all?
Sorry... the boss came in... had to quit that early...
As it stands right now, an American working in Canada under a NAFTA visa can have his or her spouse and children work; they get work authorization.
This is not true for Canadians entering the USA.
It was agreed in principle during the NAFTA negotiations that spouses and children would get the right to continue to work while in the USA.
When are you going to correct this inequality?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Why not just offer Green Cards to the truly skilled workers being imported under H1?
Why haven't you followed through with the NAFTA visa situation of allowing spouses and wives of TNs to get work authorization?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Today, the only choice Americans get in parliamentary issues is their vote, however they get to decide very little on particular issues.
With the explosive growth of the internet, it is certainly feasible that soon virtually everyone in the United States will have an internet connection.
What is your attitude towards people being able to:
If the guide is not respected, or the material not cared for, confusion will result, no matter how clever one is.
Frankly, I think both positions have their merit. It is important for students to understand the computer as a wonderful and not mysterious tool. It is also important for those students to know how to write complete sentences, get most of the words spelled correctly, and know when the pocket calculator is giving the unintended result. These goals may be best met by some computer time and some non-computer time.
With these points in mind, my two questions are:
1) What approach would you take to teach the use of computer as a tool without the loss of basic writing, calculating and general problem solving skills?
2) How do standardized fill-in-the-bubble tests help students in the new economy where is it often more important to understand the process of problem solving and approximation than the exact final answer.
My question is what's your stand on bestiality? Do you think animals of different species(includeing humans) can have sex together that isn't rape? or is it all just violent sex abuse?
Currently, many people are clamoring for Ralph Nader to be included in the debates. Mr. Nader is presently polling at somewhere between 2% and 5% nationally (in many polls, "not sure" and "undecided" are polling higher). There should be a lower limit a candidate must attain in order to avoid the scenario of having 20 or more candidates in a debate.
This argument is not intended to counter your second question. I find it reprehensible that any person with a ticket be denied entry.
That said, where should the limit be drawn? Currently, the rules outlined by the Commission on Presidential Debates mandates that a) the candidate must appear on enough state ballots for it to be mathematically possible that he/she can be elected outright (i.e., 270 electoral votes) and b) that he/she is polling at least 15% nationally has determined by 5 polls (ABC/Washington Post, CBS/NYTimes, NBC/Wall Street Journal, CNN/USA Today/Gallup, and Fox News/Opinion Dynamics). Should the rule allow the polling criteria to dip to 5%? Below 5%? It would need to in order for Nader to be included.
I have yet to hear a reasoned argument for a set of rules that would work better than what is currently in place. I would be interested to hear opinions.
Do you feel that the current electoral college system of voting is the best way to reflect the people's will? Or do you feel that voting practices in the US no longer reflect the will of the general population?
science is a religion
The Economist of September 30,2000 noted that "many economists think the dollar is overvalued, and vulnerable, not least because of America's huge and growing current-account deficit." Deputy Bank of Japan Governor Yutaka Yamaguchi at a conference in Frankfurt two weeks ago warned of the proliferation of globalized leverage which could "cause the evaporation of market liquidity". Do you agree with the Economist's and Yamaguchi's quoted assessments of our situation? What policies would you follow to prevent financial meltdown from US capital outflows and reverse leverage during your term of office?
Then we must assume that the years of deficits were a time of undertaxation (you may call it overspending, but we didn't bring in enough dpugh, causing our current $6,000,000,000,000 debt). The point is, we need to pay the piper. I think we should pay the debt completely, and then put what we save every year in interest into permanent tax cuts. But that debt has got to go.
How about if they are on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of the electoral college?
Atheists NEED religious rights because as you said it is a belief, that it is a belief in NO god is irrelevant. Its the protection of their rights to continue believing their is no god, and to act and speak those beliefs, that is important. It is equally important for any other religion, major and minor, to have those rights maintained.
But my dreams they aren't as empty, as my conscience seems to be...
America has enjoyed many years of freedom. From this freedom, which includes fair and open elections, many great leaders including presidents emerged.
So now, how can the American Public believe, better yet TRUST, the concept of fair and open elections, when both main polical parties block access to the debates for third party canidates?
Why should there be two sets of rules for a candate to be considered a "canidate"? Would not getting on the ballot of 40+ states shows their wide public support?
Minasota showed that a third candate can come from behind a win! When there is a fair and open debate for a fair and open election.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
What was your favorite toy growing up?
Internet killed the video star,
i could live a little longer in this prison
This question is primarily aimed toward George W. Bush, and Al Gore:
How can you honestly sleep at night knowing you've spent millions of dollars campaigning for president while people are starving in our country? How come when it comes to being president, millions of dollars can be spent on commercials and various campaing material, but when it comes to feeding the homeless and getting people's lives together it takes donation can's in restuarants and supermarkets to raise money for the hungry?
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field
A lot has been said about improving education during this election season. The Federal government has provided money to the states to encourage certain programs.
Sex Education is being supported as an initiative to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs.
Drug Education is being supported to alert children to the dangers of drugs and alcohol.
Would you support Firearms Education (such as the former Junior ROTC Air Rifle Team in Chicago) to teach children the dangers of guns and how to avoid situations where they could end up as accidental shooting victims?
Viv
-----------
I Use Napster. I use DeCSS. I buy over $1000 a year in CD/DVDs.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
There has been lots of talk about 'accountability' with regard to education. Do you think 'accountability' is a step in the right direction? Why or why not? If so, who would you hold accountable and what would you hold them accountable for?
There is also lots of talk about test scores. Do you think test scores are the best way to measure the quality of a childs education? What other indicators would you rely on?
What is your stance on the War On Drugs, and how do you reconcile this with your own previous illegal drug experience?
What if Slashdot decided your opinion was not worth being read, or you weren't worthy of a chance to give your opinion? At least one debate could have allowed for a view to be heard that did not come out of the basic two party system. It would have allowed for some interesting television and would have broken up the practiced responses we have seen so far in the debates. I think we should put CmdrTaco in a room with all the candidates for a grilling Slashdot style.
Recently I have heard a lot about states taking DNA samples from prison inmates and the setting up of DNA Databanks for possible future identification of criminal offenders. What do you feel are the implications of widespread collection of DNA data, and should we collect information from every person at birth? Do you feel this is a good idea? Do you feel a system like this could be abused, and what would you do to safeguard the rights of people against discrimination based on information from DNA?
First I must apologize to the third party candidates of whom I do not know much about, except for Ralph Nader, for whom I have great respect. I cannot fault the third party candidates for the lack of press because the 2 main parties prevent any of the third parties from getting any. I have found an amazing lack of vision for the future of this country in the candidates. Great leadership involves bold visions of the future. My questions are as follows. 1. What are you visions for the America of tomorrow? 2. How do you plan to achieve this vision? 3. Why are the younger voters completely ignored except to say that they watch too much violence on TV and play too many violent video games? 4. Given the fact that in the last 100 years we have gone from gas lights and 25mph in a horse an buggy combinations to everything electric and 22000 miles an hour in space; what are your plans to keep government up to par with technology and the people it takes to run it?
That's like getting Hitler to join in the debates. Ralph Nader will win the election when pigs fly.
Respond to s
Eventually peopel have to vote them in. You can't very well think that calling people stupid sops will get you elected.
Respond to s
Since the creation of the state of Israel from Palestinian hands it's been touch and go for the entire time. Those people will be killing each other 1000 years from now.
Respond to s
I think that actually improing the structure of the communications system is a far better idea instead. How about trying to make it so that we have end to end digital connections. Everyone that has a phone line now has a connection via broadband to the internet. That is what should be done and financed by a simple tax hike for something objectionable like beer, cigs, and foreign imports.
Respond to s
From about 1970-1987 or so you have a massive increase in drug usage. It went down from there mostly due to the say no to drugs policy that was adopted by so many schools and the media. So no treatment didn't do shit to shop crack and pot.
Respond to s
How they can statistically claim that this is indeed the case. How can they guarantee that violent hate actions is actually the source that is perpetuating problems in the real world from the net as a source.
Respond to s
The US is the only major country that doesn't run off of a coalition government. Practically all the power is held by the 'two major' parties, which have gotten so expansive that they have their own factions.
Having studied political trends within the USA for a while now you make me laugh. This dosn't work here. What happens is that you form a spliter group and it usually dies rather quickly because like Nader and Perot and the like are finding out it's impossible to work outside the system no matter how much money you have.
Respond to s
I mean to cite the second paragraph down
Factions from the main parties have historically died. The democratic party is a good example with it's own faction from the southern states splitting off when Truman wanted to help the civil rights reform. They called it something like the Constitutional Union party of something like that if memory servs.
Respond to s
Nazis like you should be the ones we're focusing on, then the world would truly be a better place.
Yeah like the case of the Chinese and opium right?
Ok kiddies here is a good poster child for what happens when you release drugs and call them a good procuct. Way back when many of the people in the world thought just like this and thought that people should be able to use drugs. Well they then thought well why don't we sell these good old fashioned hearty things to the Chinese. So they (British and Americans) decided to sell them drugs. Their entire civilization good almost totally hooked on the drugs and they eventually fought a war and lost over being hooked on drugs which are supposedly things we should legalize.
Respond to s
If you look at periods of time when you had massive unrestricted use of drugs (look at the 19th century England/America to see some good examples). Control of drugs has been a good thing. Getting stoned out of your gord and becomming insanely addicted to something and the social, political, societal, health, etc ramifactions of such were quite bad hence legislation. I don't know about you but I don't see too many opioum addicts roming around today.
Respond to s
Freedom to say what you please is different from doing what you please.
You know what I am tired of is getting moderated down because I don't want to get myself all doped up and liking it. I mean it really must piss people off that I don't go home and shoot up with heroin or something like that.
Explain why use of various forms of hemp seems to cause students in high school to have lower scores on standardized tests according to reliable figures from ACT and SAT collections? Or how about why there appears to be massive scaring of brain tissue when hemp is usually used (I remember hearing from my dad who happens to hold a at least 2 upper collegiate degrees from prominent universities that research of cannibas usage was done and autopsy data revealed that massive scaring resulted in the region of the pitutary gland in several cases, explain that one away).
You canot explain away even the offhand rumors that correlate destruction of the brain and hemp usage. One reason that many people can say to make that statement is that the potency of the drug has increased since the stoners of the 60's first started using it mainly due to new control by various cartels in the southern part of the Western hemisphere and the like.
I am open to the idea that a certain part of the population has a higher LD-50 level for THC than others and the like but there is a limit (caffeene has one too but many people don't bother to think about that one).
My choice in saying this comes from a long line of data that hasn't been influenced by the new resergence of the idea that drugs are good for you.
Respond to s
Ive never tried crack, but its not because ive been waiting for it to be legalized so i wont get in trouble... i just dont want to do it, regardless of the law. Similiarly, i might choose to do a drug even though its illegal,
because i do want to; again, regardless of the law.
One of the main reasons that people don't do things like drugs is mainly because they don't want to get reamed by Bubba in prison for some doppy drug.
Respond to s
Maybe you could refrase the question as: would you stop buying closed source, with the intention to phase out the old software culture ( in lets say 5 or 10 years ).
*tries to think of anyone, in the history of the world, that has gone to the ER for being stoned*
While i can't state any statistics on MJ related lung cancers or other health hazards, i think it is unobjective to exclude such problems based on the following reasoning.
Common sense will tell you that inhaling smoke into your lungs and holding it there is not a good thing. Your body will give you the same message when you start coughing. Smokers of any substance will have a diminished lung capacity.
But i agree that leagalization will NOT increase the number of drug users or related health problems. It will simply decriminalize them.
Nader had a ticket to observe the debates and was denied access. Did the other candidates have tickets? Were they denied access? Not as far as i know. This is the issue the original post was addressing. It had nothing to do with other candidates.
"smokers of both marijuana and tobacco had lower rates of cancer than smokers of merely tobacco."
That's possible but the interesting question involves cancer rates of MJ smokers versus non-smokers. (non-smokers meaning no tobacco, MJ, crack etc.)
I'll reiterate that coughing means something is going wrong. Your body is trying to correct a problem. Healthy people don't cough regularly. But i feel i may be preaching to the converted here.
Interesting info about holding the smoke in. It seems to be a common method of smoking MJ.
First of all your assumptions about drug users, their enviroments and families are way off base and i'm not even going to bother expanding on that.
Secondly, according to your argument practically everything we do should be illegal.
Driving should be illegal (someone else already pointed this out). You can easily kill someone even if you're not on drugs. It happens EVERY DAY.
Burning gasoline and coal should be illegal. You're giving people respiratory problems.
Owning a kitchen knife should be illegal. You could cut yourself or someone else. Happens all the time.
You can't protect everyone from everything and you shouldn't even try. I could be incinerated by a meteor at any moment but that doesn't mean i should start building a personal meteor defense shield. There is an acceptable level of risk that must be acknowledged. The war on drugs is doing more harm than good.
Ummm.... growth of the National Debt has already stopped. Its being paid down. Thats why the National Debt clock was taken down.
I don't want to hear any crap from them about increasing oil supplies. I want to hear about clean energy. And i don't want to hear any crap about research either. We already have clean energy solutions (IFR) why aren't we implementing them? Why do we keep polluting our air when clean energy technology is already developed and waiting?
Nuclear energy IS clean energy.
I don't how the politicians or oil companies managed to cover this up but the IFR reactor prodcues only a very, very small amount of low level radioactive waste. Its incapable of a meltdown and it can use our current stock piles of nuclear 'waste' and burn it as fuel. What more could you want?
Search for Integral Fast Reactor. I think the berkeley.edu site has some good info.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore _internet/index.html
Check it out, it tells the story about how Gore never claimed he invented the internet.
I finally got curious about this one myself last week, so I looked it up online, and...AMAZING! The information is right there! Gore never claimed to invent the Internet!
--Chris
I would like to ask each of the candidates if they think it is right for a majority of the budget to be paid by smokers? I would also like to state for the rest of us here, if you smoke, vote, and let the people in Washington know that you smoke. This may sound like an add from a angry smoker, and your right, it is. But be that as it may, I do not feel that it is right for a form of behavior that some people feel is wrong to be taxed into non-existance.
I know George Bush wants to start setting up oil wells in/near protected areas of Alaska. That is a very bad idea. We need to promote technology, not the oil companies.
-- ERICmurphy -- www.jabber.org for open-source, XML-based IM
Would you advocate total privitization of the health care system in hopes of inducing a free-market system upon it (i.e. supply/deman). Why do the laws of supply and demand not seem to apply when it comes to the healthcare system?
Please cite FACTS as to why the supply/demand model would not work here.
-- bearclaw
Question: For decades, Congress has turned its back on several proposals to use competition to force down monopolistic drug prices. The pharmaceutical industry is spending tens of millions of dollars this year alone to assure that Congress does not act. Will you buck the drug companies, and are you taking their money? Question: Would you seek to repeal the law that lets mining companies stake claims to multiple twenty-acre tracts of federal land in the West, pay the government $100 a year per tract, become owners for between $2.50 and $5 an acre, extract billions of dollars worth of gold and other "hardrock" minerals, and yet share none of the profits with the taxpayers? Question: The federal government doles out more than $125 billion a year to politically-wired corporations and even entire industries--as much money as it collects in income tax from 60 million individuals and families. This is corporate welfare as we know it. Will you try to end it? Question: Do you accept Dr.Koop's evidence of the addictiveness of cigarettes, and if you don't, what scientific evidence supports you? Do you or will you take tobacco money? If you do or will, how would you define the moral difference between taking money from an industry that gives millions of dollars annually to politicians who thwart efforts to restrain its marketing of a legal addictive product, as opposed to taking money from an industry that corrupts officials who could thwart its marketing of an illegal addictive product? Taken from Mort Mintz' series of articles at www.tompaine.com
Or are you just some performance artist with an anti-Clinton schtick?\\
thank you
Marijuana is illegal, but how often (if *ever*) do we hear of anybody getting killed by it?
It is a not so well known 'fact' that smoking marihuana can greatly risk the chances of psychosis. Personally I know 2 people (I've heard of more) that had to be institutionalized and are currently on heavy medication after an extended period of smoking dope. It's hard to prove that the psychosis is caused by marihuana since psychosis is a pretty vague condition. I know that the doctors of the guys I know strongly reccomended stopping to smoke pot. The problem with pot is that although physically it doesn't mess a person up like alcohol does, psychologically it *does* have an effect. I live in Holland and a lot of people that smoke dope a lot seem to be 'different' - not as quick to comprehend and seemingly not really in reality. I don't know if there are any statistics for that
do you always feel like you're going fast at 45 ? if not then the dope *is* having an effect on you....
I too think this is an excellent question. I would also ask "To what extent do you think the public treasury must implement full disclosure; and by what means?"
/. audience.
Wouldn't hurt to mention that this is a
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
And would you consider bringing up an independent investigation of the MPAA? Right now, the average consumer is so mis-represented, that some of us fear that entertainment as we know it will cease to exist.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Do you think the sentence handed down to Kevin Mitnick was just?
Are you planning any scandals to highlight your term as Presedent? If so, will it involve you personal or professional life?
What is you taste in interns? If you are going to be pleasured by a White House intern, will you at least think about the poor American public who will have to look at her/him (you never know) in the media for the next four years?
[ ]
The US is the only major country that doesn't run off of a coalition government. Practically all the power is held by the 'two major' parties, which have gotten so expansive that they have their own factions.
Fairly soon, probably within the next decade, these factions will crystalize, fragmenting these two parties, and we will finally have a multiparty system.
Won't be soon enough for me.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
To the male canidates:
Can you expound on your qualifications to make a descion on abortion seeing as you have not and can not give birth to children? To female canidates:
Do you beleive that the right to choose is a choice that should be left up to men.
---
pack
1337
Do you feel it's right for the public to label the two main canidates "Soft money whores" or to call gore a hypocrite for both saying that we need campaign finace reform and still accepting large "donations" and haveing fundraisers in buddhist temples.
Would you agree to a debated held that included *ALL* canidates includeing those whom don't have a (i think it's 15% popularitiy, but i could be wrong) such as nader or that guy from vermont that runs every year.
to tipper:
How is al as a lover.
---
pack
1337
Even more interesting is that THERE IS NO SURPLUS!!
This so-called surplus is generated by excess receipts into the social security system. Meaning that the Social Security system is withholding more from paychecks than they are paying out in benefits. This is how it is *suppose* to work! So Gore and Bush want to take the excess (which should be used to pay out future benefits) and move it into the General Fund so it can be spent on "new, improved" government. Ask Mr. Browne about this one.
--
--
The New World Order is upon us, and it's about damned time.
The two major parties are so overly concerned with taking care of those who can't take care of themselves. How can ANYONE claim to be democratic when they want to redistribute our wealth to single mothers, to unemployed people who are perfectly capable of work, to illegal immigrants? Charity should be voluntary, and should be left to churches and charitable organizations, certainly not the federal government. Regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican has been in the presidential office, the federal government systematically attempts to remove each and every one of our constitutional rights. FDR's socialist tactics were critical to pull the US out of the Great Depression. However, now the economy thrives, yet the government knows these outdated and unnecessary programs are too profitable to overturn. Though I suppose that if my pockets were getting lined by the oppressive taxation and the mandatory social security tax that will never benefit my generation, I probably wouldn't want to abolish it either.
When our forefathers founded the United States, it was built on the promise that here, an individual could live however he pleased and do how he liked, so long as his actions did not restrict anyone else from doing the same. Why does it seem that the ONLY party that wishes to stay true to that spirit is a relatively unseen-and-unheard-from "minor league" player?
Anyway, well said.
Under the Democratic party, man exploits man. Under the Republican party, it's the exact opposite.
How can you expect Bush to pursue any alternatives to oil when it is well known that he is financed by Big Oil
Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs
Robert Heinlein put it best: Freedom of religion is inversely proportional to the strength of the dominant religion."
I don't think they should have any special protections, they simply should be respected like all "mainline" religions.
Which brings to mind one of my fav joke. Late one night God calls the Pope. God: I've got some good news and some bad news. I've decided to make the United States a Christian Nation! Pope: That's wonderful! We'll have celebratory masses.... God: Not so fast. I'm calling from Salt Lake City.
My point being fruitbats like Robertson who wants to make the US a Christian nation. Which version of Christianity? Christian = religion based on/following the teachings of Christ. That describes an awful lot of religions.
None should be protected, likewise none should be singled out.
--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Actually, according to NCIC codes for eye and hair color, BLD is a hair color.
--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Actually, Shinto is also known as the worship of 10,000 gods. 10,000:1 isn't the best of odds....
--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
One serious problem with your analogy: someone who smokes crack in their bedroom at night is not likely to be a law-abiding citizen the rest of their day. Crack is extremely addictive and they are likely to be on a nasty spiral. Based on the drug studies I did while working for a health care agency, your analogy using crack would never fly.
Smoking pot at night and being law-abiding during the day would have worked better.
--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
"A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."
--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
If the grilling is anything as lightfooted as the Carnivore interview, I don't think I'd be interested in it. But nonetheless, it'd be nice to get a foot in the door and ask some questions that apply to our industry.
I like this question. I have some doubts that you could ever get an honest answer to it from Bush or Gore (maybe not from any politician). Its in their interests that the general public keeps sliding toward dependency and bondage.
BTW, where do you think the U.S. is on the above scale? I think we're in the complacent stage.
To understand what's right and wrong, the lawyers work in shifts ...
I've got a pair here:
1) Do you believe that the Federal Government, in any and all of its forms, has been adhering as strictly to the Tenth Amendment as it is supposed to and ceding rights and privledges to the states or the people, even if 'national security' were at stake? If so, how can any trampling of the states' and peoples' rights be mended by your Presidency?
2) As a politician, you are a public figure, and perhaps worse, you are forced to censor your own speech and your own actions in order to keep your job. Do you feel that this is putting an undue burden on your bid for the Presidency? Would you much rather be yourself entirely, and not feel or project to voters that you are holding back some aspects of your ideals and personality?
--Ryan
'Guns may be a leveler, or a deterrent...but does that stop violent crime in its tracks? No. Getting rid of all guns does. I'm not telling you how to do it, that's not my place' really, so there is no violent crime in places like Canada, Australia, the UK?? And as to getting rid of guns, that all goes back to the argument that you can make all the laws you want, but criminals ARE criminals because they break laws why would they get rid of THEIR guns because all the law-abiding people do??
What do you think about the media's treatment of Dan Quayle and comparisons they've made to you?
How are you planning to prepare for the last mass debate?
Some media sources say that you and Gore have a personal wager going on Tuesday's debate, something called "Loser Leaves Town Night". Is this true?
The foxes in charge of the chicken coop claim that everything is fine.
You may want to check out this article.
The media, and the political forum, as of late has focused heavily on violence in computer games, and has blamed them for the supposed increase in violence among children.
Thus far all that has been proposed is an out-right banning of such games, which brings up issues with the first ammendment. What other ideas/proposals do you have to perhaps reach a more reasonable solution to this issue? (i.e. enforced rating systems, like the ratings on movies etc...)
You might be aware that the U.S. constitution gives the power to declare war only to Congress, not the president. Will you attack other contries without consent of the Congress if you get elected? If the answer is "yes" (or "maybe"), are there any other cases where you wouldn't respect the Constitution?
They aren't on the ballot in every state. Thats just the way our democratic system works. Those candidates didn't have enough support to get onto the ballot in some states and they did in others.
Still our political system seems to work pretty well. Debates with more than 2 candidates would be nice though.
---
several friends and i are having a problem this election year, we don't want either of the two main canidates. (yes we know there are other, but lets be honest, there are only 2 people running) we would like to pose the idea of a "None of the above" option on the ballot. then if "None of the above" gets the most votes there will be a run off election 1 month later, and NO ONE who ran last time can run in the special election a month later. how do you as a canidate feel about this idea? granted this would never happen, but my friends and i think it is a great idea. lowlight "Strange women laying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government" Monty Python
Many candidates in this election have made statements about lowering taxes and decreasing the size of the federal government.
Given the assumption that there are some things that cannot be bought or accomplished by individuals, such as roads and combating pollution, what's an acceptable tax rate and what's an appropriate government size?
Please supply specific numbers.
I understand your point, but do you really see no benefit from the taxes you are paying. If you make good money and live in a neighborhood that fits your income, I'm pretty sure your police, firefighters, schools, etc. are better equipped and trained than in a low-income neighborhood. Your streets and public spaces are probably better maintained, too. I don't, by the way, think this is right, at least not to the current extreme.
And how do you call the tax extremely burdensome. True, taxes are high and they could do more with or money if there was not so much government waste, but we have low taxes compared to a lot of the richer nations in the world. Besides, as an example, is a 33% tax on someone making $80000 a year more burdensome, or is 33% on $300000 a year more burdensome? If an unemployed housewife has her husband of 15 years leave her with their 3 kids, is it her fault she can only get a job making $20000? After all, she had been doing the most important job there is, which is raising the kids.
I'm probably in the minority, but I would be willing to pay high taxes if I knew it would help those that need it, especially children. We are the wealthiest nation in the world, and too many of our children live in poverty.
Anyway, my question is, if you could paint the White House, what color would you paint it?
-N
It's obvious we won't agree on a lot of this, but it's interesting. I'll lob a few back at you.
My point about the taxes is simply this: Do you truly believe that your taxes don't benefit you in any way? If you do, fine. But I tend to think that most people believe taxes don't benefit them in the way they should or as much as they should.
The argument about the founding fathers does not sway me in the least. Just because one of them made that statement, that makes it correct and accurate? What did the other founding fathers think about that? Is it relative 200+ years later? And most important, even if more than 5% is "fostering a heavy burden", why is it wrong? Just because it's a burden? A lot burdensome things are neccessary and/or deserved. Off hand, though, I can think of several federally funded agencies that might benefit you. National Weather Service? US Military? Like the bumper sticker says, it will be a great day when schools have enough money and the govenment has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.
Regarding the housewife, you shouldn't have to pay to support her. But until someone gets all those deadbeat dads to do it, what other choice do we have? We are the results of our childhood. I hope you would not argue that we can change the way someone turns out for better or worse according to their childhood. I am not willing to take the risk that is inherent in private funding. There are people that take advantage of the system now, and that sucks. But what if enough money could not be generated privately for those that really need help?
Why is the government handling this? Because few other organisations are willing to. I agree that the government is a model of ineffeciency and cost effectiveness. The problem with churches and the other organisations, though, is many have a vested interest in helping certain people or viewpoints over others. I agree government programs do not work to reduce the number of poor people. If they (or anyone) could accomplish that, it would make a lot of these arguments moot.
Of course, without poor people, sounds a lot like communism.
-N
I'm in a journalism class in at my high school, and we run the high school's paper. I did a poll last Friday on two issues: Presidencial race and school vouchers. (I can't seem to find a just-the-facts URL on the vouchers...could someone post a reply with a decent URL?)
Here's the article I wrote for the school paper:
GORE FREEFALLING
Presidential candidate Al Gore is falling behind in popularity, according to a poll taken Friday, October thirteenth. The poll consists of students, teachers, and the occasional administrator, chosen at random.
The pollees where asked two questions:
* Who would they vote for at that point, and
* Hypothetically, if you were able to vote against a candidate, who would you vote against?
When asked who they would vote for at that point, the students polled appeared staunchly Republican. Nine students favored voting for Republican candidate George W. Bush, while only one student favored voting against him. No students favored voting for Gore, while seven students favored voting against him. Four students said that they did not keep track.
When asked the same questions, four teachers favored Bush, while seven teachers favored Gore. When given the hypothetical situation of being able to vote against a candidate instead of for one, five teachers favored voting against Bush, while five teachers favored voting against Gore. One teacher favored voting for Ralph Nader, and two teachers favored voting against Pat Buchannon. Eight teachers were undecided, and two teachers haven't kept track of the elections.
Some better-natured students and teachers stated that they didn't veel comfortable 'voting against,' so they were instead asked who they adamantly did not want to see in the Oval Office. Those votes were counted in with the 'against' statistic.
(End of article)
A humerous side not: I chose to exclude two students' entrees: One of them voted both for and against Bob Dole, while the other voted both for and against Bill Clinton.
(shrug)
What's this Submit thingy do?
Seeing as how the next president may be in a position to appoint several new supreme court justices, what are the qualities you would look for in a justice? How important is a knowledge of technical matters to the appointment with the recent "computer" cases with Microsoft, Napster, and the RIAA-DECSS case?
Tired of sitting at that karma cap? Start a flame war today! See just how low you can go!
I would like to read the essay you have written, yet you left no email address. If you manage to read this, would you send it to me: here.
Tired of sitting at that karma cap? Start a flame war today! See just how low you can go!
Knock knock. Who's there?
If elected, will you nuke those damn commies?
Question for Al Gore, do you plan to plug your lock box on the Internet?
This is an excellent philosophical question about which I also feel very strongly.
As a sentient being, I feel that I have some basic claim to my own mind, body, and "being". I was born with everything which makes up who I am (except, of course, memories and experiences) so how can any other person or entity have any ownership of this? I don't think that any human being can be owned by anyone other than themselves. What about a person's property? Land, for example? A person can own a piece of land, but it is still contained within (but not really owned by) their state/country.
This brings up an interesting question: Since the individual owns that land, can that person decide that they don't want their land to be part of the state/country in which it is contained? By the same logic, can a person decide that they do not wish to be governed by the government under which they were born? The government doesn't own me, I own myself. I was born in the US, but I never agreed to be under the rule of the United States Government. If I own my own land, can I secede, and declare that my land is my own country, under my own rule?
I don't see that the government can "own" its people, or even its territories. It only has areas of influence.
As for the second question, I have strong feelings on this, as well. The Constitution does not *give* people any rights. People are naturally entitled to certain rights, and the Constitution (namely, the Bill of Rights) was intended to ensure that these are not taken away from the people. Basically, we have the right to do anything that is not against the law. The Constitution was intended to makes sure the laws don't prevent us from doing things that we should be allowed to do (practicing, or not practicing, a certain religion, for example). I believe that if the answer to this question is yes, then that means we have rights that are not protected in the Constitution. I am a strong advocate of personal freedom, so I feel that people should be free to do just about anything they want, as long as they're not hurting anyone, or infringing on the rights of anyone else.
Does anyone have any other views on this?
--Ariston
"I'm never wrong--sometimes reality just disagrees with me."
The magic promise of a politician is to "lower taxes". As long as the debt exists, and entitlement programs exist, the only taxes that can be lowered are special ones, paid by special interest groups to pay for the obscenely expensive campaigns. The point raised here, especially in view of the actions of the Fed, is crucial.
To begin with - appologies for a big multi-part multi-question effort. The question I _want_ to ask "How far up your heinie(sp?) is your head jammed to please your contributors?" really cann't be asked, and if asked, wouldn't be answered with reliable information.
1) In your opinion, how large (pages of text) should the tax code of the United States be to balance the interests of fairness, administration, enforcement, and comprehension. A single number or numeric range needs to be identifable.
2)yes/no - multipart
Do you support the required use of blocking software by public internet facilities, eg. public schools & public libraries?
Do you support the use of federal money to purchase and support blocking software for public schools and libraries, without respect to any policy of requiring the use of blocking software.
Would errors (either type 1 or 2) in excess of 5% by blocking software be acceptable levels of accuracy?
3) yes/no multi-part
Is Social Security in reality a Welfare Program?
Is Medicare in reality a Welfare Program?
(Over the past two decades, there has been much concern over "Welfare Mothers" and such. I have seen it asserted that both these programs are fundementally Welfare.)
4) How are energy, environmental, foriegn(sp?), and economic policies related? Keep it short: say less than six sentances using words of less than four sylables.
5) Education continues to be important politically. What is required of an education which will permit a person to behave as a responsible citizen, with opinions grounded in reality.
6) One word answer: What is the arbitrator of your ideas, opinions, and policies? Faith? Theory? Personal Experience? Concensious Experience?
Again, appologies for the multitude of questions, and the length. And the spelling/typing which I know needs a few more corrections. 8-(
With respect to the highways, with the understanding that the Interstate System was built for military use, I seem to recall that roads would be owned by companies/individuals interested in selling access to those roads. Which should raise all sorts of privacy issues, since your vehicle could be tracked virtually all the time, and by inference, you would be tracked. And then there is the issue of selling that information of where you have been. Even if selling that information is forbidden by law, the existance of such information should be terrifying. IMHO of course.
I personally would prefer a system with Electoral votes being split by percentage of the popular vote, but here's a problem with implementation:
No state would want to switch over to that, unless the entire nation did at once.
Why? Consider this. A state whose electoral votes are split would be less important to the presidential candidate. Very simply, if in State A, all you need is 51% of the popular vote to get all 50 of its electoral votes, and in State B, 51% of the popular vote only gets you 26 of the 50 electoral votes, which state would YOU go campaigning in?? Which state would YOU pay attention to? Obviously, State A, whose electoral votes are easier to come by. A state that moves over to the split method will be shooting itself in the foot, because by making itself less desirable to the candidates, its issues will not be considered nor represented as well. Only the underdog candidates will spend any time there, and to be blunt, that's not best for any state.
I'm personally amazed Vermont does this - this was in their constitution from the start, right? I can hardly imagine any state congress electing to make this change. But who knows, it may come about.
Of course, I just thought of this 2 minutes ago and am posting off the hip, so to speak. If I'm dead wrong, let me know. =)
Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
When the government is socialist the individual has no escape from the structure. If he resists, he will be physically coerced, at gun point if need be, to remain in the system.
How can you in good concience mandate a system of physical coersion when you could easily implement a consentual form of socialism within the larger framework of a free society? (This does not imply that I believe America or anywhere else to currently be a free society). If socialism is a good idea, why is it necissary for the government to force people to be in it?
.,|,..,|,..,|,..,|,..,|,.
I understand that you support full public financing of elections. Do you anticipate a future where the ruling political party prevents third parties from participating in elections? Is it possible that the same Republicans and Democrats keeping you out of the debates could prevent you from funding your campaign?
40% of the income in this country goes to taxes. There is a philosophical if not economic need for a tax cut. There is more then enough money in the federal government, in fact there is to much. If you gut the federal government from head to toe, send power back to the states, get the government out of ever social orifice of this country, low and behold there is plenty to go around. A powerful centeralized government was exactly what the founding fathers feared most. Most of the power of the federal government should be deferred back to that states. Read the constitution and the federalist papers, it is clear where the majority of the control and money should reside. If you prefer socialism, there are fabulous countries in europe who are economically stagnant because of the devistating tax burden and welfare state. There is a need for tax relief, and I don't think George W. Bush goes far enough. However, at least he is headed in the right direction.
Nader, Gore and Bush went to a fitness spa for some fun (if you can believe that Nader ever has fun) and relaxation (if you believe Gore ever relaxes).
After a healthy lunch, all three decided to visit the men's room and there they found a strange-looking gent sitting at the entrance who said, "Welcome to the gentleman's room. Be sure to check out our latest feature: a mirror that, if you look into it and say something truthful, will reward you with a wish. But be warned - if you say something false, you'll be sucked into the mirror to live in a void of nothingness for all eternity."
They entered, and on finding the mirror Nader said, "I think I'm the most truthful of us three." In an instant he was surrounded by a pile of money, which one supposes he invested in tech stocks.
Gore stepped up and said, "I think I'm the most ambitious of us three." He suddenly found the keys to a new Lexus in his hand, and this made him happy because it was a much better looking vehicle than the official Vice President's car.
Excited over the possibility of having a wish come true, Bush looked in the mirror and said, "I think..." - and was promptly sucked into the void.
Mr. Bush, why are you so adamantly against abortions, yet are also against insurance companies covering the birth control pill? Isn't this defeating the solution?
What will you do to protect the rights of athiests and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
The government already mandates the teaching of atheist dogma in all public schools, while strictly forbidding the mention of any theistic religions, theories or philosophies. What more do you want?
-jimbo
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could man!" -Bob and Larry from VeggieTales
For Example - The Predident of the United States - and Father of current Presidential Candidate George W. Bush said:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
George Bush's comments have no legal standing. Just because he says it, doesn't it mean it is being enforced as law in any way.
Some older surveys published in the 1980's, showed that almost 70% of Americans agreed that freedom of religion applies "to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme their ideas are." But only 26% agreed that Atheists should be given freedom of speech to ridicule religion and God, no matter who might be offended." 71% believed that Atheists "who preach against God and religion" should not be permitted to use civic auditoriums.'
Again, such beliefs have no legal standing. That is why we have a Bill of Rights that supercedes the will of the majority.
Hell - the constitution of Texas (the state of George W. Bush's governership) explicitly states that Atheists are not citizens of the state of texas, and my be discriminated against - luckily the US Constitution superceeds this.
This is unconscionable, and totally un-American, on the part of Texas.
Finally - may states are trying to take away my ability to keep my money from being spent DIRECTLY on the church - by sneaking in bills that allow for the use of 'school vouchers' - which are nothing more then a way to circumvent the inability for the state to give money directly to religious institutions.
Many things taught in public schools are offensive to people of theistic faiths. Why should people who don't want to support our current public school systems be forced to do so, while you, as an atheist, are exempted from having your tax money go to institutions you disagree with?
-jimbo
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could man!" -Bob and Larry from VeggieTales
Where Your Vote Should Go
great comedy company.
In Beyond The Limits the authors Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, and Jorgen Randers explain why and how humanity is rapidly overshooting its limits. Finite resources are being used up at an exponentially growing rate. Pollution, population, industrial output, food supply, etc. will all shoot beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of the environment. What this means is that sooner or later resources will be exhausted, pollution will be everywhere, food supplies will drop, populations will decline, in short - the world as we know it will collapse resulting in less food&services per person, reduced health, less consumer goods per person, and a lower life expectancy. In order to prevent this we must eventually stop physical growth and come up with a _sustainable_ plan for humanity. The sooner this is done, the less drastic the collapse will be, the longer mankind can survive on planet earth. Technology might help us, but it cannot save us unless we help ourselves. If elected President, what specifically (if anything) would you do to help contribute in making the global system sustainable, in dampening an inevitable collapse?
Dustin Laverick
1) Do you believe in the Constitution as a limiting force on government? 2) What will you do to reduce the Federal Government to its role as outlined in the U.S. Constitution?
Well, that hospitalization would be because the person couldn't handle what s/he took mentally, not that it was physically life threatening or something.
System possessed? # grep deamon
Actually, the point is well-made. Just as with metric, where the US is the last country (literally, even Brunei switched over) not to use metric, for years we avoided using GDP in favor of GNP.
Well, as with metric, the whole world switched over to GDP and under GATT and WTO, we were forced to switch (yeah, Alan Greenspan!).
So, the question should be in terms of GDP, since GNP is not in practical usage in this country any more.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Save_your_time.__When_ask_about_DeCSS_at_a_campaig n_rally_yesterday,_he_seemed_completely_ clueless.__I_don't_think_he's_that_well_versed_in_ technology_issues.
Damn_I_have_it_when_space_bars_don't_work._;-)
Life takes it's toll...please have exact change.
First off, I'm all for freedom of religion (I personally worship Negatism, which is my own, obviously). And I have nothing against, LEGITIMATE, practicing wiccans, or whoever else falls into the catagory. Where my problem lies is the people that are only trying to cause a disturbance in the system. These people are those that will listen to heavy metal, and assume that by killing sparky, their dog, that they are practicing satanists, and that their rights are prrotected, and that they should be able to kill sparky, the dog (This is just an example, not to offend any metal heads, hell, i'm a metal head, in a metal band, http://www.thyatira.com). These, generally, are the same people that whine and moan about how christianity/catholosism (sorry, I can't spell) are all they hear about. There's a very good reason for this, it's because 99% of americans are one of the two. Religion is just like anything else, of course you're going to hear about it more, if more people follow it. Take sports for instance, you hear about football every day of the week, but you don't hear about the US fish hucking team, do you??? it's because football's more popular. This doesn't meant that, if you're legitimate, that you shouldn't be able to practice your own religion, I have no problem worshipping how I want to worship. Now, there is the problem of legitimately practicing alternate religions in school, but that's a whole essay (which I've written, email me if you want a copy) and I don't have time for that right now.
I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, merely that he is not necessary - hawking
What 'rights' should these people have that they don't already have? Should they have any 'preferential' treatment just because they happen to be into the latest harry-poter-induced religious craze? (yah yah yah, blah blah blah, I know those have been around for a while, etc etc. This is a sarcastic comment, hold your flames, Gimps).
Last I checked, you were free to chose your own religion, unless you went to some institution where you have to be a specific religion (i.e. catholic HS, college, etc). Then, you get what you pay for.
Just my 2 cents...
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
Here is my question: Why Bother with a tax cut at all?
I say, why not take the money in and spend it on public works... Of course, I favor education as I am a student. But any sort of public work (That includes scholarships to college, public schools, medicare, science advancement,roads, military etc.) will benefit people more than simply giving it to them to spend, as that only benefits the business that profit from it, (and in turn the economy) (Don't get me wrong: I don't think the role of government is to dictate how people spend their money.) But it is important to build such infrastructure and tax appropriately as needed. The economy is doing great now, so we can afford to reinvest in such things, and keep a good thing going.
PS. I don't want to hear any of that "You can spend your money better than the government can" B___S___.
And to all the other candidates I hope the media gives you more press as I would wish to hear of more competition...
My comments: (Note: this is my only opinion) as noted above I said college scholarships I count these as a public work as they promote education and in turn benefit society as a whole. (This is why I don't consider this (small?) part of al gore's plan to be a tax brake per say.)
My Flamebit: (Note: this is my only opinion)
I'm going to assume both of these statements are true, as I have herd no corrections.Now, first off if everyone benefits It's not a targeted tax cut!!!
Next, 50 million americans is 1/6th of the population!
Now, I'm making the brazing assumption that that is the most wealthy 1/6th as that would make the most since based on gore's claims.
So, we can conclude that AL doesn't know how to make a targeted tax cut as 5/6ths is hardly a target.
And that Bush doesn't know the meaning of "targeted"!
PPS. Pleas forgive any errors I have made in this post. And (I know I'll be flamed for this but...) Moral character/Charisma is worth nothing to me in a leader!
niceFire.com - Humor and Lego's or Lego's and Humor or Some Combination of
niceFire.com - Humor and Lego's or Lego's and Humor or Some Combination of
At the recently exposed surface of earth's exact magnetic south, scientists have just discovered an electronic device that dates back to the very creation of our planet. It appears to be a button with a blinking red light. There is no visible indications of any kind anywhere on or near this "button". There appears to be some type of conduit underneath the button, and from what scientists can tell, it reaches all the way down to the core of the earth.
Shall we push it?
When I was young, so were computers. But frequent was the discussion of the role of technology in society. It was always Orwellian discussions from people who understood not the first thing about computers, but feared their potential (and nuclear holocaust). In the past 30 years our understanding of technology has improved dramatically. Yet I find it strange that we no longer engage in discussions of technology's role in society as a whole, or in government specifically. As the constant evolution of technology weaves an ever tighter integration between private and public information systems.
How far is too far, and who is deciding (corporations/capitalism/we'll let it find it's own equillibrium)? I personally see no other alternative to an entirely integrated world. Maybe not soon, but it does seem inevitable. We are only scratching the surface in an area where all laws are unprecedented. As unpalatable as the idea is, the internet will not remain unregulated.
What is the future for anonymity on the internet? When will it be possible to execute a legally binding contract electronically? How long before flaming is considered a hate crime, spamming considered assault? How long before transmitting a virus is considered terrorism? How long before emailing porn is considered rape? What level of encryption is necessary to protect national security? (is anything less treason-punishable by death) Can someone own the exclusive rights to a pattern of bits? If it's a document, a book, a song? What if it's a person? How long before our genetic code will be stored magnetically? (Talk about identity theft) How long before we are able to opt-out of the government and taxes? How long before we can vote online? How long before I can post a Request For Comments for a law? When can I participate on a virtual jury? (OJ comes to mind)
How long is it going to take before I can review my life's profile online? (I would like to see my account status include all taxes paid and owed, police records, credit reports, medical records educational records)
When will I see the checkbox to select "yes, I would like to receive regular updates on my governments progress"? (would you like the details or just the summary? would you like that to include a Gantt chart with estimated versus actual progress?)
Click here if you would like an elected official to contact you.
How close are we towards this reality, and why do we continue to close the gap on these issues without discussing their impact on society? If I were to run an IT project the way we run this country, I would be fired. We are running without a plan, and addressing the situations as they arise. Why didn't we know about damage to the ozone layer before we began destroying it? Why do we continue it's destruction without sufficiently understanding the problem? (maybe it's good for us, but it's probably too late to fix if it's not) We do this because people in general are not smart enough, or do not care enough to understand the impact from these issues. People instead are content to live their lives oblivious to the situation around them. Things really are much more like the movie The Matrix than anyone seems willing to admit. (which I suppose is redundant) My utter amazement however, is that in this particular forum, there is so much discussion about, well... everything else.
We're all animals living in a zoo. We're trying to figure out who to vote for as head zookeeper giving careful consideration to the one who will make our cage the nicest with the best food and water. (What are your plans Mr Gore relative to the recent lack of fresh vegetation? And Mr Bush, your thoughts on urinating in the watering hole?) I want to know which one is in favor of unlocking the gates!
Who are the real leaders of the Information Age? Is there a thinktank somewhere considering all of these issues? I would love to find out who these people are, because I would like to register my vote on a few of the more important issues.
The worst possible scenario is leaving the evolution of technology to corporations. What in the hell will we do if Bill Gates becomes best positioned to lead our world? (as if he's not 2/3rds the way there already) He's got the money, he owns the desktop OS. If he buys Intel, we'll start filing taxes by our Pentium serial number. (owning any other processor constitutes tax evasion)
I realize that this is a lot for one candidate. So to summarize, I would ask the question,
What the fuck are your plans for technology?
"One nation of the earth entirely connected with broadband access for all. One government with one central database. One set of laws and one language. Spiritually grounded in science. With all the values of democracy, and everyone is free."
Provide details for the next phase of the project along with budgetary numbers and timeframes for completion. Also, please estimate tasks, budget and timeframes should you be selected for the second phase. Estimate rough budgetary numbers for the entire project along with your best guess for a completion date.
The successful bidder must receive a majority vote from the earth's population. In the event that no candidate receives majority vote, this project will be put on hold until such time that a majority vote can be received.
Question to George W. and to Al Gore. Do you think it was unfair not to let Nader in to the debates? I doubt that was very fair, I think we should let Nader debate, and maybe even let some of the other parties debate. Now an issue that has been bothering me. The tax issue. Question, why do George W. and Al Gore BOTH have nice and complicated tax cut plans, we've gone back and forth on this issue, and they both of course say that theirs is better. Yet if you acually look at both of them they are selectively choosing who gets a tax cut. I agree with funkman when he said "Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much on the debt?" This is one reason I don't think we really need a tax cut. I think that sure it sounds good that if we elect Bush we ALL get tax cuts, and the middle class is quite attracted by the Gore tax cut plan because he promises to give most of the tax cut to the middle class. Now once I tohught about both these plans and then another alternative, the one that funkman brings up I see that the most sense resides in what neither candidate did, but thats probably because they have to compete, I mean if Gore all of a sudden said "we're going to put this surplus into the debt. Anyhow thats all I have right now. That was just festering since the last debate and funkman put words into my mouth with what he said. Thanks funk.
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." John F. Kennedy
Recently, we have seen the government become and more involved in the lives of americans. From the Tobacco settlement to proposed legislation on the movie industry, to bans on video games in public places, it seems that more and more control is being taken from the people. Where do you think the government's responsibility ends and the personal responsibility of the public begins? How will you conduct your administration to reflect this view?
Government is rampant with representatives shouting "I believe..." and "I will do this...". But it's not the way it was intended. How do you feel about representatives getting back to the way it was intended and standing for what the majority of the population they represent wants, even if you yourself feels it is wrong.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
How would you estimate the effect of the currently emerging new world economy on the US and the rest of the world, and how will you modify the US society (economics, law, education, etc.) to meet the 'demands' of that society?
This might seem a bit like a 'no brainer', but bear with me... What issue postions are key to your parties platform? What issues do you feel are most important, and which of these distinguish your ticket from other electoral offerings? Thanks for your breif replies, Avatar1000
I have no Sig.
As this fine question concerning electoral reform has been moded up to a score of 5, I offer the most up-to-date information I could find in regards to the facts.
According to an excerpt from this link to the Federal Election Commision's explanation of how the electoral college works:
"Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district]."
Microsoft, which is under indictment for anti-trust violations, has contributed one million dollars to both major parties. Microsoft is just one of a growing number of corporations that give large sums to both Republicans and Democrats. Is there anything about this that you find troubling? If the smart people at Microsoft don't care which major party wins the white house, why should we?
Two Pass voting is great, but Instant Runoff Voting (aka Preference Voting) is an easier, quicker and cheaper method of getting things done.
If you really want to learn more about alternative voting and election methods take a look at www.fairvote.org. It's quite shocking to find out that America is one of three 'Major' democracies not to have some form of proportional representation at a national level (Jamaica and Canada are the other two).
It's really a shame that the issue of Election Reform (as opposed to Campaign Reform) gets so little press. It's also a reason few even bother voting when the system is rigged in favor of those already in power.
PS. There are other threads dealing specifically with the Electoral College, but not any dealing with general election reform. Correct me if I'm wrong...I'd love to read them :)
I would LOVE to see Instant Runoff Voting implemented instead of the current plurality voting. I continualy 'waste' my vote on third party candidates, but I'm one of those that won't vote for the lesser of two evils.
I'd also love to see Cummulative Voting or Proportional Representation take over for single member district voting. It would be nice to elect my elected officials, instead of them choosing me when they gerrymander districts.
I've asked the question of electoral reform to every local official running and so far only the libertarians seem to believe in answering e-mail and they are for reform.
NOTE: Of course the minor parties are on the outside looking in and thus want change, while those who feel served by the current process don't want to change. Only in the cases noted (namely Vermont, New Mex and Washington) is change being sought because a strong Green party is helping elect Republican after Republican. (LOL! those are the last folks strong greens would vote for!)
What percentage of registered voters do you think have to vote in an election so that the winning candidate carries a mandate from the people and is truly representative of the citizenry? What have you done to get more people to vote?
Open-ended questions give the candidate the opportunity to say whatever they wanted to say anyway. You will notice a lot of those in the regular debates, and a lot of vapidity in the answers. If you just want to hear what the candidates would like to tell you, why bother with a debate? Just read the platform.
It is true that being very polemical in your questions can lead to it being you who are debating the candidates, rather than the candidates debating each other. But in this format, the candidates won't be directly debating anyway. Even if you just want to think of this as a conventional interview, rather than a debate, those are generally more informative when difficult questions are asked. And pointed questions are often the most difficult (save sometimes for irrelevant personal questions, which I assume none of us advocate).
I disagree. The agenda of the WTO is to promote unfettered Capitalism. In general, that is also the agenda of the US, but the latter could change. Big problem. The US is the one national government powerful enough to fetter Capitalism at this point. And it is still democratic in some formal sense. Therefore, the US government is a short-term ally, but a long-term threat, to world Capitalism.
"When it comes to the United States intervening in foreign country issues, either via politics or the military, should it's goal be to do what is right in the situation or to do what is in the United State's best interest?"
I posted earlier as an AC but I figured no one would read it, so here it is again.
Shouting from across the Pond... What if any policies do the candidates have to further US /EU relations?
Do any of the candidates perceive the need for open trilateral bodies (US/EU/Japan)?
What do the candidates see as being the biggest obsticles to cordial relations between the US, EU and Japan? And, how would the candidates seek to overcome them.
What reforms would you like to see made in the H1B visa program?
Many companies depend on the H1B visa program to satisfy their need for tech workers. Several problems have been identified with the current H1B visa program. A September 2000 report by the GAO documents the massive expansion in the H1B program, and concludes that better controls are needed. Organizations such as the IEEE have provided recommendations to reform the current process.
I am interested in your view as to what problems you see in the H1B visa program, and steps you would take to correct them.
Actually, "belief in the nonexistence of God" is only one definition of atheism; another is "disbelief in the existence of God". The latter is the same as one usage (of three that I've seen) of agnosticism but is not the definition Huxley origially used, if I recall correctly...
The "offical" Presidential Debates require a 15% average in six hand-picked polls. This requirement was hastily raised after Perot managed to get into the last debates and nearly got himself elected despite being a total nutter with delusions of grandeur.
As for other third-parties in the debates, although there are over a hundred different third-party candidates, a bare handful have even a mathematical chance of winning (ie. on the ballot in enough states to win the Electoral College). The Republican primaries worked with 5 people on stage, so would this.
From http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/t ren ch/trench.html:
``It was overlooked by the media that the worst school disaster happened on May 18, 1927, when 45 people were killed, including 38 elementary students, by a series of dynamite explosions at the Bath Michigan School. After detonating explosives he planted under the school, "maniac bomber" Andrew Kehoe, a school board member and treasurer, blew up his pickup truck, killing himself and the Bath School superintendent.''
--
Ski-U-Mah!
This is the accepted Trvth, but is it actually true, or is it simply what's been repeated so many times that people just assume that it's true? Note that the following might work against this:
It assumes that the marginal value of an extra dollar's income is the same at all levels of income. If the marginal value of income decreases greatly above a certain level, then a tax cut that puts someone above this line (for that particular individual) might not encourage that person to work harder at all; it might encourage that person to work less, to put his or her income closer to that knee.
It is clearly true that the marginal value of income is less for wealthy people than for poor people. Wealthy people are not likely to spend their off hours flipping burgers for an extra $3-4/hour (net). The issue is whether someone receiving additional income because of a tax cut chooses to spend some of that income purchasing extra leisure time (people talk about working harder to pay the taxman -- that's exactly what I mean).
Income level is not necessarily proportional to level of effort, particularly at high levels. For someone performing piece work, it quite clearly is; for an executive or professional, it often isn't.
There is a fairly clear region where a high tax rate does discourage productivity, but it's not one that people like to talk about -- it's the fact that welfare (and other) benefits are withdrawn quite abruptly at certain levels of income. This acts as an extremely high marginal tax rate, which I suspect is well in excess of 100% in some cases (certainly when there's a hard wall it is). In that situation, there's a very clear lack of incentive (and if the marginal rate exceeds 100%, an outright disincentive) to produce. But this isn't the situation people usually think of when they talk about reducing the tax rate.
Will the (hypothetical) extra growth really be sustained, or will it simply be a one-off effect that boosts growth for a few years until things settle down at basically the same level of growth?
However, poorer schools can't afford books and other educational material, and poorer students can't afford to buy their own.
One solutions would be an educational computer network that carried electronic versions of ALL basic and advanced school texts to scools in deprived areas would provide the students there with the materials they need.
Would the candidates consider such a solution? And if not, what do the candidates feel is the most cost-effective way to solve the resource crisis?
As a follow-on, would candidates consider making education tax-deductable (say, in proportion to the level)? A well-educated person can generate more revenue for the US (through tax, additional trade, etc). Since education isn't cheap, offseting some of that potential against the cost would seem to be the way to encourage people to become as useful and able as they can.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Do any of the canidates think that the current election system is in need of reform, or is a two party electorial system the best way.
Is there a problem with corporate and media interest in our current election system.
What about a no-party two-pass voting system?
In this system, there would be no special power given to political parties. In fact, presidential primaries may not be needed.
The first pass would be the "vote your heart" vote. And the second pass would be choosing from the top candidates. This would greatly lesson the wasted vote fealing that people get in a two-party system.
Or are there other ideas for a more democratic election system?
There are a lot of really good questions here. It's going to be difficult to choose the 10 best. Any chance you could short-list say 20 of them and post it as a slashdot poll?
Paul.
It's interesting to see the Natural Law party listed -- I'd assumed they were just a UK penomenon until now. I wonder how many other polital parties are international, and what would happen should they come to power in multiple countries simultaneously. Scary thought.
Sidenote: anyone else amused by Monica G. Moorehead's bio where she's listed as a religious atheist? So how does that work, then? :-)
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
But at what point did it become one nation under God? "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." This quote was not by George Washington (as is widely claimed), but it was in a treaty ratified by the senate in a unanimous vote during his second term of office, and signed by John Adams in 1797.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
The Constitution allows the Congress to set laws instituting Patents and Copyrights "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" "for limited times." How long do you believe copyright should reasonably exist on a work and what "fair-use" of copyrighted materials do you believe should be allowed? In addition, are there any types of work that are currently copyrightable which you either do not believe are worthy of copyright or believe should be treated differently in copyright law?
Very little... too busy running the country/Texas/for prez.
What is your favorite internet porn site?
Prono degrades women, bad bad bad
How many mp3's have you downloaded from napster
What's an mp3?
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I am interested what sites these guys visit (if any). I'd suspect CNN.com, CNNfn.com, and politics.CNN.com
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Gentlemen:
You both admit, to one degree or another, to have used illicit substances in your past, and yet you both would like us to believe that you are fully functional, respectable members of society.
You both also claim that you are comitted to support, possible strengthening, the current "war on drugs" -- a war by the laws of which you should be put in prison for your actions of the past.
How do you reconcile your positions on these issues? Do you admit that recreational drug use is not a serious issue worthy of spending millions upon millions of tax dollars on, as well as tying up our legal system with the prosecutorial burden? Or are you willing to submit yourselves to appropriate punishment for your actions, regardless of any statute of limitations on them -- like the honorable men you claim to be.
The Congress is supposed to represent the people of this country, yet in recent decades it seems to represent the large corporations that have enough money to entice them with "contributions" or lobbying. Would you support a bill making it treason for members of Conress to represent the interests of corporations when it is in direct conflict with the interests of the people?
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
I think we're already in dependancy -- take a look at how many people depend on the State to provide something for them
Here in Mississippi, we're trumpeting about how many kids we've signed up for the CHIP program. Is this something to be proud of? How many kids have become, in a sense, wards of the State? 25,000 at last count, and there aren't all that many people in Mississippi. 25,000 is a goodly portion of the population.
If that isn't enough, how many of our aged depend on Social Security and Medicare for their food and medicine? I have no clue. My grandmother is on Social Security, and I hate it. If i didn't have to cough up nearly 50% of my income (self-employed), I'd be more than able (and willing -- my grandmother is an 85 year old hacker in her own way) to help care for her. As it is, I live hand to mouth myself (nope, no health insurance -- but then, I'm pretty healthy) and can't bear supporting somebody else.
Dependancy (I would argue) is equivalent to slavery anyway. Dependancy on a person is bad enough -- dependancy on a faceless State is horrible. It's equivalent to being a stand of trees or a ditch on Federal land. You're owned by the State and used by the State, but not cared for by the State because, after all, you're just property with no value.
I'm just about ready to leave this country and move to a Caribbean island where the laws are lax (I'm thinking the Turks and Caicos). Sure I like my fast Internet connection, but when confronted with the choice between freedom and nerdliness... I'll be the first to choose running a dive shop over hacking Tcl anyday.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Not too many years ago, that idea wouldn't have even popped into your head. It was as unthinkable as drilling holes in your own head. Family was (and still should be, IMO) everything. My Granny wouldn't think about being a burden, because she wouldn't be a burden. She's family.
It's still somewhat prevalent here in the South (not nearly what it used to be), and the Philipinos have us beat like all get out -- family over there is way at the top of the list of Important Things.
We don't have tight families anymore (witness our spectacular divorce rate and the pseudo-prestige given single parents). Dunno when or how exactly this happened (for conveniece I like to blame the Boomer generation), but it's a shame that it did happen.
As for those who don't have anyone to support them, there used to be charity houses where they could go and be cared for. I know, you're thinking how horrible those were or could be. When I was younger, I used to play my cello for the residents of Government-run retirement homes. Trust me -- I know of which I speak -- those are just as bad if not worse.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Do you believe that the Supreme Court made a mistake when it ruled that corporations are individuals, with all the inalienable rights thereof? If so, what would you do to correct this mistake?
Yes or no; do you support a 100% taxation rate on income over a certain level? If so, what is that level?
-
A related question hinges on technical standards. As part of my suggestion above, I'd like to see a standardized box (that I can buy from any manufacturer, at WalMart) that will convert the fiber signal into TV, Telephone, Data, or whatever. Then, if I want to change my cable provider, I simply call my current provider, say "drop me," call a new provider, say "I want to give you my money," then walk downstairs and it should be switched over. There's no technical reason why this cannot happen today -- except that there are too many competing and incompatible standards.
At many times in the past, the government has refused to endorse a single technological standard (AM Stereo, HDTV (until late), and Cell Phones are examples). The rationale behind this is comendable: "Let the market decide." The end result, however, is that we have several competing and incompatible standards out there, and the industry is unable to settle on any single one -- saddling users with hardware supporting legacy sytems, the inability to switch between providers without buying a new phone, and so forth. How would you rectify this situation (both for new needs, such as the "one connection" box I describe above, and to bring the US into the 21st century to finally catch up with the Finns and the Japanese)?
As recently reported by the Associated Press, promiment Senator John McCain (R-AZ), joined by three other Republicans, has recently begun promoting mandated internet 'filtering' in public libraries and schools. Doesn't it seems strange that a party, whose major planks focus individual rights and freedom, is behind a proposal to obstruct it? What is your opinion on this? Is this a violation of civil liberties?
Here in Germany, the Internet is sometimes called Datenautobahn (data motorway).
In 1995, Helmut Kohl, then Chancellor of Germany, was asked by a German IBM manager during an interview: What's the government's take on the Datenautobahn?
His answer: The Autobahn system is an issue of the federal states.
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Probably 99% of my unsolicited bulk email (also known as Spam) originates in the USA. It is a whole new dimension of fraud, chain letters and multi level marketing, thanks to the cheap mass mailing possibilities of the Internet.
While Anti-Spam regulation exists, US laws appear to be very weak on this issue. Here in Germany, laws are far stricter and the financial fines involved can make email spam a very expensive hobby for a spammer.
Most US spammers cite non-existant laws (the Murkowski bill is an example) as an excuse for their actions, trying to appear legal. Some of the most persistent spammers have been in action for years and are known by name and address, yet they still haven't been stopped, due to weak US laws.
Will there ever be more efficient laws against spammers and their usual snake oil line of fraud products?
Also: I see a disturbing trend of US-American political parties trying to use E-Mail spam for their campaigning. While not being an American citizen, I have already received such E-Mail by US-American parties and political or corporate lobbyists. What is your take on email bulk messaging as a political tool?
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Stock options are credited against the corporate
tax. When the grantee exercises their option, they pay a tax at the personal income tax rate. that is gnerally higher than the corporate tax rate- 28-36% versus 25%. So the governments gets a LARGER revenue than otherwise.
Since he became a Congressmen. Has real estate, treasuries and cash instead.
Bush owns stocks.
However, Bush encourages more tax incentitives for supply and Gore tax incentives for conservation and alternative energy.
When I see so many facts mangled in many of the questions posted here, I am saddened by the state of our system. High tech people seem no less ignorant than the general population on the issues. Should try reading an [online] newspaper now and then.
The high tech industry claims we need far more computer science people than graduate from US schools. The number of computer science majors has been stagnating. Hence we are admitting (or planning to admit) nearly two million high tech special immigrants. This, in turn, scares US kids from considering the field and compounds the problem. Should we, and how can we get more US students into the pipeline?
I think this is an excellent idea. The President of the United States should spend a lot of time wrangling with issues that affect dozens of cities all over America. Many people will argue that these cities could probably pass their own laws that best suit their own citizens, but local government will just get it wrong. A federal law is necessary for any behavior which might be incorrect or inefficient. Think of all those people trapped in all that suburban sprawl, masturbating with their right hands, when they should be using their left as God and Congress intended.
Moderate the above post up, please!
If anything, atheism is now the official statre religion of the US, since the only legally acceptable religion in public has become no religion. It seems pretty childish to complain of discrimination against your revolt against reason when your form of disbelief is being enshrined as the only acceptable position.
This is simply not right. I will confess that in academia and in the tech industry, atheism is fairly widespread, however, -legally-, the right to practice any religion is as well protected as ever in the history of the U.S., and -socially- christianity is clearly still the primarily accepted religion, evidenced not only by the predominance of churches of christian sects, but, by the way that the candidates in the 'big two' parties manuevered to express their strong christian faith back in the primaries, not to mention that -every- president of the U.S. has been a christian of one sect or another. There is some evidence that the strongly christian leaning of the US government is weakening in that Gore chose Liebermann for a running-mate, but that only goes to show that there is increasing tolerance for other monotheistic faiths besides Christianity.
Anecdotally, it's easy to come up with examples of how religion is disappearing, but really, in a religiously diverse country, it's easier to keep religion as a quiet and personal matter than provoke arguments by loudly proclaiming the rightness of one's own faith at every opportunity. This is simple politeness, really, as any claim that one's own religion is 'true' implies that others are 'false,' and nobody likes to have their religious beliefs publically attacked. (Polite theological debate in the right setting being another matter.)
So, as evidenced by the fact that the a pro-christian standpoint -improves- the approval ratings of a candidate for the highest office in the United States, and with my suggestion above as an alternative explanation for some -appearances- to the contrary, I think it's safe to say that religion is still alive and well.
Anecdotally, FWIW, I don't currently know any atheists at all; I seem to recall knowing one or two in college. I -do- still know a handful of agnostics, but most people I know are, in about equal numbers, christian, jewish, or neopagan. I'm pretty confident that that's not at all close to the actual population, but it does show, at least, that the country is not overwhelmingly atheist or I'd have trouble meeting such people.
Now, if by 'legally acceptable' you meant the creationism/evolution in schools thing, and related issues, let me just say that science is not (or rather, -should not- be) a religion. It's a set of momentarilly believed 'truths' based on empirical evidence, and is perfectly possible to accept both scientific 'truth' and religious 'truth' at the same time. People do it every day. Now, when someone says 'spiritual religion is bunk because there's no scientific evidence for it', that's treating science like religion, and the proper answer to such persons is 'there's no scientific evidence -against- it either'. (Specifically, there's no scientific evidence that there is no such thing as a soul, a god or gods, an afterlife, etc. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old, etc. The devout christian will have to either believe that God created the world with that illusory evidence in place, or that the stories of Genesis and the years that people lived as you follow the genealogies up to historically verifiable events aren't exactly literal.)
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
a) You shouldn't reply to obvious trolls. ;)
b) Joining an organization such as the ULC (Universal Life Church, at www.ulc.org) or one of the several umbrella pagan organizations that exist just to accredit local pagan groups as members of their religion can make it easier to get your temple/grove/whatever made into a place of worship, though depending on where you are in the country it still won't be easy... but then, starting a branch of the 'universal life church' might slide the paperwork through painlessly (and most ULC chapters -are- Christian oriented, though the church itself has as its only tenet that everyone is free to believe and worship as they choose, so you can easily be a pagan ULC minister... ) Anyway. Blessed be.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Don't forget that most of that debt is owed to ourselves (in the form of Treasury notes and other bonds).
;)) go into debt control than take any of it out now. This will ensure a larger surplus next year, and the next, as long as the policy is kept up. (I would -not- want to see the debt cut in half in a single year or anything like that; I don't want to play with the economy that way.)
So what? This mostly means that our savings, held by banks, is in turn, invested into the US, which allows the banks to make a profit because of the interest rate differential, and other various large-financial-institution day-to-day-business. It -still- comes down to, the citizen is paying something like (I haven't checked the percentages in a couple years) half of his taxes to interest on the debt. Which would be better, doubling the federal income (allowing tax breaks of 50% across the board and/or new spending programs) or buffering savings bank interest rates?
Honestly, I suspect that having -some- national debt is a good thing for the economy generally since it -does- provide this stable place to dump excess funds and still earn -some- interest; however, the current debt is ridiculous; I really don't want more than about 10% of my taxes going to pay interest on the debt. I would much, much rather see the entire surplus (okay, lets compromise - half of it?
Anyway; recalling history, nations with drastic debts go into a spiralling inflationary depression when the economy dips, often destroying their currency altogether so they have to start over. (Witness Germany, England; Mexico had similar but recovered with a controlled, forced-inflation model). I'd really, really rather not see my life savings wiped out permanently because of poor foresight and something that -should- have been a temporary dip in the economy.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
That's not how the debt is read, though; social security and 'other investments' are not part of the general federal budget. They are - or were - deliberately separate.
The funds borrowed 'by the government from the government' are -still- debt, because, firstly, interest must still be payed on them, and secondly, social security funds are intended to be returned to the public via the social security program.
To treat money borrowed from social security as 'not really debt' is only valid if you think it's okay for the federal-budget side of government to decide to terminate the social security program and not pay that money back to its social security branch.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Not to mention that China pretty much has owned Clinton and Gore for the last few years.
Finkployd
Once they get elected, that promise is meaningless (see Bush Sr. ...)
:)
Or for more recent history, Clinton/Gore in 92 ran on the platform of a middle class tax cut. This was promptly forgotten.
Bush Sr only promised no new taxes, however the democrat controlled congress was able to override this. Thanks dems
Finkployd
You are assuming the typical movie break-in. At night, one guy with a crowbar and ski-mask. Yes he would be scared off with an alarm system.
I look at it this way, during the LA riots, the only shops that weren't looted and destroyed were the ones that the owners stood guard over with firearms. Nobody saw that coming, and people would have declared you a racist nutcase for suggesting it was possible before it happened, yet some people WERE prepared for the worst.
Do I think think that something like that could happen where I'm at? Where civility breaks down temporarily and leaves me to protect myself, my loved ones, and property by myself? Probably not, but am I any worse off for having addressed the possibility?
Finkployd
Fink, but don't think that people will every be perfectly nice to each other and not force others to do what they want.
History will back you up on that, unfortunatly it seems every generation must learn history over again.
The same applies with the armed forces. I see people advocating a 50%+ decrease in armed forces because they don't see a need for them. After all, the planet is more civilised now and something like a world war would never happen again. Just like before WW2.
Finkployd
The whole reason that taxes are colleted at all just because people don't know how to (or moreso, are to selfish to) better spend their money.
In who's opinion? Yours? Who made you the expert?
Sorry to burst your bubble, the reason taxes were collected (specifically income taxes) was to fund the war effort. Like many other taxes, it was intended to be temporary, but became permanent.
Finkployd
That whole thing was simply a gross display of sloppy journalism to make Al Gore look like an idiot.
I can't believe that actually happend to a democrat. Usually it's the republicians they usualy use sloppy journalism to attack.
Oh well, tit for tat
Finkployd
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along
Personally, I prefer to decide for MYSELF how MY money is best spent. A tax cut would let me do that.
Finkployd
If there is a single factor in government that has contributed to the currenty positive economy, it was Greenspan. Now don't get me wrong, he had a small role compared to the private sector, but he was certainly more influence than say, Clinton (who for some reason seems to think he had something to do with it).
Finkployd
Personally I think we should get rid of all firearms, they make death easy and without value.
I would love to see that, how do you propose we do it? Currently all our attempts have failed at doing anything other than making it harder for non-criminals to get guns to protect themselves from criminals (including the recently reported failed Brady Law).
I have a gun to protect myself from the people who use their guns to committ crimes against myself and my fellow law abiding citizens, but I don't want it. However, it being irresponsible of me to not provide for my own safety, I will not give it up until the last gun is out of the last criminal's hand, and my safety is guarenteed. When this is done, I'll be first in line to get rid of my gun.
Finkployd
Truly weird, just last week I was talking with my grandfather about this. Offer alternative sentences to non violent offenders. 2/3 of the amount of time to be spent in jail spent in the military instead.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
As a regular voter in U.S. elections, I want to know how each of the candidates for President intends to execute changes in the way the Department of Defense develops and maintains readiness to defend against physical, network and semantic information attacks by enemies, both foreign and domestic.
The War College has been churning out papers on this very subject for years, yet the Congress continues to allocate funds like we're preparing to do a D-day style invasion off the cold chaulks in the next "Last Great War".
I'm beginning to believe that only the President has the power to Stop The Madness. What will you do about the problem?
jhw
For all the candidates, except George W and AlGore: Since we seem to be moving towards a hereditary monarchy/aristocracy in this country, what qualities of your parents and your bloodline in general makes you uniquely qualified to become president and populate various political offices with your descendants unto the third generation or so?
A big topic today is gay rights or should they have them. In some countries gays are killed just for being gay. In South Africa, they first try to 'reprogram' them and when that fails the they kill them. I know Bush && Buchannon are against including gays on a hate crimes bill, and Gore says he is for including them in such a bill.
Hey just because it is against YOUR religion does not mean it is wrong! There was a time when Christianity had crusades and KILLED anyone who was not a Chrisitan. The NAZI's killed Jews / Hebrews just because they were Jewish or Hebrew. They ALSO killed gays and lesbians.
What are your views on the freedoms of those that do not share your views about religion and YOUR moral values? Specifically the religions that DO accept gays and lesbians, and DO allow them to marry and DO give them rights. The religions that teach true LOVE and not HATE.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
You're correct: I do not. I posted regarding those two because it really bothered me that the media, even knowing they'd messed up, often refused to apologize, apparently trying to justify their errors by saying that the events - although false - were somehow illustrative of events that weren't false. That's perverse.
Nor do I have the time or energy to chase after every such rumor. I believe that it's incumbent (no pun intended) on the accuser in such situations to present some evidence. I'm also saddened to see that so few other people seem to agree with me.
By the way - although I'm likely to vote for Gore, I do not consider myself a "Gore supporter" by any stretch of the imagination. I consider him to be the least of four evils. So if you're hoping to bait a Gore fanatic, take it elsewhere.
Just out of curiosity though, why would you say "mildly plausible"? The "Love Canal" bit was pretty obviously skewed against Gore unfairly, and the "Love Story was about Tipper and I" thing seems a lot less unreasonable when you consider that it was, in fact, based on him. Is it that you want to vilify him so much that you simply can't admit the possibility that you might be wrong?
Al Gore said in a speech to a group of high school students in New Hampshire that he "called for a congressional investigation and a hearing" regarding toxic waste problems in Toone, TN. During the course of the hearings, he said he started looking for other towns that had similar difficulties, which is how he came across Love Canal. I refer you to He's No Pinnochio, an article featured in The Washington Monthly, describing the actual quote, the circumstances surrounding its misinterpretation, and the utter refusal of most media outlets to apologize for the mistake.
It's true that the female lead in the story wasn't based on Tipper. However, The New York Times reported (December 14, 1997) that Erich Segal based male lead of the story was based on two people: Al Gore, and Gore's roommate (actor Tommy Lee Jones). So, you're right: although Al and Tipper weren't the basis for the male and female leads, Al and Tommy were the inspiration for the male lead, which kinda makes the whole scandal seem a little silly. Check the same article for citations.
I'm not saying that I find Gore to be particularly trustworthy or even credible on all of the issues. (I'm still considering a vote for Nader, the author of the previous post's favorite.) But if there's one thing I can't stand, it's when people accuse others of lying without being in full posession of the facts. Austad: do yourself a favor and provide better (ie: any) citations next time, or just keep your mouth shut.
By the way: Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. Chris Lehane: "[Gore] was the leader in Congress on the connections between data transmission and computing power, what we call information technology. And those efforts helped to create the Internet that we know today." And the "widespread use by government and educational institutions since the early 1970's." line is bullshit. According to Jon Postel, Vint Cerf, and a host of other members of the ISOC, ARPANET didn't reach broad usage until the early 80s, and wasn't even using TCP/IP until the mid-eighties. I refer you to their document, A Brief History of the Internet.
I think an economy as strong as ours could take the hit, and the long-term benefits would be well worth it. What better time than now to pursue serious development of long-term energy?
You're right, of course, that prices across the board would be affected, and I should have made that more clear. Mainly, I am referring to those people who have their Ford Excursions out front and think it is their god-given right to cheap gasoline at the pump to fill 'em up with, as if it really makes much difference (especially compared to the price of their vehicle).
Have you ever gotten one of those chain emails trying to organize a "gas-out" day to "teach those companies a lesson about gas prices"? Those are so stupid.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Dude, you're stomping on my idealism!
Seriously, I like your solution. Anything which is used as an excess luxury doesn't deserve to be kept cheap, but that which is truely needed (for now) shouldn't be artificially taxed (but nor should it be subsidized).
And prehaps my knowing several people at nrel has something to do with it...
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Just so everybody is completely clear, Howard Phillips (and his "Constitution Party") is in serious need of a clue. Actually, they're neanderthals. Check out their site if this is unclear.
:-)
Of course, I'm not saying they shouldn't be in this interview. If anything, this is all the more reason why I would like to see their answers to these questions
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Obviously, I don't.
But there are a bunch of other candidates.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Nobody uses GNP anymore. Use Gross Domestic Product (a related, but different calculation) instead.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
What is your interpretation of the Constitution's imposed separation of church and state, as in the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech")?
Do you agree with this provision? Why or why not?
Finally, what is your view of the role of religion in issues such as free speech, public education and crime prevention?
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I like stuff like this. It won't swing the election but I applaud the way you include every party, and it's nice that they will be made aware of these issues just by the questions being sent.
:-)
And I don't know if I speak for anyone else, but this slashdot interview is almost certainly going to determine my vote. I know the veep and gov probably won't answer, but I probably won't vote for either of them, anyway. I'd be very anxious to see John Hagelin's responses.
Anyways, keep up the good work
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Ordinarily, yes. In fact, that is exactly how it used to read. However, you'd be surprised at how much people will notice when you switch it around.
:-)
My official explanation is that the mouth is not an active storage class (like a stack or queue) but one of a fixed number of places the foot can go. Or, if you like, a number of states it may occupy. It is actually longhand for the number 0, as it is an enumerated type. This is easy to remember while coding, as the 0 looks like a gaping mouth.
This makes sense because in the act of inserting the foot into the mouth, the foot is playing the active role and doing the inserting- the mouth is not seeking out the foot and wrapping itself around it.
Also, since the foot goes into the mouth quite often, the default value for the location argument is mouth (at least with object 'me', meaning me, it is) so I could have left the 'mouth' out but I kept it in the interest of readability.
Plus, if I ever decide to do a 'rewrite', well, the apology is already there in my sig...
Thanks for asking
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Given that the various candidates have been using some sample waitress making $20K per year who has 3 kids and lots of debt, I'm wondering what the respective candidates are going to do for us.
In general, technical folks tend to make good money. We're driving the "new economy", but we're getting taxed like crazy, and we see next to no benefit from the taxes we are paying (the military is less prepared now than in my lifetime, the schools are bad and getting worse, our foreign policy is ineffective at best, and there are more people in prisons than ever before).
Essentially, we're doing well and working hard, and the government is penalizing us for doing the right things and making good decisions.
So, respective candidates or representatives thereof, here's my question: What are you going to do about a federal government that places extremely burdensome taxes on productive, intelligent, hard working citizens who have made good life decisions while it simultaneously rewards unproductive citizens who have made bad life decisions?
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I've recently been researching new cars with disel engines, such as the Volkswagen TDI engines. I've read they get 40-50 MPG, plus have lower emissions than standard gas engines. 25% of Europeans drive disel cars, but only 2% of Americans do.
Are diesel engines actually viable in America? I'm afraid to buy one because so few gas stations sell diesel gas. This is a classic chicken/egg problem Does anyone have any experiences with diesel engines? Which brands of US gas station sell diesel? At every station?
thanks!
cpeterso
Following the logic of the article, it makes more sense to redivide voting districts based on geographic area and some other factor that is correlated with political position; e.g. local population density. Farmers from two midwestern states would be in the same district, then, but a farmer and a city worker would be in different districts. Annual income might be another good factor.
If there isn't some politicized way of drawing up the districts (i.e. they don't reflect existing political factions), then the electoral process adds error, not voter power. The original assumption was that state divisions correlated with political factions. Now that that is decreasing, we need a new way of creating districts.
-m
Where do you stand on the Microsoft Anti-trust case? Do you feel that a breakup of the software giant will help or hurt the national economy in the long run? If elected, will you encourage the justice department to continue the anti-trust case against Microsoft?
------------------------------|----------|-------
Conservative..........42.3....|376.......|58
Labour................30.8....|229.......|35
SDP/Liberal Alliance..22.6....|.22.......|.3
Welsh + Scottish Nats..1.7....|..6.......|.1
(No, the figures don't add up, they're not complete - they're all I've got)
As you can see, what happens is that an electoral entity (party in this case, candidate in the US Presidential elections) needs a strong genographic base. The Conservatives are traditionally strong in the south and rural areas, Labour in the north and industrial. Nationalist are strong within their own regions, the SDP/Liberals were strong, er, a little pretty much everywhere. So, as the figures rather clearly show, they got _severely_ stiffed. Because they had broad (if shallower) support, they were ignored.
Having read through the linked study, I strongly disagree with many of the basic assumptions used to underpin his model.
If we want a simple explanation of why an electoral college or first-past-the-post system is wrong, it gives some voters more power than others. If you're in a safe region, your power is nearly nil. If you're in a swing region, your power is considerable. Can we really trumpet the principle of 'one person, one vote' when there is such a huge - and entirely irrational - difference in the value of individual votes?
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
No, because whether or not Prohibition had an effect isn't directly relevant to the question of whether or not it should have been law.
You have mistaken me for someone with a vested interest in claiming Prohibition was a good thing (or, like the source you cite, a bad thing). I'm not, I'm merely pointing out the effect it had. Most of my sources come from historian Richard Shenkman's book "I love Paul Revere, Whether he rode or not." The point is not that Prohibition was a good thing, or that it had any of the promised social effects (reducing absenteeism, etc.)- simply that the case against it is often way overstated. As Einstien notes, a law that can't be enforced destroys respect for the law. But of course the government didn't try very hard to enforce the law, and it's just rather surprising how effective they were despite that. (which is not, you might note, the same thing as saying: "it was effective")
Interestingly enough, your link helps demonstrate that you've managed to bungle your own statistics: I claimed it had an effect on the amount of drinking overall (per capita, accounting for population growth), not neccesarily on how much alcohol the average drinker imbibes. You might notice that those aren't even remotely the same thing. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "legal" either, since age-minimums aren't consistent across the two periods, and one of the major factors of the first century of American drinking was that young children consumed alcohol as well (and not just upper level teens).
Actualy, it's somewhat of a myth that Prohibition didn't work or that it created Organized Crime (which already existed and was near the peak of its rule BEFORE Prohibition- but alcohol was what got many figures popularized). Believe it or not, Americans used to drink FAR more than they do now, and a good portion of that drop came during Prohibition, when alcohol consumption dropped by nearly 3/4s and never really recoverd. What's really amazing about Prohibition was not that it failed, but that it was successful as it was consider how laxly it was enforced. The entire _country_ had only about hundred agents working on the law, for negible pay (making bribery easy). Overall, Prohibition was very sparsely enforced, and yet it had an astounding and lasting impact on American drnking habits. Compare that to hundreds of highly paid thousands of anti-drug task force professionals today, and the total failure of similar cuts in drug use. I'm not saying Prohibition was a good idea, it's just that bleary-eyed Hollywood retrospective seems to eclipsed historical fact.
As Paul Krugman tries to point out in his New York Times collumns, in politics- when you lie a tiny bit, the press is all over you. But when you lie to hte tune of billions of dollars, no one catches it. Neither Gore nor Bush are proposing reasonable economic plans, and no one is calling them on it. Pathetic.
Thank you for taking the time to look up the numbers (and reminding me about the SDP/Liberal alliance).
At the time I lived in an incredibly strong Tory constituency (Leeds NW), where the sitting MP managed to get arrested in a gay bar and still got reelected. Then I moved. To Huntingdon, where John Major had a majority larger than some constituencies' electorate. Then I moved again, to America, where I don't get a vote at all. I get a postal vote back in Huntingdon, for all the good it does me.
In fact, the only vote I ever cast in a Parliamentary election that was worth the effort was in 1987, when I was a student in Cambridge. I didn't vote for the winner, though.
--
--
E_NOSIG
Of course, this is only valid for a two-party system.
In England in the 80s we saw the Social Democrats (the third party) get almost 25% of the popular vote, but only 5% of the seats in Parliament, precisely because of this kind of "districting". So much for voter power being increased.
--
--
E_NOSIG
I know it isn't possible but...please! Don't submit these soapbox comments! These are supposed to be honest questions not articles on your own political ideology! Politions should not have to defend themselves against other political ideologies. We all know what the responses to such opinions are if you lurk alt.politics.talk or other political forums. There is no consensus. There probably won't ever be any either.
You mean, that whole thing with the USS Cole in Yemen is just some terrorist group's idea of sending us flowers?
/ , and it's just the big stuff. None of the petty kidnappings and murders are listed here.
the following is from http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/10/12/terrorism.box.ap
July 8, 1998 -- U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed, killing 224 people, 12 of whom were Americans.
June 25, 1996 -- Truck bomb explodes outside the Khobar Towers housing complex near Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and injuring more than 500 Americans and Saudis.
November 13, 1995 -- Car bomb detonates at a U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans.
September 13, 1995 -- Rocket-propelled grenade pierces wall of U.S. Embassy in Moscow, but causes no injuries.
December 21, 1988 -- Pan Am Boeing 747 explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland on a flight from London to New York, killing 270 people.
September 5, 1986 -- Hijackers seize Pan Am jumbo jet carrying 358 people at Karachi Airport. Twenty people killed when security forces storm the plane.
April 2, 1986 -- Four Americans killed when a bomb under a seat explodes on a TWA airliner en route from Rome to Athens.
June 14, 1985 -- Shiite gunmen seize a TWA airliner and forced it to Beirut, Lebanon. U.S. Navy diver was killed and 39 Americans held hostage for 17 days.
September 20, 1984 -- Car bomb at U.S. Embassy annex in east Beirut, Lebanon kills 16 and injures the ambassador.
December 12, 1983 -- Shiite extremists set off car bombs in front of the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait City, killing five people and wounding 86.
October 23, 1983 -- Shiite suicide bomber blows up U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 Americans.
April 18, 1983 -- Suicide car-bomber blows up U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 17 Americans.
November 4, 1979 -- Islamic students storm U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
What are the three web sites you visit most frequently?
Do you use email, and if so, how often do you check it?
Arrest them, just like any other real criminal.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
It is possible to have a bad mental reaction with weed. I remember quite a while back, several friends and I were smoking up quite a bit, and one of the guys got really paranoid for a while. Kept going off on huge conspiracies and the fucked-up concept of apartment buildings (kept saying "People live above us. There's something wrong with that." If he was acting it all, it was very convincing. Of course, he was fine an hour later.
I guess the moral of this story is know your limits, and if you're going to do more than you're used to, have a sitter around (ESPECIALLY with some of the "harder" drugs)
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
If you vote for a 3rd party candidate (or for anyone but your state's winner), it doesn't really matter to you whether your vote gets thrown away at the state level or at the nationwide level. The point is to throw away as few votes as possible. In an election for a single executive position like president, that means that the winner should have some level of majority support.
There are websites and web pages that point out the valid public interests served by the electoral college system. My own point is simpler: at worst, the electoral college only distorts the popular will by a few percentage points. Anyone with more than 52% of the vote is pretty much guaranteed a win, and the cases where a majority candidate loses are extremely rare. Therefore, fighting something written into the federal constitution seems to me to be quixotic.
But our current system routinely throws away the votes of anyone who votes for a minor party. This is at least 7 percent every single election and would be much higher if people voted their conscience. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV, the system used by ICANN) has the power to change this. It is also a viable political issue (local issues in Vermont, Washington, and New Mexico have put it into the realm of feasibility in these states; and once one state switches it could become a trend).
[technical note: if, due to IRV, a "minor" party candidate took a single state, that state's electors would see that their candidate had lost nationwide and vote their state's second choice among the stronger candidates. There are a few minor legal changes necessary to facilitate this process.]
In summary: this questioner's concern for proportionality is important for legislatures a non-starter for executive positions like the presidency. They should either fight for IRV on the presidential scene, or move to state or local politics and fight for proportionally representative legislative bodies (many, many countries do this, and it would be a huge step forward. Americans who argue against proportional legislatures as deadlock-prone are usually confused and really arguing against parliamentary selection of the executive.)
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
This is bunk. First of all, there's much outright falsehood in your post.
If anything, atheism is now the official statre religion of the US, since the only legally acceptable religion in public has become no religion. It seems pretty childish to complain of discrimination against your revolt against reason when your form of disbelief is being enshrined as the only acceptable position.
Finally, your ignorance on the issues is showing, too: the most active and vociferous opponents of school vouchers are those intimately involved in the classical Christian school movement, as I am. The reason is simply summed up by Doug Wilson: He who takes the King's coin is the King's man. The one taking the money may not know this - the one giving it always does... It is in fact that we would be forced to adopt atheistic policies and practices that drives us to oppose vouchers, which are a bad idea no matter how you look at them. (A tax credit, on the other hand would serve the intended purpose well, as it would not allow the state to forcibly coerce schools, since the parents would control the money, as they should.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Even those of us that are adamantly opposed to any government health system are still burdened with health care systems that are to a large degree, shaped and controlled by the federal government.
The vast majority of us pay hundreds of dollars every month to purchase a lot of coverage we niether want nor need, like routine doctors visits and every prescription we'll ever encounter.
Would you support regulations or the lack thereof that would promote the availability of catastophic healthcare coverage only, which would dramatically reduce the cost of health care to the end consumer?
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Much has been made in this election about the costs of prescription drugs. Almost nothing haas been said about the reason prescription drugs cost an order of magnitude more than the same drugs cost in other countries: the hideously expensive and complex FDA approval process. (FDA approvals now routinely cost *hundreds* of millions of dollars, and the agency is arguably faring far worse at "protecting" Americans from unsafe drugs.)
Since the FDA and its policies are the root cause of the high prescription drug prices that everyone seems to agree are a problem, what would you do to attack the root cause of the problem rather than simply throw money away by having the government (insted of the people) pay 100x too much for drugs?
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs
So why should you not have control over your personal information, to do with as you please, and prevent others from abusing that information, say for marketing or employment?
America is actually a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials.
Oh, please. Spare me the lecture on pure democracy.
And you did a nice job of pointing out that a democracy -- a real one, where the majority has unlimited power -- is simply a diffused tyrrany. The minority must always submit to the majority.
Of course it must! How else do you expect a democracy (oh, fine, democratic republic, whatever) to function? Otherwise, laws just become optional.
That's not right, and it's one of the things our government was specifically designed to prevent.
So what? The thing about "taxes == tyranny" is getting a little old. You've already admitted that taxation is inescapable. In your black-and-white world, though, taxation is so morally abhorrent that it must be abolished.
without some form of collective action, most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually
Um... substantiate this.
All right. Suppose you were to try to live totally autonomously. Where would you get your food? Agriculture is a form of collective action -- it's near impossible to provide for yourself on a small bit of land. The economy as a whole is also a form of collective action -- those farm implements you buy were made by someone else, after all. Or if you buy your food, it was made by someone else, shipped by someone else to your store, and kept cool and fresh by someone else at your store. How do you propose to survive without all that, which is the result of a collective action?
Furthermore, the government intervenes at each step of the way to make sure that certain standards are kept -- so you don't have to worry about it. The farmer has to meet USDA regulations (so he doesn't produce food that could cause things like, say, BSD, or have carcinogens in them) and is provided with information by the USDA and Extension Service to ensure their crop is successful; the shipper has to meet USDA and FDA regs about storage (so the food doesn't spoil) and has to pass OSHA requirements (so the driver doesn't easily get injured) and has to pass EPA regs (so his truck doesn't pollute too much on the way there); the store owner has to meet HHS, USDA, OSHA and FDA requirements on food storage, hygiene and more to ensure the food stays fresh, doesn't get contaminated and is of good quality.
None of this would succeed as well as it does without government involvement. Without it, the farmer would be at the mercy of local climate changes and soil misuse by his neighbors (erosion, pollution, pesticide/herbicide misuse); and from there it goes on to the shipper and store owner. Some would still maintain that level of quality, but some would not -- and how would you know? How do you know your fresh tomatoes weren't sprayed with dioxin-based pesticides until thirty years later, when you get cancer? --snip--
The Catholic Church was, in large part, the government in the middle ages (off-topic).
No shit, Sherlock. --snip--
The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim
I can't see how a market is free if the outcome is pre-ordained. Please explain.
There is no black and white "free and not free". That's why I wrote "freer".
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted).
I vote Libertarian, which means I don't vote myself any part of your paycheck inasmuchas that's possible. As I've stated before, the taxes that go to providing a common defense and preventing people from harming other people, are legitimate. I think you're being disingenous by equating that with the receipt of a personal subsidy.
Disingenuous? It's disingenuous of you to partake in *anything* from government funding (education, infrastructure, defense, health regulations) while bitching about taxes, and then call it a "personal subsidy".
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry,
Yes.
suffer disease,
Yes.
Mmmm-hmmm. And "Social Darwinism" doesn't suit you?
Any "right" that must be paid for by someone else isn't a right.
Oh? I guess you should stop using the roads and highways, then. Or do you have a right to use them? Ah, but then you can use the railways -- oops, also government-funded. Well, fly, then. Hmmm, flying without air-traffic control and airports could get interesting, though you could land the plane on the highway -- oh, nuts, we're stuck there again.
So you go home in a sulk (you can't go anywhere anyway), and decide to have something to eat. You open the fridge powered by the electric plant down the road that was at least partially government-funded. You eat those eggs in the fridge without a second thought, because a government USDA inspector made sure they were edible. You drink tapwater that you know is safe because the local waterworks (government-funded, of course) made sure it's drinkable and was kind enough to remove everyone else's poop from it first.
Imagine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful.
100% doubtful, as a lot of what the government does is wasteful and destructive.
But a lot of it isn't. Which is why I believe it's important for the private sector to do as much as possible, with the government taking action where needed to ensure that society as a whole prospers.
The private sector acting totally on its own would *not* provide for those who need it. Rather than allow that injustice to happen, we need the "moral force" of the government from time to time.
For that matter, the government's actions can and do provide for collective improvement very effectively, with a relative minimum of effort on the government's part. Think "Internet". While most of the Net we use today was built with private funds, the government set the whole thing in motion -- ARPANET, the universities' networks and so on. For that matter, government funding of universities has made studying things like computer science more affordable, allowing more people to study it, and increasing the prosperity of the people as a whole. Same goes for biotechnology, medicine, and other areas. And that's all because of taxes.
And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
I think you mean "necessary force," not "moral or legal authority." Correct my if I'm wrong.
Yes, you are. I mean both. Any institution that operates in the name of the people and by their collective consent has a great deal of moral authority. The only question is the degree of restraint exercised in applying that moral, legal and political authority.
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good.
What about the minority? Who decides what "the common good is?" Does it mean simply "what is good for the majority, in the opinion of the majority?"
The people collectively decide, either through their representatives in the government or through direct referenda. If they collectively aren't happy with how something worked out, they can have it repealed (like Prohibition) or reformed (like welfare).
The minority still have their basic rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights -- they have the right to speak out against what they see is wrong, they have the right to peacefully protest against it, they have the right to vote against those who supported the measure, and so on.
In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
What's "fair and just?" If the majority, who is Protestant, decided to impose a 70% income tax on all non-protestants, who are in the minority, why couldn't they?
No, because one group is being singled out for their beliefs. That much should be obvious. So long as everyone shares the same burden (at least as far as that can be practically applied), there is no injustice involved.
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy[...]
I'd like to know, so I will know who NOT to vote for. A consitutionl amendment mandating "privacy?" Do you mean personal obscurity, or personal sovreignty? Because if it's the latter, we already have that in the constitution -- it's admendment nine :"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not that legislators have given a shit about that to date.
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense. Even though many have said that the right to privacy was so obvious that the Founding Fathers didn't even bother with it, legislators and private interests have been infringing on that right increasingly in recent years. (And yes, I was referring more to personal sovereignity -- i.e. control of my personal information so that it is not abused by, say, marketers.)
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance
Argh!
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds, AND it also provides for high-risk patients (like myself). By having everyone pay into the pot for a minimum amount of coverage, insurers would be more willing and able to insure patients with pre-existing conditions (like myself). Hawaii and other states already have this, and it works very well for them. So does Germany, and it's almost entirely privately run (they have one state-owned insurer, the rest are all private).
standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy)
Or rather, to institute a federal, central bureaucracy.
No, that is not the case. The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on. This is one of the most major drains of money in the American health care system -- there are literally hundreds of different forms for even basic things, like making claims on insurance, with needless differences and overhead. Compliance would be voluntary, but the Federal Government could set something like this in motion. Again, it would all be privately done, just with the government providing the impetus.
standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility)
National ID cards! Track me now, Big Brother!
Not if you have that amendment about privacy. Also, Germany has the exact same system, and no one is allowed to use the data for tracking purposes; all that is on the smart cards is your name, current address, and insurer. Nothing else. (Though medical history would also be interesting to have on there, especially if you're in an accident and are unable to speak for yourself.) The German system has many, many safeguards against private data being misused, and they take it very seriously (much to the dismay of many marketers, insurers and businesses).
I would like answers to those questions as well... so I know who not to vote for. Of course, I can play it safe and continue to vote for the one party that respects people -- the Libertarian Party.
Fair enough -- your party choice is up to you. However, I should point out that a party sworn to never "exert moral force" on another person (see your membership card, if you have one) would have an awfully hard time controlling crime, given that punishment (the main way to stop crime effectively) is a kind of moral force...
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK. At least they are liberal/libertarian and are reasonably coherent. (Paddy Ashdown is God. Too bad he retired.) But the Liberatarian Party of the US? You can have them.
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense.
I don't follow you. It is stated clearly in Amendment 9; why will they pay more attention to it if repeat the limitation in Amendment 28?
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments. This is why that right (which I think we agree exists, regardless of what the Constitution has to say) should be safeguarded by an amendment -- to prevent that kind of abuse or misuse.
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK.
Two problems with that-- I'm not British, and they advocate a lot of what I don't want, such as 100% subsudized health care. "Liberals" used to be free-thinking, free-enterprise, lasseiz-faire, enlightenment-era people. Now, they are collectivists and socialists.
The UK Liberal Democrats are collectivist and socialist? What planet are you on?
They aren't as extreme as the Libertarians in the US, but that's also because they accept the reality that the government is in fact needed for something once in a while. They don't abide by dogma ("the state should be as small as possible, abolish taxes, legalize everything") and instead try to think of the best solution for a particular situation. Besides, you may shrug off the tyranny of a State, but you end up suffering under the tyranny of something else in exchange, because the State is too weak to protect you (employers, insurance companies, environment endangerers, etc.) and everyone else around you.
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds"
Well, that much is obvious.
By making everyone pay into a pool to cover people who couldn't otherwise afford that health insurance, the federal government would also be providing funds. It wouldn't go through the treasury, but because they are compeeling payment, it is a tax.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly. You benefit directly because you have health insurance (and before you say "I don't need it", the point of insurance is that you *may* need it -- after all, you could get hit by a truck or God knows what). You benefit indirectly because overall health in society improves (as more people can afford to get preventative health care), less days are missed at work (again because of preventative health care), productivity rises (because more people are working more), and the economy benefits. So do you.
Taxes are not automatically evil, regardless of who levies them. If you want to call mandatory health insurance a "tax", that's your problem. But don't try to hide or distort the potential benefits for everyone, tax or no. (And in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible while providing everyone with insurance.)
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on.
If they don't agree to it of their own free will, but because the government has mandated that it be so, then it is a government-imposed bureaucracy
I said it would be "voluntary". Therefore it is not "government-imposed". The insurers would, however, be quite happy to adopt such a system, especially if the government were to fund its development (at least partially) and make it generally available. The insurers would be happy because it would mean great savings for them; patients would be happy because it would free them to get care wherever they wished (since they could use their cards anywhere).
It's a socialism vs fascism argument there --
Is it fascist or socialist to merely work for the common good, whlie trying to strike a balance with private interests? If your idea of liberty is being free to be severely ill with no chance of affordable health care, but by God I don't have to pay those vile, nasty taxes, then you live in a pretty strange world.
Society needs individuals working in concert, and society needs a basic structure to make it work. Otherwise, you get nowhere -- or quickly end up with the strong ruling the weak without mercy or justice, as the rule of law deteriorates with no state (or a too-weak state) on its behalf.
To top it off, why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people? What makes that right? If it's the intent, then I can rob you to pay for my Aunt's mammograms -- or would that be theft? If it's the people doing it, why is state-sponsoted theft okay, but me 'redistributing' your wealth not?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
And I'm supposed to take your word for it?
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments.[...]
Privacy is not always a good thing. But it is a lot of the time. For instance, it is rarely good for government (and government officials) to enjoy much privacy.
Certainly. But even public figures (including public officials) have basic rights. They also have responsibilities, but that does not void their rights. It's all a question of balance.
I think any amendment guaranteeing a right to provacy would have be very carefully worded. I think an explicit mention of "privacy" was left out of the Constitution so as to leave it as a matter of law, which can be changed. "Privacy" has variable definition and value.
I don't believe it does. Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs. Indeed, it's a little ironic to me that you wish to have freedom, yet are willing to leave your privacy open to someone else's prying eyes (or at least aren't willing to have it protected more clearly).
Interesting you say that mandatory collective financing is the only sane way of paying for health insurance "without forcing the Federal Government to intervene," and when I point out that, by making collective health insurance mandatory, the federal government would be intervening, you say that's obvious. I don't get it.
Fair enough -- I'll clarify. Admittedly I changed the use of the word "intervene" midway through. By "intervention" I originally meant "direct and exclusive government control through government spending and bureacracy", in effect through a nationalized operation. That is what I wish to avoid in this scheme, by having private companies and groups still operating (partially voluntarily, in the case of standardized forms, partially compulsorily, in the case of mandatory insurance) within a set of (quite broad and basic) groundrules. But "intervention" in the sense of "getting involved" is obviously unavoidable.
The clarification is this: were there to be a government monopoly on insurance and health care, as in the UK, there would be little to no competitive element in the health care market. Therefore there would be no downward pressure on prices (not without price controls, which would stifle the whole sector), and there would be far greater limits on consumer choice (since they would be required or compelled to give up some kinds of more advanced health care). Quality of service would also likely suffer, as it typically does in any monopoly. This is the main weakness of socialized medicine. Added to this, the government almost always ends up bloated and managing too much, with a lot of institutional waste involved. Private companies would have a more vested interest in avoiding all of that, provided they too do not end up as monopolies.
Would this mean a loss of "freedom"? Yes, of course it would. But at the same time, you would agree that you don't have the "freedom" to shoot someone at will, or to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You have to balance your own individual freedoms with the needs of everyone else. That's necessary in a modern society. Again, it's a question of balance -- balancing the needs and freedoms of the individual against the needs of society as a whole.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
People advocating forced collective endeavors always make that retort when I point out that forced collective endeavors are incompatible with freedom.
Except that they aren't. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. There is such a thing as practical realities, and practical needs of those around you.
The reason we have limits on freedom is because to have unlimited freedom is the same as anarchy. The only question is, where do you place those limits, on what justification, and why?
I believe it is worth it to surrender that freedom to not pay for something in return for the security of having stable, reliable, high-quality health care for everyone, because everyone potentially benefits. It's not *that* different from saying "We agree that murder should be illegal, for otherwise people will live in constant fear for their lives".
It's like they assume that, since I don't want to force people to work together, I don't want them working together at all; and since I don't want to force people to be "nice" to each other, that I don't want them to be nice to each other at all. You're offering a false alternative, a straw man, and a slur all at once. I think people working together is great, but using the force of the government to make people work together is not.
The point is that, in a democratic society, people yield to the larger will of the electorate to which they belong. That's why we have democracy in the first place. You can't be totally autonomous anyway, at least not for very long.
The reason I bring up Social Darwinism is that, without some form of collective action, most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually -- it's rather hard to live a long, healthy life as a hermit). This is why we have governments -- for the common good. There has never been a viable alternative for universally helping everyone _except_ through govermental action -- unless you count the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, which (surprise!) collected taxes (the tithe) and acted very much like a government.
It's as if people think that if we could just point the guns at the right people in the right way, our problems would be solved.
Speaking of straw men and slurs...
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly.
Debatable at best -- the "throw your bread on the water, and it will come back 10-fold" argument. Even if that were true, it would not change the fact that under your propsed system, I wouldn't be a voluntary participant; my bread would be taken away from me by force and given to other people.
And you would get bread back as well. Or better said, some (not all!) of your wheat is taken from you, and you get bread back. So what?
The promise that, if I need bread one day then other people's bread will be taken away by force and given to me somehow doesn't comfort me. And if your plan's so good, then sell it on its merits and don't use force. People aren't dumb; they'll know a good deal when they see one. Only bad plans have to be forced on people.
If the people votes for the plan, at least a majority, then it isn't being forced to use it. Or are you trying to say that every individual should just have a right to decide which laws they should obey, and which they shouldn't?
Taxes are not automatically evil
True. But they're not automatically good, either. In general, the fewer of them needed, the better.
Fair enough. That's why I also advocated the flat tax and maintaining the moratorium on taxing e-commerce.
And taxes should never benefit one group at the expense of another; they should never be used to "transfer wealth."
Well, I hate to break this to you, but taxes are by definition there to transfer wealth -- either to the government to pay for things like roads, or to employees of the government (like police, soldiers, etc.) to perform their duties, or to those in need of support for whatever reason (scientists, the poor, universities and schools and so on). In each case, the government is making an investment on behalf of the people -- transferring wealth -- in order to achieve goals in the public interest (building infrastructure, promoting science, improving skills in the workforce, alleviating poverty).
in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible
I.e., as long as they achieve the result you have pre-ordained. That's not a free market, no matter what you call it.
If you insist on using such an absolute definition, that's your problem. The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim of universal health care and maintaining high-quality care.
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
Spend some time with a dictionary.
Straw men and slurs?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
So, because I vote myself your paycheck, that makes it okay?
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted). At a minimum you're using roads I helped pay for, living under the protection of the US military, CIA and FBI that I helped pay for, attending schools that I may well have helped pay for, eventually getting money from the Social Security that I helped pay for. And I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.
Are you one of those people that make the "because it's legel, it's moral" arguments?
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry, suffer disease, be victims of violence? You can't have your absolutist, totally ideal world.
Are all laws moral? No, I don't believe that. Yet at the same time, we all have the ability to influence those laws, and should respect them for that same reason, even if we disagree with them.
Imagine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful. There are some angels out there taking care of people regardless, but the sad fact is that human beings by and large can't be bothered to help people directly (at least those they don't know, and even many they do know). So someone has to take the moral leadership and make sure that the worst problems are taken care of. And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
You're evading my question, I think. I'll state it differently:
Under what circumstances is it okay for the property of one person to be taken from them and given to another person?
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good. In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Mr Lieberman is on record stating that the Constitution was NOT for everyone, but for a "moral and religious people."
Any source for this quote that allows us to put into context?
Politics as it is practiced in the US is about twisting words so that they appear to mean something damaging to the speaker. Unless you can substantiate a remark or have access to its source, you may be playing into the hands of politically interested and unscrupulous operators by spreading misinformation.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
A tax cut + no change in spending = increased borrowing by the government OR the government printing up more dollars. Only the latter is inflationary.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
A tax cut doesn't inject more money into the economy. It just changes who spends the money. If anything, a tax cut will reduce inflation; at least private citizens save some of what they earn. Government spends it all.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
A tax cut stimulates the economy. Why? If you're a fairly high income earner, your marginal tax rate (the rate you pay on each additional dollar) can be very high. So high, in fact, that it may not be worth it to you do work harder/work overtime. If taxes are cut, the disincentives to working harder are decreased, so people work harder.
This, in turn, increases the growth rate of GDP. Now maybe that increase in the growth rate looks insignificant, but remember, we're dealing with exponential growth. 30 years down the road, a very minor increase in GDP growth rate could result in twice as big an economy. I did a few simulations of this with a reasonably simple model to prove it to myself. You should try it, too (even Excel is good enough for a basic simulation). In my simulations, in sometimes took as long as 50 years for it to really pay off, but when it did, it was incredible (exponential growth, baby).
That's the argument behind a tax cut...
How do you weigh the legal aspects of the Privacy Act of 1974 against the current trend towards total divulgence of personal information (e.g. Social Security Numbers required to get a drivers license, the FBI project Carnivore, the NSA project Echelon)
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Should you be elected, where do each of you stand on protecting my Constitutionally guaranteed rights (as enumerated in the Bill of Rights) as a citizen of the United States of America?
Furthermore, where do you stand on protecting these rights from encroachments by various corporate interests (as esconced by various actions committed by the MPAA, RIAA, et al., and sanctioned by the DMCA, UCITA and other laws)?
Please: HONEST answers only - I want steak, not sizzle - and let it be known that I can most assuredly tell the difference!
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
If elected, you will swear (or affirm) "that [you] will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of [your] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." -US Const, Article II, Section 1.
... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
The Federal Government in its present form vastly overreaches the constitutional authority it was granted by the Founders. (*) As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.
How do you propose to bring the Federal Govt into compliance with its constitutional authority? Reducing the federal scope, or amending the constitution -- or forswearing your oath?
(*) If you disagree with this statement, then please list Article and Section of the Constitution where the Federal Govt is given the power to (1) provide prescription drugs (2) manipulate the education systems of the several states (3) restrict the use of private property without recompense (4) Social Security, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps, toilet gallons per flush, driving speed...
If you are tempted to use the 'general welfare' clause in the preample and in Article I Section 8, don't be. See President Madison's veto of certain proposed legislation during his term:
http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/natwelf.html
I too am afraid of that. But that's why I ask. I want to know what precisely they think we want.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
The reason that the only thing which ever gets done with citizen rights which pertain to the digital realm is them get eroded by corporate interests, is that to everyone except corporate interests, there is always something "more important". Consumer privacy and the legal availability of strong encryption (for example) are bottom-of-the-barrel issues. They aren't "noble" and "important" like hunger or the environment -- they're merely about our civil liberties.
If Slashdot for heaven's sake, cannot stand up and say "We as voters find these issues important and demand to know what you have done in regards to them!" WHO WILL?
Your so-called "perspective" is what has kept marginalizing discussion of the incredible erosion of our civil liberties which we are witness to. Your so-called "perspective" is what has allowed politicians and corporations to perpetrate a shell game with the rights of citizens. Your so-called "perspective" has been what has allowed politicians to distract the public from what their records are in this area.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Rubbish. There's lots of things we've demaned pretty much unanimously here on /., and the whole karma whore issue demonstrates that we're no less manipulable or pander-to-able than anyone else. It's just that what we want is different, and what we care about is different, and how we are to be pandered to is to be different.
I'm tired of getting ignored by politicians. Court me you bastards, and maybe you'll get my vote.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Hmmm. I guess it's just that I have a deep wellspring of faith in the ability of the fine art of Rhetoric (i.e. Spin) to sell ice to Inuits. I don't see why, for instance, a candidate's handlers couldn't think up a nice spin for opposing the DMCA -- c'm boys, wrap your candidate in the flag, have him stump on "opposing big business", "the Liberties that Made America Great", etc.
Generating delectable sound bites it the job of highly trained pros. It's largely independent of the actual merits of the position.
Let me tell you a fable I learned from PBS. There was a white pol in the Deep South, back in the 1950's or so, who was approached by a group trying to get funding from the state for a nursing school for black women.
Said pol listened to the plea, and then told them he'd be happy to help, but they were going about it all wrong. At his next public speech, he launched into a tirade (in res): "I have just come from a hospital where I have seen a most disgusting sight! I saw a white woman washing the back of a black man! It is indecent! I want to make sure this does not happen, and to that end I want to make sure that we have enough negro nurses that no white woman will have to do such work again...." Wouldn't'cha know, his white, racists constituents thought his funding a black nursing school was completely dandy.
Moral: I think just about anything can be spun, so just about anyone will swallow it. You just gotta figure out how.
And, in our case, we gotta make it worth their while. Let's be honest: we know it's a quid pro quo. They represent our interests in voting and introducing bills, they get our votes and maybe even campaign contributions. We have to put out, but we must also make it clear what we want.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Ok, how much do you want to bet that the Democrat and Republican parties will not even deign to reply? If so, and if Nader truly demostrates that he "gets it" and has the best policies and ideas, all else being equal, how many of you will agree to change your vote?
(I'm not usually inclined to political stumping, but when you're the underdog you do what you can)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Ditto. It's as if every American was born with the right to cheap non-renewable polluting energy. Gas is expensive? Tough. Watch me cry for you. Our gas prices are pretty damn low. If they can sin tax smoking they sure as hell can sin tax gas which produces a whole hell of a lot more pollutants than smoking. Nothing will change if you keep the status-quo the cheapest. Tax it, and subsidize clean/alternative energy. Make evil expensive not cheap (hard to do when evil runs the gov.).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'm not for bush. I'm still undecided but it is closed mindedness like this, especialy from self titled "prgressives," that scares me away from libral politics.
My question has multiple parts:
1) What is your opinion on the effeciency of government and the comparison between the effeciencies of a State and Federal government?
2) Do you believe that programs offered and controlled by the Federal government have advantages to similar or same programs offered by a State government, and why?
3) Do you believe that programs offered by the Federal government, such as Social Security, should be given/offered to people who do not wish to be covered by the program, and why? Do you consider the opinion of the individual to be subserviant to the collective opinion of the whole in matters of national healthcare?
Salis
Favorite
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy, especially with regard to the control of personal information?
:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not that legislators have given a shit about that to date.
I'd like to know, so I will know who NOT to vote for. A consitutionl amendment mandating "privacy?" Do you mean personal obscurity, or personal sovreignty? Because if it's the latter, we already have that in the constitution -- it's admendment nine
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance
Argh!
standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy)
Or rather, to institute a federal, central bureaucracy.
standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility)
National ID cards! Track me now, Big Brother!
I would like answers to those questions as well... so I know who not to vote for. Of course, I can play it safe and continue to vote for the one party that respects people -- the Libertarian Party.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Be a man, use your hands, or a sharp implement.
Be a man, get shot while holding a pointed stick.
Just why do you need a gun? Just because someone else has one doesn't mean you need one too.
A general armament will better defend the country from outside agressors, and from internal criminals, than any army or police force. Why would anyone invade a country where essentially every citizen is armed and can defend? As far as internal defense goes, well-armed towns have lower crime rates than towns where guns are banned. Guns are a deterrent power; a leveler. They are a threat not only to invading armies abd everydat criminals, but to out government and anyone else with tyrranical dreams.
You don't like guns because they take away life, and your solution is to round them all up and "dump them," but not ban them. How, exactly, would you implement it? Taking away all guns is unworkable and unrealistic. As well as dangerous.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
You're contradicting yourself, and you're not answering my questions. --snip--.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
/. hosed the previous one...
Training:
No, I want them how to work, not how to think.
How do you separate those, and how is it the proper function of the military?
Guns:
Be a man, use your hands, or a sharp implement.
Be a man, get shot while holding a pointed stick.
Just why do you need a gun? Just because someone else has one doesn't mean you need one too.
A general armament will better defend the country from outside agressors, and from internal criminals, than any army or police force. Why would anyone invade a country where essentially every citizen is armed and can defend? As far as internal defense goes, well-armed towns have lower crime rates than towns where guns are banned. Guns are a deterrent power; a leveler. They are a threat not only to invading armies and everyday criminals, but to out government and anyone else with tyrranical dreams. They mean that people will have to be persuaded, not coerced.
You don't like guns because they "take away life," and your solution is to round them all up and "dump them," but not ban them. How, exactly, would you implement it? You'd have to do it globally, and prevent people from making new ones. Would you include all projectile weapons, like bows? How about crossbows? Crossbows with flaming, poisoned, or explosive tips? Etc. Taking away all guns is unworkable and unrealistic, even with a glocal dictatorship. As well as dangerous. Guns in the hands of ordinary people will help prevent a global dictatorship (as well as local and national ones) from being attainable.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Guns may be a leveler, or a deterrent...but does that stop violent crime in its tracks? No. Getting rid of all guns does.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I will not give it up until the last gun is out of the last criminal's hand,
...and my safety is guarenteed.
I would agree, but also add "and the government's hands." Every government.
How?
I agree with your idealism, Fink, but don't think that people will every be perfectly nice to each other and not force others to do what they want. Until then, I must have methods for defending myself. The extension of that is, that an armed society is a safe one (not perfectly safe, but we're talking reality, not fiction, here).
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Just buy an alarm system. They don't kill people.
Nor do they defend people who aren't in their houses, or defend people from their own government. "Bwoop! Bwoop! Janet Reno has entered the house!" Hehe!
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
But let's not phrase the question to state or imply, "Where's our special subsidy and priviledge?"
A lot of people don't want the government doing much of anything for them -- defend them, pave roads, make sure companies and people are honest and don't hurt people, and that's about it.
I'm afraid that a lot of the candidates will read "what have you done for me lately" as "I want my check."
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense.
I don't follow you. It is stated clearly in Amendment 9; why will they pay more attention to it if repeat the limitation in Amendment 28?
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK.
Two problems with that-- I'm not British, and they advocate a lot of what I don't want, such as 100% subsudized health care. "Liberals" used to be free-thinking, free-enterprise, lasseiz-faire, enlightenment-era people. Now, they are collectivists and socialists.
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds"
... by mandating health insurance, the federal government is intervening. By making everyone pay into a pool to cover people who couldn't otherwise afford that health insurance, the federal government would also be providing funds. It wouldn't go through the treasury, but because they are compeeling payment, it is a tax.
The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on.
If they don't agree to it of their own free will, but because the government has mandated that it be so, then it is a government-imposed bureaucracy -- one in the hands of private insurers, but one created, regulated and mandated by government regardless. It's a socialism vs fascism argument there -- does the state outright do it, or does it maintain a fictional private sector and just tightly regulate? The end result is about the same, as are the means.
To top it off, why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people? What makes that right? If it's the intent, then I can rob you to pay for my Aunt's mammograms -- or would that be theft? If it's the people doing it, why is state-sponsoted theft okay, but me 'redistributing' your wealth not?
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Background: Al Gore said during the first debates that Social Security is backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. Government".
(1) When the time comes to pay for Boomer checks out of current reciepts, will you inflate the money supply via the Fed, or will you raise taxes, or both?
(2) And do you have an estimate of by how much?
(3) Or would you support phasing out the social security system throuhg attrition?
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Two years of self-defense and history education. Plus, every citizen will know how to maintain physical fitness. At the end, each citizen will be licensed to carry a firearm, and will get to keep the weapon issued to them during their training.
I don't really agree with your bullt points. "Train our populace to be more effective workers?" -- we're already the most productive workers in the world, behind France. And what business is it of the government to train workers? The military is supposed to defend the nation. Training its citizens to defend themselves, and understand their country's history, is in keeping with that mission. "promoting social skills" sounds fishy, especially as a function of the army.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments. This is why that right (which I think we agree exists, regardless of what the Constitution has to say) should be safeguarded by an amendment -- to prevent that kind of abuse or misuse.
Privacy is not always a good thing. But it is a lot of the time. For instance, it is rarely good for government (and government officials) to enjoy much privacy. I think any amendment guaranteeing a right to provacy would have be very carefully worded. I think an explicit mention of "privacy" was left out of the Constitution so as to leave it as a matter of law, which can be changed. "Privacy" has variable definition and value.
Interesting you say that mandatory collective financing is the only sane way of paying for health insurance "without forcing the Federal Government to intervene," and when I point out that, by making collective health insurance mandatory, the federal government would be intervening, you say that's obvious. I don't get it.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
People advocating forced collective endeavors always make that retort when I point out that forced collective endeavors are incompatible with freedom. It's like they assume that, since I don't want to force people to work together, I don't want them working together at all; and since I don't want to force people to be "nice" to each other, that I don't want them to be nice to each other at all. You're offering a false alternative, a straw man, and a slur all at once. I think people working together is great, but using the force of the government to make people work together is not. It's as if people think that if we could just point the guns at the right people in the right way, our problems would be solved.
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly.
Debatable at best -- the "throw your bread on the water, and it will come back 10-fold" argument. Even if that were true, it would not change the fact that under your propsed system, I wouldn't be a voluntary participant; my bread would be taken away from me by force and given to other people. The promise that, if I need bread one day then other people's bread will be taken away by force and given to me somehow doesn't comfort me. And if your plan's so good, then sell it on its merits and don't use force. People aren't dumb; they'll know a good deal when they see one. Only bad plans have to be forced on people.
Taxes are not automatically evil
True. But they're not automatically good, either. In general, the fewer of them needed, the better. And taxes should never benefit one group at the expense of another; they should never be used to "transfer wealth."
in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible
I.e., as long as they achieve the result you have pre-ordained. That's not a free market, no matter what you call it.
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
Spend some time with a dictionary.
> why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
So, because I vote myself your paycheck, that makes it okay? Are you one of those people that make the "because it's legel, it's moral" arguments? You're evading my question, I think. I'll state it differently:
Under what circumstances is it okay for the property of one person to be taken from them and given to another person?
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Because if we pay off the debt, the money supply will be extingushed. America has debt-based money.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Why *should* the government give too much of a toss about the "working young adult in a high-tech field"?
Because they pay the bills, and are citizens; not just wallets to siphon.
I do find it a little disturbing that so many of you seem to believe that the government needs to spend more of its time working on behalf of those who are already plenty well of
Not true. We want to government to do less, not more. Not for us, not for anyone. Perhaps we're tired of subsidizing other people against our will, eh?
Fine, this is Slashdot - but still, too few questions have been asked...
I agree. It seems that all the questions that have gotten modded up are about patents or copyright or something. Kinda boring. I asked how thay planned to pay for spcial security when the boomers are all on it -- by raising taxes, by inflating the money supply, or by some other method. No points. I think it's a big issue. But not, apparently, as important as asking about the DMCA five times in a row.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs
.. shutting off the information flow doesn't always achieve that, and is not synonymous with personal sovreignty. I think it's important to separate one's control of one's own life from information about oneself -- because they are not one and the same. There's a lot of overlap, but not identity.
it's a little ironic to me that you wish to have freedom, yet are willing to leave your privacy open to someone else's prying eyes
I'm not sure what "privacy" means as you just used it.
were there to be a government monopoly on insurance and health care, as in the UK, there would be little to no competitive element in the health care market.
I agree your plan would be better, but not that it would be good; or that it is fundamentally different than nationalized health care. It would be the equivalent of two national space programs -- "competition" would exist, but it would all be controlled in one way or another by the same power. A power that determines the goals, and to a large extent, the means.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom.
True.
There is such a thing as practical realities
True
and practical needs of those around you.
... which aren't part of reality in the same way that gravity and entropy are.
The reason we have limits on freedom is because to have unlimited freedom is the same as anarchy. The only question is, where do you place those limits, on what justification, and why?
Anarchy: not violent chaos, as people make it out to be, but simply a state of no ruler. However, you are right. The place where freedom is limited is the place where you will infringe upon someone else's freedom. The old "the right to swing your fist ends at the start of my nose."
I believe it is worth it to surrender that freedom to not pay for something in return for the security of having stable, reliable, high-quality health care for everyone,
How nice of you to surrender my freedom as well...
"We agree that murder should be illegal, for otherwise people will live in constant fear for their lives"
No, that's not the reason at all. It's because killing someone is the ultimate infringement in their freedom.
The point is that, in a democratic society, people yield to the larger will of the electorate
to which they belong. That's why we have democracy in the first place.
America is actually a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials. And you did a nice job of pointing out that a democracy -- a real one, where the majority has unlimited power -- is simply a diffused tyrrany. The minority must always submit to the majority. That's not right, and it's one of the things our government was specifically designed to prevent.
without some form of collective action,
most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually
Um... substantiate this.
it's rather hard to live a long, healthy life as a hermit
Not being forced into collective action does not make one a hermit. As I stated before, just because I don't think people should be forced to work together doesn't mean that I think they should kept apart.
This is why we have governments -- for the common good.
We have the U.S. Government to protect life, liberty and property. Or that was its original purpose, anyway. Interesting how things are always dome "for the common good" in a collectivist vision -- the common good, as decided by who, for who?
There has never been a viable alternative for universally helping everyone
You mean, forcing everyone to help everyone else. It seems to be a common lament that mankind is not suitable enough for a good society where everyone helps everyone out of their perfect, altruistic hearts. The fallback is always that people can be forced into "helping" their fellow man "for the common good" until they are better people.
_except_ through govermental action
I.e., the use of force, as I was saying. Why do people try to force people into the altruist mold over and over again throughout history? They're not acknowledging the realities of human behavior. People are selfish, and can't be made differently. All life-forms are selfish. They're also inter-dependant. Those two things are not mutually exclusive; they arem in fact, the norm. Capitalism turns the innate selfishness of each person to the common good -- by letting each person persue his own life, without being shackled to his neighbor. The end result is improved conditions for all -- unlike with socialism, which results in a steadily declining standard of living for all. It usually has good short-term results, but when it runs out of pockets to loot, it falters.
The Catholic Church was, in large part, the government in the middle ages (off-topic).
> It's as if people think that if we could
> just point the guns at the right people in the
> right way, our problems would be solved.
Speaking of straw men and slurs...
Not trying to slur, or make a straw man. But it seems that the use of force is always trotted out as the solution to our problems; that's what I'm saying -- that, and that the initiation of force to achieve one's goals is rarely, if ever, the right thing to do.
And you would get bread back as well. Or better said, some (not all!) of your wheat is taken from you, and you get bread back. So what?
So, what gives someone else a claim to my wheat?
If the people votes for the plan, at least a majority, then it isn't being forced to use it.
Yes, they are. If someone who voted with the majority changes their mind later, they will be forced to comply. The minority is forced to comply from the outset.
Or are you trying to say that every individual should just have a right to decide which laws they should obey, and which they shouldn't?
Nope. I'm saying that individuals shouldn't be forced to do things to benefit their neighbors against their will. They should be stopped from harming others, but not forced into some action to 'benefit' somebody.
Well, I hate to break this to you, but taxes are by definition there to transfer wealth
Taxes are of two types. One covers the operating expenses of the government -- paying for officers, desks, armies, etc. The other takes money from my acocunt and writes a check to someone else -- some other private citizen -- for their use. The former is fine; the latter is not.
In order to achieve goals in the public interest
Who decides what's in "the public interest?" Who's "the public?"
The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim
I can't see how a market is free if the outcome is pre-ordained. Please explain.
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted).
I vote Libertarian, which means I don't vote myself any part of your paycheck inasmuchas that's possible. As I've stated before, the taxes that go to providing a common defense and preventing people from harming other people, are legitimate. I think you're being disingenous by equating that with the receipt of a personal subsidy.
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry,
Yes.
suffer disease,
Yes.
be victims of violence?
No.
Any "right" that must be paid for by someone else isn't a right.
magine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful.
100% doubtful, as a lot of what the government does is wasteful and destructive.
And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
I think you mean "necessary force," not "moral or legal authority." Correct my if I'm wrong. Plus, what kind of moral authority does a government have? I'm curious.
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good.
What about the minority? Who decides what "the common good is?" Does it mean simply "what is good for the majority, in the opinion of the majority?"
In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
What's "fair and just?" If the majority, who is Protestant, decided to impose a 70% income tax on all non-protestants, who are in the minority, why couldn't they?
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Under the Federal Reserve System, a tax cut also inflates the money supply. Sounds strange, I know; but taxes, under a fiat money system, or one of the ways that money is taken back out of the system, thus lowering inflation.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
- "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," - Alexander Hamilton
- "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."--Thomas Jefferson
- "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."--Samuel Adams
-
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present
day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere
restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington
- "A free people ought
... to be armed, To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving
peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." -- George Washington
Heck, go back even farther:- "Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."--Aristotle
You may want to also consider talking to some police officers -- many of whom will tell you that the people shooting at them don't really care about handgun laws and waiting periods. Handgun laws disarm law-abiing citizens, not criminals. By definition, and in practice. What we need is training, not muddle-headed bans.________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I suspect it was meant merely as an example. Poorly chosen, perhaps, autoworkers have unions after all. Still, one plant closure, and that's a whole lot of people who must have made "poor decisions" at some point or other I guess.
Intolerant people should be shot.
The short answer - nothing.
The long answer - if (if) Dubya gets in, you'll see some sort of tax break. Gore's tax breaks are only for breeders (and at that, not even every breeder gets the full amount). If Bush wins, you might get something back. If Gore wins, you get zippo.
As for their records in the past, they've done nothing. The bottom line is that (1) we're a minority, (2) most of us have enough free time that we've probably already made up our minds well in advance of the election. The soccer-moms are so busy that half of 'em haven't even noticed there is an election. And (3) we can't be swayed by "it's for the chillllldrunnn" rhetoric. So we're a harder segment to go for because we're harder to manipulate.
Pandering to us makes for poor soundbites, and we're not as easily-manipulated. Is it any wonder we're ignored?
As usual, The Misanthropic Bitch puts it best:
> the whole karma whore issue demonstrates that we're no less manipulable or pander-to-able than
> anyone else. It's just that what we want is different,
Sorry, I should have clarified:
Our wanting different things than most people makes for bad soundbites. (e.g. the false dichotomy that anyone who's against censorship is for kiddie pr0n, or that our opposition to DMCA constitutes support for piracy).
To use those two examples, anyone who panders to our segment of the electorate on those two issues, leaves themselves open to attack, and loses votes from the sheeple who fall for the "it's for the children" rhetoric and campaign donations from the entertainment industry.
As for the "not as easily-manipulated", I retract that. As much as I loathe the Demipublicans, I've observed that while Nader and Browne (Green vs. Libertarian) both have substantial followings on Slashdot, they're pretty much on opposite sides of most ideological issues.
And yet "the Slashdot crowd" appears to have split into two camps, each having been manipulated depending on whether they prefer Nader's anti-WTO rhetoric, or Browne's less-government rhetoric.
The situation isn't much different from Gore's "ban guns and save the spotted owl" rhetoric getting the "soccer mom" crowd out to vote Democrat to save the children, and Bush's "ban non-Christians and legislate morality" rhetoric getting the fundie "PTA-mom" crowd out to vote Republican.
The difference is that Nader and Browne are splitting the geeky 10% of the votes, and Gore and Bush are splitting the mundane 90% :-(
They also exist in Canada. Don't believe the bunk about Hagelin being a "physicist" in any meaningful sense of the word.
In Canada, the NLP is merely a front group designed to raise/launder money for the Transcendental Meditation movement under the guise of being a political party. Yogic flying? Puh-leeze. I suspect the same is true for the NLP in both the UK and US.
What is your stance on internet filtering for public schools/libraries which is being tacked onto the education bill (More information: http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/10/15/inter netfiltering.ap/index.html).
Since the government is the lender of last resort, the prime interest rate defines how much money they make from lending. Higher interest rates -> higher gvmt earnings.
How feasable would it be to completely remove taxes and only charge (higher, obviously) interest? This would remove alot of shoe-leather costs from the system, and also make avoiding taxes very hard (c.f. the recent revelations that microsoft et ali pay very little to none).
In addendum to this, I would like to know the candidates' opinion on including a 'Vote of No Confidence' option for elections.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Hands up anyone who changed their minds about legalising drugs
after learning about the important new contribution to the debate
provided by the above estimate.
Equally, how can Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan justify gping along with
NBC's exclusion of Harry Browne from NBC's third party debates?
The article goes on to note alternative systems, including "approval" based elections and the "Benbo" system. Approval elections allow voters one vote per candidate, giving the freedom to endorse (for example) the main party front runner of choice while also noting a vote for third party candidates. Benbo, on the other hand, asks voters to rank all candidates by preference. Neither system is perfect, but they both are better than the current system in that they guage which alternatives the voters would be comfortable with, and by so doing they gather a more accurate assessment of the general consensus.
The author of the article suggests that instating such a system would do more to bring equality to the electoral process than campaign finance reform could, though reform there is of course welcome as well. It is widely felt that the current elections -- especially the debates -- have unfairly and undemocratically excluded the voices of such candidates as Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanana, along with the millions of people who are saying that they would vote for these men. It seems clear to these millions that something needs to be done in order to bring more variety into the political process, and yet the two main parties do not seem interested in allowing it.
Where do you stand on such voting reform and campaign finance reform proposals, and the sentiment behind them that favors broadening the political dialogue in this country? What if any reform proposals would you endorse, and how far would you be willing to go to support it? Millions of people feel disenfranchised by the current system, and feel that something needs to be done. Are you the candidate to do it?
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Say you're high on Marijuana and you're driving. If you get in an accident, who cares, you're only going 4 miles an hour anyways. You sit there for 10 minutes going, "whoa man, I totally wasted the garage door!" So the garage door needs replacing, you just created a job!
Long live Bill.
--
Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the internet."
But how about "The Information Superhighway" - meaning the phrase itself? Did he (or his speechwriters) invent this? Or was he just the loudest of the early mouths to use it?
That metaphor has always struck me as a gem of the propagandist's art.
It equates the Internet with the National Defense Highway system (now known as the "interstate" system). This sets in the listeners mind the idea that the Internet - rather than an industry / university / some-government colaboration grown around a seed from a plowshared military project - is a pure creation of the US federal government. From there it's an easy step to making it fair game for total government regulation. Think "Information 55 MPH Speed Limit".
Gore used the phrase when he was the point man for the Clinton administration's efforst to wire the nation's K-through-12 schools and libraries. This, of course, set the stage for the Communications Decency act (supported primarily by Democrats), censoring the Internet to "make the Internet safe for The Children".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Two simple rules:
1.Are you on the ballot in enough states to make it possible to win the election (270 electoral votes)?
Check.
2.Are you one of the top 6 candidates in at least 3 of 5 independent polls? This one I am flexible with.
"Major Polls" are often biased and/or creatures of the Major Party / Media Complex (TM). Let's skip that.
Here's a potential way for one open network (Fox News comes to mind) to break the Biopoly:
While (nearly) every other network is broadcasting the debate, Our Hero Network runs it - but with a difference:
Rather than broadcasting it live:
- It captures it for "Instant Replay".
- It has, in its studio, any minor party candidates that met the network's cutoff and agreed to attend.
- It "Instant Replay"s the question.
- It lets all the candidates answer in random order - with two slots randomly picked for the majors (consumed in the order they answer in the original debate), giving the minors the average of the time actually given to the majors and STRICTLY enforcing (like by cutting off the sound).
- For rebuttal it again lets the candidates have one slot in random order (again replaying the majors in order, in two random slots) to rebut anyone or any set they chose.
- Segments where one major candidate gets to ask the other a question are handled by each of the candidates getting to ask all the others a question. The minors get to answer them all, while the majors get no slot to answer the minors.
This gives the minors equal opportunity (at least on THIS network) to show how they think on their feet, get exposure for themselves and their positions, and raise issues they consider significant.
With ALL BUT ONE network playing the stock debate and ONE playing the "enhanced version", guess what the ratings look like? B-)
Of course the majors don't get to rebut the minors' points. But that's what they get for going along with the exclusion of the minors from the debate. B-) They could easily stop the charade by insisting that the minors be allowed on stage with them, refusing to debate (or moving to the "enhanced" version B-) unless that was done.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Al: 1. Popular folklore has you claiming to be the inventor of the Internet. I know that you never made such a claim. Don't you get tired of this distortion? 2. What do you feel _are_ your important contributions to the Internet?
George: 1. I spent a decade in the military protecting "the land of the free, and the home of the brave." I feel that I've earned the right to burn as many yards of red, white, and blue fabric as I wish. What do you think? 2. Should I be able be able to burn the bible or the Quran? What about the Book of Mormon?
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
But what happens when they take 'us' with them by committing crimes to finance their habits, and hurting the innocent 'us' along the way?
IF this happens, you arrest them for robbery. But you've unintentionally pointed out the main problem with drug laws. They fail to distinguish between irresponsible and responsible drug use. There are people for whom drugs "cause" many other problems, but there are also those people who use drugs for legitimate medical, social, or intellectual reasons. Many of these people never break any other laws. Many of them are actually more aware, more relaxed, happier, or free from pain because of their drug use. But they are imprisoned or persecuted along with the other drug users. Why? Paranoia. People are afraid of things, people, and cultures they don't understand. They think they if they eliminate the things they don't understand, then they can control their surroundings and everything will be perfect.
Sorry, doesn't work that way. There will always be things that cannot be understood and controlled. Not all of them are bad. Some of them are actually good. But we'll never know without an open mind.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
I see many infringements upon our Constitutional rights promoted and passed "for the Children"(tm).
Given the Supreme Court's ruling in ACLU v. Reno (the first CDA trial), and the Philadelphia Court's ruling in ACLU v. Reno (CDA-II/COPA trial), I ask the following.
Do you support the mandated use of filtering software for institutions that use government money (on any level -- local/state/federal) to provide Internet access for their patrons? Considering that most filtering software is notoriously inaccurate, with many false positives ("safe" material blocked) and false negatives ("unsafe" material passed), plus the fact that some companies are known to filter out their critics (see CyberSitter and Peacefire.org). Consider further that some of these false positives are especially egregious, and politically based, such as NOW being filtered, or funny, such as Rep. Dick Armey's site being filtered.
Now do you support Filtering software, and why? And, please no "for the Children".
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
There has been a trend toward the criminalization of intent in recent years, largely in the form of "hate crime" legislation. This type of legislation increases the penalties for certain crimes based on the motivation or intent behind those crimes. For example, a harsher or higher minimum penalty for killing a black man because he was black, or for beating a gay man because he was gay. As the underlying crime is already prosecutable, doesn't the increased penalty based on intent constitute "thought crime" in addition to the physical act? Is it not the case that "hate crime" penalties distort the law by punishing belief? To me, it seems that we should limit ourselves to punishing behavior, not beliefs.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Do you support the Federal reserve as an independant body and the sole manipulator of our economic system (free from political motivation)? If so, then how do you view concerns that a large tax cut might undermine Alan Greenspan's attempt to stablize our market system and economy during this time of "over-expansion"?
-Michael
-Michael
Both Candidates:
Life is cyclical. Economics is cyclical. Politics is cylical (dictatorship to freedom to regulated supression and back). What philisophical steps will you take as president to prepare and otherwise pre-empt such cyclical down-turns that may even already be present (such as political corruption and anti-Patriotic sentiments)?
-Michael
You should have made several individual posts. They're not going to bunch all those questions into one; and the moderators can't single out which of those questions comply with moderator guidelines, and are hence most deserving of karma. :)
-Michael
Why just Nader? Not only is Nader not the only third party candidate, but he's not even part of the largest and most recognized third party. I'm afraid its Buchanan that really got the shaft on this one, because if any of the third party candidates had a right to be there it is the reform candidate, especially considering the fact that they recieved millions in matching funds from the government in the first place.
-- Point? None! Cob.
Education reform seem to be a major topic in the presidential campaigns. I would like to know how you plan to fix America's currently failing system. Do you plan to create standards for schools, and if schools fail, how do you intend on raising those standards?
I've heard the call for school vouchers, but it doesn't make since to me. First of all funding for failing schools would be taken away, which would seemingly push the schools into further disarray. Secondly private schools aren't accountable. The major campaigns demand that public schools be accountable. If they fail then students should be sent to private schools, which aren't accountable, and can't ever be made accoutable. So my second question is, if you agree with school vouchers how would you make them work effectivly?
dont_forget
And this is a major point. If we taxed petroleum a whole lot more, it would instantly lead to inflation. No doubt about it. Cheap oil is actually one of the reasons our economy is so booming; it just doesn't cost nearly as much to deliver stuff here!
Of course, I don't think that's right, per se, but it's going to be damn hard to convince the average american to take a huge economic slowdown in order to clean up the environment. I mean, that hasn't worked so far.
I think it would be good to just tax automotive-grade gasoline. Or more precisely, cut back the subsidies on this commodity. Leave heating oil out of the picture; in fact, don't increase the price of diesel, even. This might prevent such a huge recession, but it would hit John Q. "Lincoln Navigator" Public right in the pocketbook. If gas was all the sudden 20 cents more per gallon, ethanol and other alternatives would look more appealing automatically.
Plus, if the consumer still isn't concerned enough to switch fuel technologies, at least there would be a few more cents per gallon to contribute to environmental protection funds :)
Books such as Actual Innocence by Barry Siegel have documented the ways that provably innocent people have ended up on Death Row. If you believed innocent people had been executed, would you still support the death penalty?
[
Oops, my bad; I got the author of the book (and therefore the link) wrong. The following is the corrected question. Sorry. =(
[
You both support the war on drugs, which has swelled the American prison population with hundreds of thousands of nonviolent offenders. Both of you have faced questions about illegal drug use, and the vice president has admitted using illegal drugs. Yet neither of you has faced prison time or arrest. First, how can you be a credible force in the drug war considering your history, and second what will you do to make sure that the force of the law doesn't disproportionately fall on the underprivileged?
[
This country has long since been forced to admit that adults may subscribe to vices, but that the government may intercede when children attempt to partake of the same vices. (q.v. smoking, gambling, drinking, obscenity and voting.) Governmental intercession regarding youth access to all types of obscenity, be it pornographic, violent, or simply offensive, is becoming increasingly more difficult with the advent of the Internet. How do you intend to uphold the ability of adults to partake of obscenity, as is their sometimes right under the First Amendment, while still making access to such obscenities difficult for children? Or would you propose that the governments intent shift, either lessening adult access to obscenity, or reducing government restrictions on the same?
Thank you.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Recently I went to pickup my 6th grade little sister at her school, and I was sort of shocked to see that they still had P-90 computers. She goes to a public school in a middle class neighborhood.
Do you have any plans to take money out of projects that are not working (ie. the war on drugs) and put them into public schools for computers and better computer classes for younger students?
When ever a question like this is asked, all canidates reply with a "what you want to hear" answer. I'd expect nothing less this year, but maybe someone should actually start making some changes in the way public education money is spent.
1. Do you believe the Internet needs more regulation? 2. Does the government want information to be free?
If it is a duplicate question why doesn't some moderator moderate it as (-1, Redundant) ? If there are more than 10 questions at 5, why doesn't a moderator moderate one down as (-1, Overated) ?
Because the moderators are on $3 crack.
Will someone with moderator points please moderate me down instead of using their points to increase the quality of the +5 level section ?
Thank you.
"Do you listen to everything that you hear???"
But finish your post by quoting "something you heard".
The lack of logic in this argument should be painfully obvious even to the most casual observer.
Fact is, Algore voted to fund a (at the time, really fast) backbone for internetworking super computers. One bill (albeit very important), at one point in time, along the evolution of the internet. What's not mentioned in the original post (and something I think is a serious issue) is Algores lack of self confidence to stand on his beliefs alone without "extending" himself into every situation in an effort to convince the listener that he's a player on the topic (when he's really just a punk).
The simplified version of the original poster question would be:
Why does Algore want to filter what he invented?
Given the recent concern about internet privacy brought up by Simson Garfinkel in his book, What is your vision of the future of privacy laws in the US to protect US consumers from the wholesale distrobution of their "digital biobroghies"?
I strongly agree. Please ask questions that are balanced. Don't give the candidates a ready-made opinion to agree with -- and don't convince them that we're all unreasonable ranting ideologues.
- Michael
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
The 3rd party candidates already had their own debate. Didn't you notice? (Don't feel bad, not many did.) You can find some info (with links) at Liberty Rally. (Oh, and if you're a big Nader fan, did you know that he didn't even bother to show up when he had the chance?)
Constitutionally Correct
Ralph,
I saw an interview with you in which you basically stated that your personal motivation for seeking the presidency comes from the your inability to remain an effective consumer advocate. Basically, you said that corporations have the legistative process so tied up that lobbying for non-profit consumer advocacy is like talking to a closed door. Can you expound on this and give examples ??
Of all places, the interview was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
-Dave Blake
Do you support a national missile defense system?
If yes, why, despite the fact that nearly every global ally of the USA is against it? Who are the enemies who threaten us with missile attack ("rogue nations" is not acceptable, be specific)?
If no, why? How should the United States deal with potential threats? Do you also oppose using the US military as a peacekeeping force, such as was done in Haiti and the Baltics?
Wholeheartedly agree. A gradual increase in fossil fuel costs will fuel growth of cheap, alternative energy. Case in point: the recent NEC battery article. Imagine if the potential market for batteries with a high current capacity, high charge density, and fast charge times could double in the next year. With all the funding for R&D in alternative tech, we'll see the same "faster, cheaper, better" revolution occur in alternatvie energy as occurred (and is still occuring today) in computing technology. And on that note, a laptop battery that could do that would be very nice to have, too... except that it's not essential to the laptop that the battery last super-long; you could always carry around a spare or two; but powerful batteries are an absolutely essential source of power for electric cars, and there's a lot more money in that business, especially if gas prices climb higher. (and I ought to smack anyone who has bought an gas-guzzling SUV for their daily drive to work)..
:)
The only reasonable way to do that is taxation -- where it matters. If us US citizens saw our gas prices even approach what some Europeans pay for gas... it'd hurt in the pocket for a little while, but in the end we'd probably wind up paying less by buying more efficient automobiles and appliances, and later automobiles and appliances that use alternative, renewable sources of energy.
Just imagine what would happen if all the fossil fuel supplies ran out today. Panic? Well with current rate of concern among people of "developed" nations, that might not happen today, but when it does, we will be no more prepared than we are right now. I'm not a pessimist, in fact quite the opposite; this should serve as a wake-up call. We can do something about it. Get out of your dream worlds, people. We were born into bondage, slaves of OPEC and the oil companies...
Tax cuts financed by borrowing do tend to increase the money supply, but through an indirect linkage rather than a direct one.
So long as you are happy for the funds borrowed by the government to force up interest rates and crowd out private sector investment, then you are right that this doesn't represent a direct increase in the money supply. (In the IS-LM picture it is the IS curve which moves, not the LM curve).
But the fiscal expansion still acts as a stimulus, increasing aggregate demand, leading to increased inflationary pressure.
At this point there is a choice. The Fed could leave its interest rates unchanged, so the LM curve stays where it is. But the LM curve represents the real money supply: preserving it means acquiescing to the inflation, allowing the nominal (dollar) money supply to increase. Alternatively, it can refuse to allow the dollar money supply to increase, but only by further increasing interest rates to tighten the money supply.
So you can have tax cuts financed by borrowing without inflation, but only at the expense of doubly increased interest rates.
Printing the money is much worse; but financing the tax cut with borrowing is still somewhat inflationary.
See the post 'A more considered answer', above.
Incorrect.
When a bank takes your money and lends it to somebody else, your wealth isn't diminished: so you go on spending like a rich person; but the poor lendee now can buy what they wanted. In effect you are both behaving as if you each had the money. So in economics the creation of a loan increases the total money supply.
The converse is that if the government uses tax money to clear debt instead of buying goods and services, the debt really does effectively disappear from the money supply.
At the moment the Fed is increasing interest rates to try to reduce aggregate demand to avoid an inflation bubble. The poster's suggestion of keeping taxes where they are, and deliberately running a larger government surplus, could be attractive compared to the alternative of even higher interest rates. It would mean that the pain of keeping demand within readily supplyable levels would be spread evenly across the whole tax base, rather than being concentrated as a squeeze on people and businesses who are in debt or need to borrow to invest.
Consider:
1. The Government borrows the money from you.
The Government spends the money. You are still rich, so you go on spending money.
2. The Government taxes you.
The Government spends the money. But you are poor, so you stop spending money.
Conclusion: replacing taxes with borrowing increases the money supply.
This is what economists mean when they say that tax cuts inject money into the economy -- tax cuts increase government debt, which injects money into the economy.
This is true only if the government borrowing is unchanged -- ie if every tax cut is 'earned' by a corresponding spending cut.
Strangely, this appears not to happen in practice.
Tax Cut + No Change In Spending = Increased National Debt. Inflationary.
Tax Cut + Spending Cut = No Change In National Debt. Broadly Neutral. (OK, maybe somewhat deflationary).
No Tax Cut + Spending Cut = Reduced National Debt. Deflationary.
Rather than put the whole weight of demand deflation on the Fed and its interest rate policy, the same effect could arguably be achieved with less economic pain by increasing the budget surplus.
This is not a sane way to judge electoral systems.
Worse, the electoral college focusses a narrow race entirely onto the few swing states, and can make many large states and their concerns entirely irrelevant. This is not a good way to get a reflective government.
Dear Candidate:
Much has been made in the current presidential debates about the foreign policy of the United States, and whether it is the role of the U.S. military to intervene in humanitarian crises around the globe. This was hotly discussed at the time of the Kosovo atrocities, of course, but "humanitarian concerns" have been cited as the reason for U.S. military intervention in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and elsewhere.
Some of you have called for a "compelling national interest" before committing U.S. troops; others have rejected the use of U.S. troops for humanitarian intervention--or indeed for any purpose at all. One of you, in particular, has decried the "interventionist" policies of American presidents since Roosevelt, who interfere abroad in the affairs of other sovereign nations.
It is 11 o'clock Eastern time as I write this. It is not quite dawn in Khartoum, in the Sudan. In just a few hours there will be Dinka slaves sold in the marketplace. 137 years after the Emancipation Proclamation--135 years after the end of the American Civil War--there is an active, vibrant slave trade in Africa today. Black Africans from the southern part of the Sudan are being captured and sold into slavery by Arabs from the northern Sudan--according to many sources they act with tacit approval of the Sudanese government. Several freed Sudanese slaves have made moving presentations in the media, but to date there has been little or no official comment by the Clinton Administration. To date, the most effective voice in the U.S. has been a class of fifth graders from Colorado that have raised $50,000 to buy slaves and set them free.
I ask you--is the worldwide traffic in human slaves a compelling humanitarian interest of the United States? Is the capture, sale, and breeding of black Africans cause to consider U.S. military intervention?
If your answer is "no", what can you say to the millions of American citizens whose ancestors were brought to these shores in chains? If your answer is "yes", what--precisely--do you propose to do?
It's been quite obvious that under the Clinton administration, the prosperity of our country has risen dramatically, with praise being spread across the board (to Clinton, Alan Greenspan, the media, the citizens of the US, etc.). A thought in my mind remains though: who (or what) is responsible for the prosperity of this country? But in thinking about that, here's the question I want to propose:
What do you feel is the SINGLE (aka: one and only one) most imporant person, event, or situation that will maintain the prosperity of the United States into the next presidental term? Please be specific and direct here; don't just say "a good economy" or "a strong military." Place credit where you think credit is due.
To all:
What is your plan to pay down the debt? Many have said that they will be able to work with Congress. Bah! How will you be albe to stand up to Congress trying to spend more instead of paying down the debt? Will you be willing to shut down the government to prevent Congress from spending?
Thanks,
Poiu
---
---
"Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that."
simply because you are ill-informed and do not research any claims by the candidates.
... helped to shape the development of the NSFNET--a national network with international connections that took up where its predecessor, the ARPANET, left off. ... By the mid-late 1980s, then-Senator Gore had become a visible proponent of NSFNET, which enthusiasm and insight continued and grew with his election to the Vice Presidency. For having seen the potential in these technologies, and for having pursued and argued for legislation and administration support for research in these areas ... I think it is entirely fitting that the Vice President take some credit for helping to create an environment in which [the] Internet could thrive."
Do you listen to everything that you hear???
Thanks to Eric Zorn with the Chicago Tribune for this:
In June 1986, back when there were fewer than 5,000 network host sites (there are tens of millions today) available to a comparative handful of knowledgeable users, Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, introduced the Supercomputer Network Study Act in response to fears in the research community that the U.S. was dangerously lagging in this area.
Then in October 1988, Gore introduced the National High-Performance Computer Technology Act. After it died, he reintroduced it in May of the following year. It called for more ambitious funding to improve and expand the connections between universities, libraries and other institutions. Both before and after the act passed in 1991, Gore spoke frequently of "the information superhighway," a phrase he is widely credited with coining and that recalled the key role his late father, also a U.S. senator, played in building (figuratively, of course!) the interstate highway system.
Computer scientist Vinton Cerf, sometimes called "The Father of the Internet," was co-designer of the communications protocol that forms the backbone of the Internet and a pioneer in the academic/military computer networks from which the Internet sprung. In a statement sent to me Monday by MCI WorldCom, where he is now senior vice president of Internet Architecture and Technology, Cerf wrote:
"Gore's support for the research agencies
There you have it. If you wish to read the entire article that I got this info from you can either do a simple search on google or you can just click on this link:
GORE'S INTERNET LINK IS NOTHING TO JOKE ABOUT
Jeez, you could maybe use this great resource of information called the internet to answer your own question!!
Here is a good article by Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune
My question is this: When I went for a job interview this year, I was asked to take a drug test at a designated hospital as a pre-requisite to getting the job. Most americans have experienced the same, and also being tested once a year at their jobs. Recently in a book about president Nixon, one of his advisors said that Nixon was addicted to some pills not prescribed by his doctor. So, are the canditates for President of the USA getting tested for drugs so we can be sure they are drug free? Would you both agree to being tested before the election, and every year if you are elected President? This should also be required of all the staff.
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
During the past few years, we have seen a wealth of software patents that have been granted by the USPTO. Many of them have been trivially simple ideas (Amazon's 1-Click patent stands out, but I could easily rattle off several more.) Many feel that software should not be granted patents, while others feel that the length of time to a software patents should be shortened (because of the speed the technology moves, the next generation of software usually repaces the current every 18-36 months). A few business people believe that software patents should be treated the same as current non-software patents.
How do you feel on this issue regarding software patents, and if you feel that things need to change, what do you plan to do?
Doh!
For those of you who oppose the electoral college, read this article. If it doesn't change your mind, it will at least give you food for thought.
I think this might need to be expanded to include more information. Possibly UCITA, the ever-growing copyright terms and ridiculous patents.
In my opinion, for the leaders and symbols of a free nation to cower behind these barriers is pathetic, and makes our nation appear weak and frightened rather than the confident people I believe us to be. Further, to be denied access to my own Capitol and monuments is a serious infringment of my liberty.
What is your opinion of the recently imposed security restrictions, and what specific actions will you take regarding these restrictions will you take should you be elected?
Specifically, the current Solicitor General of the United States has recently stated that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent federal interference with organized state militias.
As a candidate for the Office of President, I would like a clear answer from you to the following question; Do you believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms?
....bald is a hair color
What about Harry Browne, Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips, David McRenyolds, and all the other third party candidates out there? If everyone is defending Ralph Nader's supposed right to attend the debates feverishly, then why not support all third party candidates as well? Just because everyone else isn't ranting about corporations like Nader is doesn't mean they deserve less support to have their chance to speak up.
My anti-Nader rant aside, IIRC, you need 5% in the polls to be in the debates. That's why guys like Nader aren't in there. Not because of a conspiracy theory, but because they're below the 5% mark. That's why we saw Ross Perot in the debates back in the day, because he had about 10% in the polls AFAIK.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
Oh boy, hit submit instead of preview.
Let me correct my spelling please.
Presidential Candidates:
With the media and public acknowledging the failures of the "War on Drugs" what do you
plan to do with this "war" if you reach the White house?
If i recall correctly, things like "under God", etc got added to their respective areas during the Eisenhower administration as sort of an anti-communist backlash since communism is atheist
-Aaron
Since the 10th amendment to the Constitution states that any powers not given to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the People, would you please tell us where (Article and Section, or Amendment) in the Constitution the power is granted for each of the Cabinet-level Departments?
A more important point should be made that encryption is going to be the future of any sort of commerce online. As 'online' can mean the entire world, how can you justify export regulations on strong cryptography? Also, how can you justify these regulations if the knowlege exists outside of the US regardless (think non-US in Debian).
.88 magnum -- it goes through schools.
--
It's a
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
If the government implements more gun control and the law abiding citizen complies with these laws, what will the government do to protect these citizens? Criminals will get more guns, take a look at countries that have done this.
Adapted from The Motley Fool:
1. What are you doing about the terrible kidney removal problem in our nation's bars? 2. Will the DOJ take action against Nieman Marcus' cookie selling regime? 3. Have you considered using funds from forwarding Bill Gates' emails to fund the Social Security trust fund? 4. Should the FDA regulate Pop Rocks after the terrible accident with Little Mikey? 5. Do Walt Disney's copyrights count from the time he was frozen, or from when he is thawed out and actually dies? And, of course: 6. Will you veto bill 602P if it passes Congress?
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
Off-topic:
Pick what you like, if any.
--
This is a question for Ralph Nader.
Will you switch the government over to Open Source operating systems instead of proprietary corporate operating systems?
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Mr Gore: Will you follow in President Clinton's footsteps regarding White House Interns?
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Hmm, that shouldn't be too hard.
Let's see, to whose benefit would it be to keep this country deep in debt? Why, the banks who loan the money, of course! And who ends up getting that money? The bank shareholders! And who are they? All the shadowy, rich, influential people you can imagine.
It's a hell of a racket, funnelling your tax dollars into their pockets. The only tricky part is keeping people from totally losing faith in the system. Fortunately, that goes hand in hand with keeping a low profile about the size of the debt and the whole racket in the first place, and we are talking about people with *serious* money here...
Verily hath their moderation points been wasted upon me.
There is considerable worry in the technical community about the use of monitoring devices such as Carnivore and potential mandates for government access to private communications on the Internet. using key escrow or other techniques. The argument has been made that only criminals will actually have something to hide, but most of us would still rather not have someone else reading our private e-mail, even if there is nothing of any legal consequence in it. What will you do to protect both our constitutional rights, and our social rights, such as our right to privacy, online?
Hmm. Nobody.
Stop including Marijuana in the category of "hard" drugs like Cocaine and Heroin. No medical study in the world has ever claimed that it is as bad as those things. You associating it with them speaks of the degree of your ignorant faschist beliefs. That a human does not have the right to do with themself what they choose is absurd.
Nazis like you should be the ones we're focusing on, then the world would truly be a better place.
You ask 'Do you have and idea how many god damn stoners there would be if you decided to legalize drugs?'
Hmm I dunno, why don't you visit Holland and ask them what effects their drug policy has had on their country. I'm sure they'd love to discuss it with you, over a bowl or two.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Precisely which invading army are we discussing here? I wasn't aware that the US was being invaded. Nor do I find it likely or possible that such an act would be possible in the future. Let's leave the soldiering to the soldiers. As to your general armament statement, how do we secure our weapons so our children can't get ahold of them, causing fatal violence to themselves or their peers? Education, you say. How does that prevent a four year old from getting daddy's revolver and killing junior? Trigger locks, right? Locked cabinets, right? And then you have to unlock the cabinet, open the trigger lock, load the gun and then shoot the guy? Nope. Wrong answer. Bang you're dead. You died when you were opening the cabinet.
Guns may be a leveler, or a deterrent...but does that stop violent crime in its tracks? No. Getting rid of all guns does. I'm not telling you how to do it, that's not my place, I'm not the legislator. I'm just telling you what I want done as a voter and as a citizen. And that is my point of view, and I'm more than happy to express it.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
As for firearms. I never said let's ban them, I said let's get rid of them. Let's gather them all up (and I do mean ALL) and toss them. They cheapen death by making it all to easy. One trigger pull from 100 yards is all it takes to end a life. Just a little squeeze. That's why I don't like guns. They take away life. Let's reissue swords. Those make death a lot more challenging. As for the founding fathers, the reason we have the second amendment is because we could not have raised a professional army without the help of the average citizen. Now, the government hires citizens to be professional soldiers, hence the need for the access of guns to the masses is pointless. Just why do you need a gun? Just because someone else has one doesn't mean you need one too. Be a man, use your hands, or a sharp implement.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
----
Would it be better if I asked "In light of the positions taken by the candidates in the NY Senate race, where do you stand on resolution 602P"?
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
That always bothered me. The GNP is well... here lookit this, from http://www.cyberus.ca/choose.sustain/Question/GDP- GNP.html:
". . . in 1991 the GNP was turned into the GDP - a quiet change that had very large implications.
Under the old measure, the Gross National Product, the earnings of a multinational firm were attributed to the country where the firm was owned and where the profits would eventually return. Under the Gross Domestic Product, however, the profits are attributed to the country where the factory or mine is located, even though they won't stay there. This accounting shift has turned many struggling nations into statistical boomtowns, while aiding the push for a global economy. Conveniently, it has hidden a basic fact: the nations of the North are walking off with the South's resources and calling it a gain for the South."
In my paranoid moments back then I imagined that it made US look better since it included what seemed like massive Japanese investments in US soil at a time when the GNP would have been sagging.
The Laffer Curve helps understand this if you believe that the Government exists solely to help business. Termed 'voo-doo economics' by G. Bush (the Original, accept no substitutes!), it provides the means for finding an optimal taxation strategy.
Crap, see what you did? Got me wayyyyy off-topic and now I have to come up with a question or get modded down since I can't delete my words and start over... but it would be an interesting question if the politicians were required to provide a single (single-digit?) numerical answer.
Too lazy to search too much. Egypt is at about 30%...
Ob Question: Al, please, with as much detail and insight as you can muster: Why is - as you say - Napster just like the early days of Democracy?
...then stand back and remember to take notes, BTW. Al is not afraid of getting into the details.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
What are your feelings on the DMCA, and what steps will you take to enforce/repeal it if elected?
Is Microsoft a monopoly that should be regulated by the federal government?
What are the benefits/costs to maintaining the status quo, or pursuing the DOJ's case for separation?
Personally, all issues are local--this is the deciding issue for me.
--
$tar -xvf
- - - - - - - -
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The "First Right" is one's right of control of one's own body.
Examples:
Right to die
Right to abort pregnancy
Right to use drugs
I asked them to not talk about consensus building, because it is necessary for all presidents who get elected no matter who elected, but I do not want a president that will be ruled by what the poll says the people want. I want a president who thinks what he is doing is the Right Thing (tm).
I'm confused as to how my comment was overrated. It was a direct answer to the parent as far as I was concerned. I personally thought the parent was overrated.
This argument by itself is too general in scope for anyone but a hardcore anarchist to accept. Apply it to *any* illegal activity, does it still make sense to repeal all laws? People are still going to do the illegal deeds regardless, right?
There is some stuff (such as murder) that should be punished. The societal super-organism finds it in it's best interests to prohibit such things in spite of whatever incentives individuals happen to have to commit these acts. Doing recreational psychedelic drugs isn't one of these things, however.
By the way, if drugs were legalized, most of them would be so cheap that people wouldn't need to resort to crime in order to feed their habit. Pot would drop from anywhere from $50/per eighth ounce to grow it in your back yard and smoke as much as you want for free.
Criminalization created the black market and the massive costs of hiding an underground industry and providing the incentive for taking the associated risks. So if you want to stop people from stealing so they can afford more drugs, legalize them so that they'll become cheaply available.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
In some ways, we get what we ask for. Don't want a tax cut? No tax cut for you!
sulli
RTFJ.
To all the candidates: Why not use the surplus to pay down the debt, and then cut taxes when we need it (during BAD economic times) instead of now, when we don't need it?
sulli
RTFJ.
Each state has different requirments on how a person can get on their ballot. If a candidate doesn't fullfill those requirements, then he or she won't be a choice for you.
Some states have little to no requirements, and so everyone and their brother is on the ballot; some states have very tough requirements and few people other than those who are involved with the major parties will be on the ballot.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup.
Good point. Tom Paine was a deist (along with me) and he was insulted (and called athiest, which is different) by Ronald Reagen for it. What a way to treat our founding fathers.
Good point. I'm pretty sure number 565 (mine) wouldn't have gotten to +5 without my asking others for support. I saw a lot of very silly questions, and a lot of "traditional" questions - the things that should be asked on places like MSNBC and CNBC, but not on Slashdot. C'mon, this is Slashdot. Please, guys, think. Use your brains, and ask the candidates the tough questions! Make them think.
Let's see if any of the candidates are savvy enough to catch that bit.
Lol! I know you meant geographic, but that's an interesting thought. Genetic voting, hmm...
Actually, there's a much stronger problem going on: we have no purpose as a country. (Read my question, #565 for what I'm talking about.) And that's a very dangerous thing, because what you describe is an effect of politics with no purpose. When the country has a purpose, we have no problem voting money for things that matter: WWII, the Cold War, the Depression New Deal, etc., but when we have no money we vote it for ourselves. I think that your (important, nonetheless) issue is a side effect (symptom?) of this bigger problem for the country.
For gosh sakes please make the candidates think! They're sleeping right now (except for GWB, but he's using up his brain trying to figure out how to pronounce his name). This question does nothing.
That's right, we're all being called athiests by fools like Reagan. (He made some very negative comment about Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense)
Hrmn... depression? Not just that. Without a national mission, I think that the entire country is going to go to hell in a handbasket in the next couple of decades... say goodbye to Uncle Sam!
Much has been said in the press and in the televised debates about the promise and perils of the Internet. As technology junkies, we are concerned that lawmakers and politicians may not have the same understanding of the technology as those "in the trenches".
How much time do you spend using computers, and what qualifies your technology advisors (assuming you have some)?
From WWWebster Dictionary:
agnostic: n: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
I think that's about as un-dogmatic as anything can get. When was the last time you had an agnostic trying to convert you to agnosticism? "Hey, man, have you heard the word? There may or may not be a god! Hallelujah!"
What do you most admire about each of your opponents?
(I think this would be a great question if for no other reason than to see who can be nice and who either can't answer the question, or feels compelled to use it as a launching pad for his own agenda.)
Do you think that there are too many "preventative" laws in this country which restrict these rights unneccesarily, and that the restrictions should be lesser, with perhaps greater punishments for those who use these freedoms to violate the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" of others? Or do you feel that we can only guarantee a certain level of freedom by imposing a large set of restrictions on everybody, so as to quell the criminals before they act?
11*43+456^2
Until the debt goes away and the feds start buying stocks bonds the social security system is just another income transfer program. But then it gets really scarey because the gov will start voting its shares!
Can both of you put to rest the foolish idea that many of the internet audience and slashdot especially do of thinking that there is one political party and that you are *not* controlled by various industry interests. I really feel that democracy works and that there is little to fear but many of my associates feel that there is some problem. Could you set this straight.
Respond to s
Well, I am sure this won't go far with the moderation, but I am going to try.
The US Government WASTES billions upon billions of dollars every year on pet projects, military, social services (very broad meaning), internal affairs, and much more indeed. This has gotten worse every year, and even though there are no hard facts on this, it is quite obvious.
My question is: What are you going to do to STREAMLINE government operations and prune out the unneccessaries? If this were done quickly, efficiently, and carefully (which is possible), it would definitely bring positive changes overall even if there are a few glitches from the process. Do you have what it takes to get this done?
-- ERICmurphy -- www.jabber.org for open-source, XML-based IM
How do you propose to get parents more involved in the education of their children? More computers is not the answer - that's obvious. A T1 in every classroom is not the answer. If they were, then pervious generations would not have gotten decent educations, but they did.
We all know that parental involvement in the education system is dropping. Coupled with the massive epedemic of illegitimacy in the U.S., the educational institution is producing people who can't read and write properly.
You can't legislate parenting. How will you get parents more involved in their children's future?
-- bearclaw
Neither has anything particularly helpful to say on the subject.
Agreed, where Dubya is concerned, the answer to a shortage is to drill for more oil. Gore, to his credit, is for encouraging energy responsibiliy, rather than tap into less accessible or wise reserves.
I'd be more interested in drilling Dubya on this point. The US is now consuming more petroleum than in 1973, prior to the oil embargo brought on by the Yom Kippur war and Henry Kissinger's meddling. Whatever lessons where learned have been quickly forgotten and SUV's have taken the place of fuel efficient autos. Guzzler taxes have no impact, as they only apply to autos, not trucks which were formerly viewed as utility vehicles. 25 years into the era when we were assured there were only 40 years of petroleum left and we've apparently learned nothing from history.
In 25 years Amtrak is plodding along a slow growth curve. Bullet trains are still a pipe-dream. Techno evangelists propose airliners which exit the atmosphere and fly from New York to Tokyo in 2 hours. And we have 25 less years of petroleum left to prepare for absense of cheap energy.
At the end of the next presidential term we will be 29 years along this path. Who will demonstrate the courage and leadership it will take to discourage the waste and lay the foundation of a world without petroleum.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
(I apologize in advance if this has already been beaten to death as my browser doesn't want to load all the current posts)
I would like the candidate's responses as to why our country has fallen down to two major political parties and what can be done to encourage more political parties to represent the viewpoints of more Americans. Neither of the two major parties can represent my opinions: I pull from both, thus neither fit me.
Additionally, I would like the candidate's responses as to why we still need the Electoral College. It made sense in the 1700's and 1800's as a representative democracy before we had effective mass communications to use this method to elect the President, but why in this day and age is such a system maintained?
And finally, why should the debates be restricted to the two major parties' candidates. As I understand it, the Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne, is on the ballots of 49 states. This represents a serious candidate whose views on the issues will not be exposed to the voting public because of his exclusion from the public debates. I do not feel that every candidate who is able to get on to the ballots of 2 or 3 states should be included, but 49 states is serious popular support.
--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
I got my absentee ballot and several of these candidates aren't listed and others are... Can anyone explain this?
This is who is listed on my absentee ballot-
Harry Browne - Libertarian
Pat Buchanan - Reform
George Bush - Republican
Al Gore - Democrat
John Hagelin - Natural Law
James Harris - Socialist Workers
Denny Lane - Vermont Grassroots
David McReynolds - Liberty Union
Ralph Nader - Progressive/Green
Howard Philips - Constitution
My home state, Vermont, legalized "civil-unions", giving many of the same privledges (but not all) as a marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
Right now there is a great deal of hate being spread around my state with people who don't agree with it. They started a campaign "Take Back Vermont", in order to, supposedly, take Vermont back to it's "roots". To me, this against what Vermont is about, once our own Union before joining the US, it's always been for equal rights, respect, and understanding.
I went to a local fair a few weeks ago, and just for showing my support for the civil unions law, I was continually harassed, told to "go back to California" (when I've lived in Vermont all my life), called a dyke and lesbian (though I am a heterosexual woman), purposely run into by "innocent" bystanders, all for wanting the same rights for gays that I will enjoy should I ever get married. I was also told that "shit is for spreading on fields, not for packing".
Pat Buchanan took it upon himself to come to Vermont this week and express his disgust for the Vermonters that support this bill, the ones that actually elected the officials and pushed for the bill, understanding that all Vermonters are equal, even in God's eyes. He was very demeaning and extremely anti-gay.
We that support the civil unions bill, we understand that not everyone has to accept gays, but what happened to RESPECT?
Thus, mny question is for Pat Buchanan- why does the Vermont Civil Unions bill affect you so that you feel it is ok to use such slanderous terms and support a slogan that is known in Vermont as a symbol of hate as that of "Take Back Vermont"? Are you not secure in your own sexuality? I want to take Vermont back myself, to a time when it was an open and respectful state that always valued EVERYONES rights, not just a certain group's...
Do you underwrite the growing feeling that the lives and liberties of normal citizens are increasingly being curtailed by the interests of large corporations and special interest groups, or is it your opinion that these corporations and special interest groups are representative of the American people at large?
I want the fire back.
How do you feel about the current electoral system? Do you find the use of popular media an effective way to get an objective message accross, or would you prefer a more controlled method of campaigning? Furthermore, traditionally a large percentage of the American people chooses not to exercise their right to vote. On one hand, it is known that something as simple as pleasant weather on an election day leads to a higher turnout, and a better result for left wing candidates. On the other hand, in Belgium, where voting is mandatory, a high percentage of the population chooses to vote for extreme right wing candidates. Do you beleive voting should remain a right, or should voting be considered a duty?
I want the fire back.
Maybe the statistics might make it look like there was an increase, as people who did them would be more likely to admit to doing them, but i seriously doubt the number of drug users would drasticaly increase.
Ive never tried crack, but its not because ive been waiting for it to be legalized so i wont get in trouble... i just dont want to do it, regardless of the law. Similiarly, i might choose to do a drug even though its illegal, because i do want to; again, regardless of the law.
If people want to do something, they are going to do it. Illegalizing it only makes them criminals, and us hyporocrits. If we are so free, why are there so many things we arent allowed to do?
And please dont offer the argument "people steal things to get moeny for drugs." Does that mean if people steal things to buy candy bars, we illegalize cady bars? People steal things. What they buy with the money they get from doing so is irrelavent. They stole because they precived it to be easier then getting the money through honest means.
________
Magnus frater spectat te
What is your policy on the number of H-1B visas that should be allowed each year?
"pr0n": An anagram of "porn," possibly indicating the use of pornography. - www.microsoft.com
Is this:
Are you prepared to either get serious about the drug war, and execute all known drug pushers, including those who push tobacco, alcohol, and registered pharmaceuticals? Or will you continue to waste up to 50 percent of our national budgets (combined federal (including black budget which we're not supposed to know about), state, county, and local taxes) on a policy that you know doesn't work?
And, if you do intend to change it, would you go back to the two-thirds split of olden days, where two-thirds was for drug treatment and prevention of demand, and one-third was for restriction of supply?
Or, will you keep building more prisons and arresting and harassing those you regard as the underclass, which usually works out to those of African-American or Mexican heritage?
Hey, I'm just asking, since noone wants to deal with the real tax issues like the growing military-drug-industrial complex that saps our productivity and costs us more than our school systems.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
For all that so many /. readers tend to criticise SUV-driving suburban mothers, there's a tendency to ignore the fact that we're mostly doing rather well for ourselves, act as though we own the planet, believe that all our whims should be pandered to, selfishly enjoy our good fortune: in short, we're the spiritual cousins of those Fulham Farmers.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no hippy bastard -- but I do find it a little disturbing that so many of you seem to believe that the government needs to spend more of its time working on behalf of those who are already plenty well of. Of *course* there are injustices perpetuated against us; of *course* the government does stupid things, is ignorant of technology and of the havok it so often wreaks - but the suggestion that these are the principal elements on which an election should be decided is rather callous, isn't it?
Fine, this is Slashdot - but still, too few questions have been asked about those more traditional concerns: what the government intends to do about poverty; about crime; about the environment; about essential human and animal rights. Yes, there are valid concerns about privacy and patent issues and the tech community and so forth - but I think a sense of perspective is needed...
This is a two part question. Part one is on the subject of Election Reform in general, and part two is concerning a particular piece of legislation (HR 1173).
Part One: As I'm sure you are aware citizens are becoming alarmlingly disiterested in participating in our Republic. Many point to Single Member Districts and Plurality Elections as a prime culprit. In many cases you live in a lopsided district that is heavily Republican or Democrat and feel that your vote isn't 'heard' due to you voting with a minority in your district. This applies to lowest level in City and School Board races up to the way districts are drawn for the US House.
What is your stance on election reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting (or Prefrence Boting) for winner take all elections (Mayorial, Gubernatorial and Presidential Races) and Cummulative Voting or Proportional Representation to fill out City Councils or National and State Congresses?
Part Two: I am a resident in North Carolina and the recent court cases challenging our 1st and 12th Congressional Districts prompted my research into electoral reform. Representatives Watts' and Clayton's (from NC's 1st and 12th districts) sponsored HR 1173 to allow the States to use alternatives to Single Member districts. Do you support or oppose their legislation?
Thank you for your time.
1) Recently the FCC has decided that they would like to mandate that consumer electronics companies build in chips that only allow certain programs to be recorded with new VCRs that can record high definition television signals. The networks are the ones that decide which programs can be recorded. This takes away the power of Fair Use in the copyright act but in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act there are very few provisions about fair use. What are your thoughts on this issue.
2) The FCC is passing Low Power FM broadcasts but it seems to be only available for churches and civic groups and not individuals. The radio industry is fighting low power FM because they think it would interfere with their signals and take away some of their commercial profits. Are you in favor of giving low power FM licenses to individuals?
--nohj
If, however, an individual performs similar espionage on a corporation - planting a computer program that covertly tracks network activity, for example - it is considered a violation of the rather severe "cracking" laws and can lead to imprisonment and permanent exile from the Internet.
Equal protection under the law would seem to imply that individuals should have at least the same rights to:
- knowledge and control of what their computers do
- knowledge and control of what is done with their data
- knowledge and control of how and why their activities are monitored
as coporations do.Will you support the application of cracker law to corporate privacy violations, giving individuals the same right to control their computers and keep their information private as corporations have now?
The World Trade Organization can order the United States and its other members to change their laws. It can inflict penalties if they fail to do so. Hence, the WTO now has a significant role in deciding how US law is determined - what we might call US "meta-law". But this, of course, is largely what the US Constitution addresses, and modifications to Constitutional procedures require Constitutional amendment, not simple treaties. Do you think US membership in the WTO is therefore Constitutional? Do you support the end of this membership?
Please walk us through the main points of your platform, constitutionally justifying each one. Feel free to quote at length from the Constitution itself to support your arguments. Please note that Supreme Court decisions are not part of the Constitution.
Don't forget that most of that debt is owed to ourselves (in the form of Treasury notes and other bonds).
A 'chance to win' and a minimum vote rule make sense for a debate system with a 'large' number of parties. However, 15% is a huge number to obtain, particular for third party candidates: Perot barely made it in 1992. The problem is that 15%. When the debates started way back, it was put on by the League of Women Voters (IIRC). Soon they lost interest and a special private organization was created to run the debates -- made up of Democrates and Republicans. They decided on that 15% number, knowing full well that the chance of a third party candidate getting that was rather slim. IMO, any presidental debate should include at least 3 and no more than 5 candidates, the 3rd parties chosen based on rankings in the appropriate pools but required to be above 2% (so that we don't have a dem, rep, and a representative of the silly party up there).
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Do you support the handling of the Presidential debates this election season? Specifically, do you spport the closing of the debates to any candidate with less than 15% of the polled vote, a number which creates a chicken-and-egg paradox for any third-party candidate? Jesse Ventura began with only 2% in Minnesota, but was allowed into the debates where his support grew and he eventually won. How would you propose to allow access to the debates by third parties without allowing any random person with fifty signatures and a name badge on stage?
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
What is the purpose of government, and how will you make the government's role more closely match that purpose?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So, for the candidates: What role and influence should these demands and actions have on the decision-making process of government, and what importance, if any, do any issues of this sort have in your platform?
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
Harry Browne talks about selling all public property (except military bases). The idea is that property held privately is better cared for. Beyond the argument as to whether that's true, I have another question:
How exactly will you sell this land? Take a big national park, for instance - Yellowstone. Are you going to sell it as is, in one big chunk, or will it be sold in parts? The reason this is important, in my mind is that how you sell it determines who could possibly buy it, and what use it will be put to. If sold as a whole, only a very large corporation could afford it, so you're not really selling it to anyone out there - you're locking out all individuals (except maybe a handful), and essentially only allowing corporations to buy it. In which case it will surely be used to make money.
If you sell it in small chunks, you are allowing a larger percent of the population a chance to buy, but you increase the odds that the park will be destroyed as the individual owners "do there own thing".
A related question is, who controls the roads? Right now, I leave my house, and I travel on public lands to get virtually anywhere I want to go. I cannot be barred from going most anywhere (even most businesses can't really bar me from their premises without reason). However, if that all becomes private property, is it possible that I could be barred from leaving my tiny yard? What's the libertarian solution to these concerns?
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
That both Lazio and Hilary flunked in the NY senatorial debate...
If bill 602P, providing for a 5 cent tax on email by the USPS is passed by Congress, will you sign it, veto it, or do nothing. Why?
Of course, the correct answer is do nothing, since it's a hoax, but let's see how well these people do...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Mr. Bush,
While I am in favor of providing some computer access to kids of all ages in school, I feel that there is too much emphasis on schools purchasing computers for what I would suggest is state-sponsored babysitting: math games, surfing the internet in class, etc. Rather than learning how to create with computers, children are just given eye candy to keep them busy.
My question is, as a candidate pushing a strong education platform, what role do you see computers playing in public education?
They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
Please list (without explanation), in order of priority, your presidential philosophical goals, so that we can understand what you are willing to compromise. Here are some important examples:
Reducing corruption
Reducing power / influence of government over our lives
Protecting the vulnerable (i.e. environment)
Fostering education
Fostering national productivity (i.e. supporting new technology)
Commitment to social welfare ( i.e. Medicare, social security, welfare, etc. )
Commitment to advancing the rights of citizens
Maintaining a strong economy
Laisez Fair economics
Providing a moral compass for citizens (i.e. abortion)
Providing a moral compass for other nations (i.e. human rights)
Avoiding wars / use of troops
Strengthen military
Trust in citizens to know what's best for them
Guide citizens to avoid the pitfalls of greed / selfishness / impatience / biased phobias (in spirit with retirement plans, universal education, and other social programs )
Resolving differences between parties (i.e. take lesser of evils instead of stubbornly holding out)
-Michael
Books such as Actual Innocence by Dwyer, Neufeld, and Scheck have documented the ways that provably innocent people have ended up on Death Row. If you believed innocent people had been executed, would you still support the death penalty?
[
K-12 schools work hard to spot gifted children and support their development. What would you do about school-age children who appear to have a gift for working creatively with computers?
In the positive sense, "hackers" are people with strong technical skills, curiousity and persistence. Yet, some people with these characteristics (and many more without them) commit crimes, acts of vandalism, and engage in otherwise anti-social behavior.
The Clinton administration and Congress, notably through its extraordinary funding of the NSF's Information Technology Research (ITR) initiative, has very soundly backed the notion that there needs to be a significant investment in (relatively high-risk) high-tech research -- and a fostering of potential scientists, software developers and other key people who will help move technology forward.
So, again: what do you propose for K-12 schools and other institutions to help develop these "good" hackers? Conversely, what do you propose to do about people who might use computers anti-socially?
Presidential Candidates: With the media and public acknowlidging the failures of the "War on Drugs" what do you plan to do with this war if you reach the Whitehouse?
It's been 20+ years since the OPEC oil embargo, yet the United States is even more dependent on imported oil than ever in history. Some have suggested that opening new oil fields (such as in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska) can help solve this, but it seems unlikely that the US has enough domestic untapped capacity to provide a long term (25+ year) solution to thew problem. Others have stated that we should allow the price of gasoline to increase in order to encourage research in alternative energy sources, but this may create problems for the economy.
What are your proposals to solve the long-term US energy problem?
In your administration what will be the future of NASA.
Will you future cut the NASA budget?
Will you scale back manned missions?
Will you scale back any current plans?
Or will you propose perhaps any of the following?
Research & development of a reusable interplanetary space craft.
More research in to the possible setting up of a lunar Science station, with possible commercial follow up.
Stepping up of Mars research, and possible manned missions.
More Funding for finding near earth objects in space.
More funding into reusable Earth to orbit vehicles.
Will you at least increase funding so that mission critical systems have the proper built in redundancies, so they don't fail.
What truly are your plans for us in space?
Thanks
TeTalon
You are either a part of the problem, or a part of the solution, which are you.
TeTalon
You are either a part of the problem, or a part of the solution, which are you.
Well, this would be a nice time to remind the crowd that the EFF is not the only foundation out there who needs a lot of help to finance lawyers to make good laws instead of only bad ones.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is out there to battle cases of separation of Church and State, Religious Freedom for Atheists, discrimination on faith (or lack thereof) and publishes a nice monthly paper (Freethought Today), which will be mailed to you once you become a member.
Go on! Don't hesitate! Join now!
For additional information, see also the Secular Web at http://www.infidels.org/
I'll go back to lurking now...
--
If you want to live in a country ruled by religion, move to Iran.
A question for either of the 2 major candidates:
After watching the first Presidential Candidate debate, I discussed it with someone who is from Europe and he was quite confused by the blatent misunderstanding and interpretation of the financial outlines of each candidate. He made a very strong and prevelent comment: Why doesn't the American people have a structured independent body in place to publically review financial plans and post the results? W Bush can claim all he wants about Gore's financial plan, and Gore does the same for Bush; the American people then make their judgements based on who they believe more. This isn't a sales job they are applying for, why don't we have in place a public outlet for public examination of proposed plans such as the financial one? I believe this would alleviate some of the misconceptions that are based around these and other Presidential races.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
For each candidate:
What is the most important issue that you would concentrate your presidency on? What is your stance on that issue? Why is it right? And how would you affect real change in regards to that issue?
P.S. Please don't answer vaguely...I want one issue. And DO NOT talk about building consensus. If the issue is that important, you BETTER have a position that you think is RIGHT and good REASON for it.
Admittedly this is a local issue, but to all the candidates: what would you do to promote environmentally friendly urban growth and reduce suburban sprawl, thereby preserving open space? Or do you think this is a good idea?
sulli
RTFJ.
That's exactly right. Over in Holland, where marijuana is legal, you don't see a nation overrun with potheads. More often you see Americans who have gone over there to escape some of America's drug laws.
People don't realize that legalizing a "bad" thing can have positive results. For example, drugs bought on the black market are usually more potent, as it is easier to smuggle a more potent substance, as was stated earlier. Legalizing drugs would allow for quality control. When you buy prescription drugs, you have some assurance that they are exactly what they claim to be, since you bought them from a licenced pharmacist.
Another way I like to look at it is the comparison between alcohol and marijuana. Alcohol is legal, and yet thousands of people die every year from alcohol and its effects (such as drunk driving). Marijuana is illegal, but how often (if *ever*) do we hear of anybody getting killed by it? Not to mention alcoholism, alcohol-related domestic violence, and so on, which do not occur with marijuana, since it is not addictive and, IMHO, puts people in a much more peaceful state of mind than with alcohol, making them much less likely to go do something violent.
Just something to think about...
--Ariston
"I'm never wrong--sometimes reality just disagrees with me."
One hallmark of a free society is the ability to expand one's experience through education.
Everyone recognizes that information-sharing mediums such as the internet can harbor ideas, sentiments, data thought to be harmful to children or unstable persons. But so can a library. Or a newspaper. Or the radio..etc.
What are the candidates' opinions on restricting access to potentially "harmful" information? Is it not better to restrict access on the "client" side than try to impose restrictions on the source of said information?
Thank you.
What concrete steps will you take to stop corporations from trampling individual rights or interfering with the political process, such as the usurping of the sovereignty of nations by the WTO? Do you believe that the legal fiction of corporations as "persons" is good or bad for our society, in the final analysis? Should corporations have rights, or only biological persons?
Are we to be governed by a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" or by amoral profiteering corporations and the WTO?
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
If the Dems and the GOP were corporations, they would have long-since been broken up under anti-trust laws.
Congress limits the President's power in a very healthy way, but when you have a single party in control of the Congress, it takes on the disturbing characteristics of a mob or a monopolistic corporation, depending on how it assesses threats and opportunities.
The dominant parties also make general election for our highest office something like winning an Academy Award. Out of hundreds of millions, only a few behind the curtains performed the real election which reduced the choices from dozens of excellent candidates to two.
That's very wrong.
If elected President, would you sign a bill to break up the dominant parties, allowing healthier competition for the office to resume?
Actually this is a two-parter:
1. Do you believe the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is constitutional?
2. Do you believe the DMCA is in the consumer's best interest?
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't quite know how else to ask this:
The candidates which I have heard in the media have made much of their efforts on behalf of, for instance, the elderly and the parents of school age children. Frankly, it's begun to sound like you think that I (a childless, working young adult in a high-tech field) and the similar majority of Slashdotters don't exist (or at least don't vote). I question whether you know what our concerns are, and am curious as to what you think our positions are.
So I would like to hear you expound on precisely what it is that you've done which you think we care about. I am asking about your record -- what you have actually already acheived as an officeholder or an activist -- not what you intend to do. In short:
What have you done for us lately?
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Aexander Tyler wrote the following regarding the fall of the Athenian Republic. I believe it is a fairly accurate description of America today. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Do you feel that current implementation of copyright law is tipped too much in favor of corporations vs. individuals?
--
DigitalContent PAC
OliverWillis.Com
An Operative with an Agenda
It's thought that had the DMCA been law in the 80's, Compaq would never have been able to clean-room reverse-engineer the IBM bios, which many believe started the PC revolution.
In what ways would you modify the "fair use" clauses in the DMCA?
Chris
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Which single response to a question during the Republican and Democratic Presidential Debates did you find most obejectionable? Put another way, which single issue do you think most differentiates you from the two "main" candidates for President? (If you are one of the "main" candidates, which single issue most differentiates your view from the other "main" candidate?)
Education is the silver bullet.
What is your opinion of the use and usefulness of the DMCA, and its application to the music, video and software industries? Would you favor a repeal?
Many in the technology community are concerned with the rise business practice patents. Many of the patents represent trivial applications of existing technology with Amazon's One-Click-Shopping patent being a notorius example. In addition, trademarks are becoming more all encompassing as Pepsi's trademark application of the color royal blue indicates. In light of these trends do feel that the US patent and trademark systems need to be reviewed and possibly reformed? Does the patent office need more resources to process the intellectual productivity of the new economy? How do you see broad patents affecting indidual creatvity and the ablity of smaller companies entering the tech industry late to innovate?
For those of you who think that the Gore-Lieberman ticket is better:
/.ers that have younger brothers and sisters (or, if they're really old, sons and daughters) to not say the "Pledge of Allegiance" at school. If the teacher asks a reason, tell them to say,
Mr Lieberman is on record stating that the Constitution was NOT for everyone, but for a "moral and religious people."
That is, he is another person who states that the First Amendment is the right to believe in how you want, but you gotta believe.
Yet another reason that, though I am an Orthodox Christian, I refuse to swear oaths "under God."
I also would encourage any
"This pledge says that I am subservient to the state. However, in a democracy, the state is subservient to me. If anyone should swear oaths, then the government should swear that it will protect me from those who would hurt me, abuse me, stop me from saying my mind and my beliefs.
"This country is supposed to be free, but this oath is to make a nation of free people into slaves. Amen."
Here endeth the lesson.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Governor,
Please describe issues where you will vote against your largest campaign donors.
"As a percentage of the GNP, how big should the government be? Patty-patty Buke Buke!!"
BUCHANAN: "I'd say about seventee..."
"WRONG! The correct answer is nineteen point four seven percent!"
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
How can the two of you (and your respective parties) justify:
1. refusing access to third parties to debate with you?
2. refuse to allow Ralph Nader to attend the debates as an audience member w/ a valid ticket?
The debate commission which sets the rules for the three debates is owned joinly by the dems & repubs. Those two parties own the elections... until the "third parties" get equal access to the debates & the public, the poor people of this country will be afraid to vote for anyone other than the D or R. Let's face it, at this point, a vote for anyone else is almost a wasted vote.. and that's truely sick and sad. Instead of seeing "_________________ won 7% of the vote, maybe we should start listening to the people that voted for him" we'll be hearing things like "_______________ took 7% of the vote away from ____ (---insert four letter word of your choice here)
Can I get a "none of the above" choice on my ballot please?
--Insert catchy
Lady and Gentlemen,
What precisely are your positions regarding the imbalance between corporate power and individual liberty and what do you specifically do you intend to do to safeguard individual liberty?
"...heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
The War on Drugs has been a consistently neglected topic in discussions surrounding this federal election. My question is, do you believe the War on Drugs has been an unqualified success, and if not, what would you change about it if elected president? Further, does your solution represent a change in strategy, or just more of the same?
In this age of the Internet, intellectual property has become a very important concept to many people. Many companies make their living on the artificial scarcity provided by intellectual property laws, selling information that they have either created or aggregated. Some others, mostly in the Free Software world, make their living seemingly in spite of these laws, selling their services based on information that is freely given.
Do you feel that out current system of intellectual property is a good one? Which parts of it (e.g. trademarks, patents, copyrights) do you feel are well suited to the world of the Internet and which do you think need to be changed (and, if changes are needed, what changes are needed)?
--Phil (I'm quite glad to see this article and look forward to the responses.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
This isn't a question for the candidates, or even a suggestion for the people posting and moderating questions.
It's a plea to Roblimo and/or whoever chooses the final 10 questions.
With the Carnivore interview recently, I wasn't the only one to complain that a lot of redundant "why should we trust you" type questions were moderated up to a 5 (and then asked in the interview), to the detriment of questions moderated to 4 or even 3, and generally to the detriment of us all when we had to read the Carnivore reviewer repeatedly defending his character rather than answering more interesting questions about the review.
I'm worried that the same thing is happening here: among the thousand-odd posts, of course many people are repeating the same questions. Could we eliminate duplicates before sending them to the candidates, please? In particular, as I write this there are 4 DMCA comments modded +5, and more at +4. We only need one question on the DMCA.
Secondly, a request: Since you're obviously going to have to throw out three redundant copies of every question you ask, could you pick the least leading of the bunch for the question that gets sent? And could everybody just stop trying to seize the opportunity to tell the next president what to think, and take the opportunity to ask him what he thinks? I'm sorry, but a post that begins with "Little by little the rights of Americans are being taken away to protect the interests of corporations." or "Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations." is not a question, it's the poster getting up on a soapbox, and inadvertently telling the politicians we're interviewing exactly how to best pander to him.
I don't want to be pandered to. I don't see any way to avoid it, since any smart candidate will have his advisors reading the last week or two of Slashdot stories and telling him what we want to hear. But do we have to do their research for them? Can we at least try and ask some unbiased questions instead, and maybe see what the candidates actually think?
I take it you don't spend much time hanging out in the poorer neighborhoods of major cities. No, the reason you don't see many opium addicts is because they've all switched to heroin, originally developed as an opium substitute by a pharmaceutical company (Bayer). The reason people use heroin now and not opium is not due to the 'success' of the various drug laws, but because of the effects of illegality -- the black market demands a more potent, concentrated drug that is easier to smuggle than opium. (In other words, it's 'better' to try to smuggle a kilo of heroin than a kilo of opium -- you get more out of it.) Now if drugs were legal and regulated, people might well choose a less potent preparation of opium over some kind of suspect black market heroin. As an example, in the Alcohol Prohibition in the USA in the 1920's, a frosty cold well brewed lager was hard to come by, but a bottle of 140 proof backwoods-still moonshine could be bought from nearly anyone of a certain reputation.
You really need to open your eyes to the true effects of our misguided drug policies. If people with your impressive grasp of the issues were running the country, just think of the state we'd be in. Oh wait, never mind... drcnet.org
There are a few issues that repeatedly come up on forums (fora?) like SlashDot. I am curious to know your positions on these issues; in the form of a simple "pro" or "con".
1) Software Patents
2) UCITA - the Uniform Computer Information and Transactions Act
3) DMCA - the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
4) The illegalization of DeCSS (open source software for watching DVDs - often mischaracterized as DVD copying software)
5) Extension of copyrights from 14yrs to lifetime and more
6) The antitrust case against Microsoft
For any items which you answered "con", please indidcate briefly what you will do to work against these, since all of them are currently happening.
(Note - as far as I can tell as a regular reader here, the only item on this list which is controversial on SlashDot is number 6; the first 5 are (almost) universally opposed here.)
Sure - we have freedom OF religion, but we in no way have freedom FROM religion. I can be any faith I want to - but if I am an Atheist I LOSE RIGHTS. Period, End of story.
For Example - The Predident of the United States - and Father of current Presidential Candidate George W. Bush said:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." George Bush
And Americans in general do not even agree that Atheists have ANY religious rights: (Taken from religioustolerance.org)
'Although adults in North America exhibit reasonable tolerance towards persons of different denominations and different religions, this acceptance does not necessarily extend to Atheism. Some older surveys published in the 1980's, showed that almost 70% of Americans agreed that freedom of religion applies "to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme their ideas are." But only 26% agreed that Atheists should be given freedom of speech to ridicule religion and God, no matter who might be offended." 71% believed that Atheists "who preach against God and religion" should not be permitted to use civic auditoriums.'
Hell - the constitution of Texas (the state of George W. Bush's governership) explicitly states that Atheists are not citizens of the state of texas, and my be discriminated against - luckily the US Constitution superceeds this.
Finally - may states are trying to take away my ability to keep my money from being spent DIRECTLY on the church - by sneaking in bills that allow for the use of 'school vouchers' - which are nothing more then a way to circumvent the inability for the state to give money directly to religious institutions.
So don't EVEN start to tell me that Atheists, Agnostics, and Humanists enjoy the same protection as everyone else in the US.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
A tax cut flies in the face of what Greenspan is trying to do. A tax cut will inject more money into the economy and do what Greenspan is preventing.
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much on the debt?
Although the two main candidates disagree on how to handle the anticipated oil shortage this winter, they seem to agree that steps should be taken to keep oil prices low so that people can continue to use lots of it.
I fundamentally disagree with both of them on this point. I would like to see oil prices rise, so that people get the clue that this is not a good long-term solution for out energy needs, and I would like to see tax incentives for alternative energy (such as solar and wind, for example). Both tax breaks for alternative energy and tax hikes for oil would be preferable.
I don't care if gas prices rise. It is a small part of my budget and I hate to use more gas than I need to. That's why I drive a ULEV civic that gets over 40 mpg. Even with a guzzler, a trip across the country would only cost about 100 extra dollars in gasoline with the recent higher prices.
So here's my question: do you plan to agressively persue alternative energy sources, and reduce our reliance on oil to a minimum? If not, why not?
Vidi, Vici, Veni
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The United States has long had a policy of meddling and imperialism in other countries. Our record in South America and the Middle East, coupled with the habit of Congress giving Ambassadorships to large donors or "retiring" Congressmen, added to the sheer number of people who despise the U.S., indicates we're doing something wrong.
The British ruled a larger portion of the world than we do, yet they are attacked, bombed, and the target of terrorists far less often than the United States.
Can you explain what would constitute your foreign policies?
Follow on military invervention in foreign countries: There is not a soul among us who would could stand to see our friends and neighbors butchered, raped, and driven from their homes -- if it were here in the United States. Why does our compassion suddenly evaporate when the victims are not U.S. citizens?
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy, especially with regard to the control of personal information?
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance for all citizens; standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy); standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility) using smart card technology; and reforms on health maintenance organizations (HMOs)? If not, what kinds of reforms of the health care system would you agree to?
Would you support legislation to increase use of renewable, non-nuclear energy by the Federal Government? Further, would you support tax reductions for those who willingly use renewable, non-nuclear energy?
Would you support a flat-tax scheme in which all income above a minimum level (for example, set at twice the official poverty level) is taxed at the same rate?
Would you seek to continue the moratorium on taxation of e-commerce, and would you seek to extend the moratorium globally via the WTO or other institution?
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
To understand the true effect of the internet, one must be familiar with it. My question is: How often did you use the internet in the 90's? During the 90's, how many protocols have you used besides HTTP? (the web) Have you visited a pronography site? Have you played a violent video game? Have you visited some of the anarchist web sites?
Of the above questions,
If your answer is "No", then why do you think you qualify to make comments about them? If your answer is Yes, Please tell us how these contents affect your values and behavior.
Encryption policy is overseen by the Vice President under executive order by the President.
The current administration strongly promoted the Clipper chip, reduced key sizes and key escrow until relatively recently.
Question: What is your view on the use of encryption technology for protecting the privacy of US citizens and companies?
And, do you favor legislation that provides more substantive easing of export restrictions for strong encryption technology or use of encryption technology on the internet?
In light of the recent federal report finding that adu lt content is aimed at minors, much of this campaign's rhetoric has had to do with "decency" in the media and "protecting the children." However, no one has really said much besides "something must be done." For the candidates who said this, what, exactly is "something?" What specifically would you do to protect minors from violent content without infringing on the rights of musicians, writers, and filmmakers?
What, in your belief, is the US federal government not doing that it should be doing?
What, in your belief, is the US federal government doing that it should not be?
How will you rectify this situation? (assuming your answer to the above isn't 'nothing'.)
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
Just to give you some feel for the amount of debt that the US has build up. Lets play with this some more - there are approximately 250 million people in the US, of which approximately 180 million are tax payers. That means that to clear the debt in the US, each taxpayer would have to pay $31,400. Now all this talk of exponential growth in the economy is all very well, but when you consider that this debt is growing exponentially as well (deficit in June 2000 was $30.4 billion dollar) you have a big problem. The only thing keeping the US out of serious recession is the value of the dollar - if the investors believe that this debt is getting too large to service, the dollar will fall in value. Then things get messy.
To see the debt figures - click here
So I'd say that the US had better start servicing that debt - at a rough estimate, assuming a 6% interest rate, the US tax payer must contribute nearly $2000 a year which goes to stabilizing the debt (not paying it off). That is entirely wasted money that could be spent elsewhere if it wasn't being flushed around various financial institutions.
So it is difficult to see why there is little or no outcry about this - it is probably the most serious problem that the US faces internally and it will have to pay for it sooner or later. The longer it is left, if the interest rate is larger than the growth in the economy, the burden of debt becomes ever heavier.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
What will you do to protect the rights of athiests and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
Recent comments at the presidential debates indicate that this issue is on the public policy radar. Moreover, we have heard from media and politicians alike that there is a growing epidemic of youth violence precipated from depictions of violence in the media and on the Internet. My first question is 1) Do the numbers actually show an epidemic of violence, or are we all caught up in the hype of recent abberant mass murders? Please indicate the source of your statistics. 2) Throurghout the nineties and starting in the eighties, real spending on education and youth programs have declined dramatically. What impact do you think this has had on youth crime and violence, and what do you propose to do about it? 3) Do you believe that filtering the Internet and other media can have a real impact on youth violence, especially when compared with racial, income, educational, and regional indicators on violence? If so why.
In lieu of the above, or in addition to, please summarize your social and educations policies and how they will effect the lives of young people. Of interest to me personally is what programs do you propose for high school age kids, and what plans if any do you have to make attaining higher education easier.
As a percentage of the GNP, how big should the government budget be?
Visit Savagenumber.com
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private. Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Little by little the rights of Americans are being taken away to protect the interests of corporations. We have especially seen this happen in the arts world where well established rights of fair use of a copyrighted work are being diregarded by laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). What is your opinion of this current trend and what steps if any would you take to change it?
I'm very concerned with the future of the country, and about what our national mission seems to be. Looking back through American history, every period seems to have a defining popular mission - like the "manifest destiny" movement in the 19th century, the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. During these times, there would be one struggle or idea that captivates the attention of the nation, sort of providing a national mission.
I'm a little confused as I look around today. What is our mission? To me, it seems to be "to watch TV and use the Internet." What would you say the defining national mission of today is? What should it be? Furthermore, how would you show this in your activities as a lawmaker? (For instance, if our national mission is the pursuit of science, then would you increase funding for scientific pursuits in the budget?)
Have courage when dealing with the government, it is there to serve the people, not the reverse.
My question: As the world petroleum reserves dwindle, as they are doing at the present, and prices begin an inevitable ascent, what plans do you have to make the United States less reliant on petroleum based energy and what infrastructure, such as a national passenger rail network, would you encourage before the plentiful supply is gone forever?
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Do you feel that there are any issues regarding the United State's current use of the prison system?
Are too many Americans in prison?
Do their crimes fit their punishment?
Will the privitization of prisons help or hurt any of these problems?
Why, do you feel, are there unequal numbers of Americans with different skin pigmentation in prison?