Slashdot Mirror
More Candidate Answers - Bush and Hagelin
1) War on Drugs
by Tim Doran
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?
Bush:
If elected president I pledge a renewed commitment to fight the war on drugs. I have a plan that includes $2.767 billion in new initiatives to help parents, teachers, and faith-based leaders influence children to steer clear of the evils of the drug culture.
For the past seven years, the Clinton-Gore Administration has sent the wrong message on drug abuse. Two of the Administration's first actions were to cut the Drug Czar's office by over 80% and to appoint a Surgeon General who spoke openly about drug legalization. And, the Clinton-Gore Administration slashed international efforts to stop drugs beyond our borders and all but abandoned the bully pulpit against illegal drugs.
Tragically, without presidential leadership on the issue, teen drug-use rose dramatically during the first five years of the Clinton-Gore Administration, and it remains at unacceptably high levels today. Drug use by children between the ages of 12 and 17 more than doubled between 1992 and 1997. Recent data suggest that teen drug use may have leveled off, but is still at near record levels for the decade.
From 1979 to 1992, in response to a concerted and relentless national strategy and commitment, teenage drug abuse consistently declined year after year. Starting in 1992, however, that trend reversed dramatically, and from 1992 to 1997 teenage drug abuse increased nationally every single year.
The number of high school seniors who have tried drugs is at its highest level in over a decade, with over half - 54.7 percent - having tried drugs. This rate had declined for 11 years in a row, reaching a low of 40.7 percent in 1992, before growing by a third under the current Administration.
For 10th graders, lifetime cocaine use has more than doubled since 1992, reaching 7.7 percent, the highest level in a decade, and lifetime use of crack by 10th graders has likewise more than doubled, reaching 4.0 percent.
For 8th graders, heroin use has nearly doubled, reaching 2.3% in 1999.
Compared to 1992, daily use of marijuana within the previous thirty days by eighth and tenth graders increased by 700 percent and 300 percent, respectively.
In contrast to the past seven years, I will send a clear and unwavering message: drug use is wrong, and we will have zero tolerance for those who target our children with the plague of drugs.
I will help parents and re-energize the parents' movement, by creating a national Parents Drug Corps, through providing $25 million to non-profit organizations to educate and train parents in effective drug prevention. To achieve drug-free schools, I will increase funding for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program by $100 million over five years, and insist that states and districts measure drug use and demonstrate results. And, I will energize community coalitions through $350 million in grants to double and enhance the effectiveness of community coalitions that reduce teenage drug abuse.
I will devote an additional $1 billion to increased funding for the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, and $1 billion more to help close the treatment gap for those needing drug treatment and not receiving it. My focus on treatment will promote teen treatment programs in particular.
In addition, I will insist upon drug-free prisons, require regular drug testing and monitoring for parolees and probationers, and expand the successful Boston Gun Project from 27 cities to 100. And I will launch a federal Methamphetamine initiative, to tackle directly a growing crisis in rural communities.
We want a drug-free society for one, great moral reason: over time, drugs rob men and women and children of their dignity and character. Illegal drugs are the enemies of innocence, and ambition, and hope. I will exert presidential leadership to send the clear and consistent message that drug abuse is dangerous and wrong. And I will help marshal resources at every level - starting with parents, schools and communities closest to the needs of young Americans - to turn back the tide of drug abuse.
Hagelin:
The War on Drugs has failed. I will cut our burgeoning prison population in half by decriminalizing nonviolent drug offenses, directing such offenders to drug education, prevention, and rehabilitation programs. Approximately a million people are in jail for such nonviolent drug offenses. That's a waste of a generation.
We must also focus on the demand side of the drug economy by reducing the desire to take drugs. The most effective defense against drugs is proper education -- education that directly unfolds intelligence and creativity, builds self-confidence, eliminates stress, and raises life to be in harmony with natural law, thereby eliminating the tendency towards drug dependence.
To be effective, education must be deeply satisfying and directly relevant to a person's own life. Such education will eliminate functional and technological illiteracy and also prevent dropouts, who become the principal targets for drugs and drug-related crime.
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
What will you do to protect the rights of athiests and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
Bush:
I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity. Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion.
Hagelin:
I will take action where necessary to ensure the constitutional rights of all Americans. However, more than that, I will support effective education that expands comprehension and overcomes intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry born of narrow-mindedness.
Because the aim of every religion is the spiritual elevation of human life, I support the right of all Americans to worship according to the religion of their choice. At the same time, I support the crucial separation between church and state by holding that the Federal Government should remain neutral toward all religions, neither suppressing nor supporting any particular religion or religious sect. This attitude of neutrality, which aims at protecting the religious rights of all Americans, reflects the original intention of the nation's founding fathers.
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
With the surplus, everyone has been saying "Let's have a tax cut, Let's have a tax cut." In the meantime, Alan Greenspan and friends are trying to keep inflation and the speed of the growing economy in check so it doesn't burst. Which they are doing by raising interest rates periodically. (6 times this year). 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?
Hagelin:
Many candidates have promised lower taxes, but have been unable to fulfill these promises due to the depth and complexity of problems faced by government. Tax cuts--without the revenues to support them--would be irresponsible, and politicians who promise such cuts without a realistic plan to generate revenues are simply courting votes. However, my cost-effective solutions will save the nation hundreds of billions of dollars annually, thereby providing a realistic strategy for significant tax reduction that protects the integrity of our important social programs. The most powerful fiscal action our government can take to stimulate the economy is to lower taxes. I will cut taxes responsibly -- while protecting Social Security and Medicare and paying down the national debt -- through reduction of government waste and fraud, and through cost-effective solutions to costly social problems, such as spiraling health costs, crime, and our energy dependence on foreign oil.
One simple and viable way to implement across-the-board tax cuts is through a low flat tax. We will halt the endless manipulation of the tax code by Congress for their favorite corporate sponsors ("corporate welfare") by implementing such a tax. Our plan includes a generous floor of $34,000 (for a family of four) below which American would pay no income tax. Above the $34,000 floor, the tax rate begins at 18% in 2001 and drops to 14% by 2006 as our cost-effective solutions begin to bear fruit. Our low flat tax would stimulate and sustain strong economic growth. This strong economic growth, with its associated increase in government revenues, combined with the savings from our cost-effective solutions, would ensure a balanced budget and gradual repayment of the national debt without borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. This proposal would also reduce the size and scope of the IRS, eliminate loopholes for the wealthy, and put an end to corporate welfare.
Bush:
I believe that once our nation's priorities have been met, the remaining money should be returned to the taxpayers. Chairman Greenspan has gone on record saying that he would rather see the surplus returned to taxpayers than spent on new government programs like Al Gore proposes.
It is estimated that over the next ten years we will have a surplus of about $4.6 trillion. That surplus takes into account the projected increases for each government program and entitlement. In other words, after all of the government's bills are paid, including the regular increases for each department there will still be a surplus of nearly $5 trillion. Of that surplus, I want to take over half of it to help save Social Security. I will put that money into a "Lockbox" so that government can't spend it, except on Social Security benefits.
Then I will take about half of the remaining $2.2 trillion to fund important efforts such as improving public education, strengthening our national defense, and providing prescription drugs to senior citizens. The remaining quarter of the surplus, a little over $1 trillion would then be returned to the taxpayers. Under my plan, everyone who pays taxes will get a tax cut, with the biggest percentage cut going to the poorest citizens. In fact, I will take 6 million low-income families off the tax rolls completely.
4) electoral reform
by carleton
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?
Bush:
The Electoral College was established by Article II and the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution. I support our Constitutional system of representative democracy. I am disappointed at the diminishing number of voters coming out for national elections and statewide elections. I would encourage all Americans to turn out and vote in this presidential election.
I believe that a principal cause of voter apathy is the constant bitter partisan divisions and growing cynicism in Washington. I am running to try to change that atmosphere, to lead by uniting rather than dividing, to shoot straight, and to set aside partisan differences and set an agenda that makes sense for working Americans.
Hagelin:
I support crucial democratic reforms to end special interest control of government and restore government accountability to the people, including elimination of PACs and soft money, public sponsorship of election campaigns, and prohibiting lobbying by former public servants. I support election reform that returns American democracy to the high ideals envisioned by our nation's founders -- a republic that fairly represents the views of all its citizens and candidates. In this light, I support abolishment of the Electoral College, because under the current system, a presidential candidate can receive a majority of the votes and still lose the election. The President should be elected by the people through direct popular vote. I would also reconsider proportional representation, which has been effective in countries around the world and more fairly represents the true will of the people than our current "winner-take-all" process.
To create meaningful election reform, I also support the following initiatives:
1. Ensure ballot access fairness. Every political party and candidate should have the same requirements in every election for getting on the ballot. Incumbents should no longer have privileges over challengers with new ideas.
2. Promote campaign fairness. It is the right of the American people to hear the views of every candidate on the ballot. All candidates who meet ballot access requirements should have the same access to their constituencies, including equal media access through a series of publicly sponsored televised forums, debates, and infomercials, as well as publicly sponsored mailings of voter education materials. To qualify for these privileges, candidates would be required to comply with voluntary spending limits. This structure would favor voter education over privately funded media advertising and would thereby help eliminate special interest influence on the election process.
3. Encourage all Americans to vote. Election day should be made a mandatory national holiday, as in most other nations, so that everyone has time to vote. Voter registration should be facilitated by creating uniform laws that allow same-day registration or even automatic registration.
4. Shorten the campaign season. The campaign season should be reduced to four months -- two months for parties to choose their candidates and two months for the general election.
5. Allow national initiatives. The "public initiative" process, already enacted and in operation in 23 states, should be expanded to the national level. This process allows the collective will of our citizens to initiate legislative reform and thereby shape governmental policy more directly.
5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
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)?
Hagelin:
Whenever new technologies emerge, such as the tape recorder or the videocassette recorder, the owners of existing intellectual properties demand draconian protection, insisting that without it their industries will collapse.
Each of these technological advances, however, has in fact resulted in new ways for the movie, television, and music industries to make money. Similarly, the Internet and digital distribution of music have stimulated interest in the purchase of new CDs. (In fact, CD sales have continued to rise even with Napster, and it is probable that free sampling of music leads to increased CD sales.)
However, it is also true that intellectual property is a key motivator in the creation of new material and therefore must be given protection.
That is why I believe that the entertainment industry should make an all-out effort to find new ways to utilize Napster and similar services on a "pay per view" basis. This approach will serve all concerned and turn what appears now--at least to many in the entertainment industry--to be a disaster into a boon for both the industry and the consumer.
Bush:
In the next five years, we anticipate that two-thirds of software will be distributed over the Internet, making it more important than ever to ensure strong copyright protection for computer software. In the United States, much of the legal framework already exists, but we need to redouble our efforts on enforcement. In particular, the next President must make sure that the US Department of Justice and US law enforcement agencies have the resources to enforce our intellectual property laws. In the international community, the challenge is even tougher since we must both help establish a legal framework for intellectual property protection and ensure it is enforced.
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
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?
Hagelin:
To attempt to restrict the export of encryption is ludicrous and unworkable, since individuals and businesses will always demand the strongest encryption possible and governments will always try to find a way to break it. The right of Americans to encrypt will not be abridged under my administration.
Bush:
I share many people's concerns that, with the advent of the Internet, personal privacy is increasingly at risk, and I am committed to protecting personal privacy for everyone. Though industry now appears to be making some efforts to meet consumer demands for privacy protection, as President I will ensure:
- Notice and Consent. Everyone has the right to know what information is collected and how it will be used, and to accept or decline the collection or dissemination of this information - particularly financial and medical information.
- Access. Individuals have the right to correct any inaccurate personal information.
- Security. Institutions must provide sufficient security to prevent unauthorized access to personal information.
If elected president, I will issue an Executive Order designating a federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) at the Office of Management and Budget. The federal CIO will be responsible for providing the leadership and coordination needed to realize the vision of a truly digital and citizen-centric government. The CIO will head agency cross-functional councils on information technology, facilitate collaboration with state CIOs, and lead development of standards, protocols, and privacy protections, among other things.
I believe that strong encryption products enhance consumer privacy. In October 1999, I proposed fundamental reform of the U.S. high technology export system - including encryption export laws - to allows companies to export products when those products are already readily available in foreign or mass markets, while building high walls around technologies of the highest sensitivity. The current system needlessly penalizes U.S. businesses while failing to strengthen our national security.
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
In the last year or so we have seen a tremendous escalation in the quantity and size of political protests against globalization and the rising power of corporate multi-nationals. Do you believe that these people have reason to be concerned? If you do believe that they have reason for concern, what steps would you take as president to deal with their concerns?
Bush:
The failure of the Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organization to launch a new round of global trade negotiations is a setback for America and the world.
Trade drives economic growth and high wage jobs. As we introduce American goods and services around the world, we will also introduce American values. To fuel continued economic growth, we need to tear down barriers abroad - and keep markets open at home. As President, I will work to pry open foreign markets and tear down barriers everywhere, entirely, so that the whole world trades in freedom.
The failure of the Seattle meeting represents a failure of leadership - internationally and domestically - by the Clinton-Gore Administration. Since the last trade round ended in 1995, the Administration has failed to build an international consensus in favor of further market-opening efforts.
The violent protests in the streets of Seattle also reflect the Administration's failure to build a domestic consensus in favor of free trade. In fact, this is the first administration in 25 years to fail to secure presidential trade negotiating authority from Congress.
With our trade deficit reaching a record high, we must recognize that our prosperity at home will suffer without new leadership to advance America's global economic interests.
We cannot turn our back on change. Rather, we have to help Americans prepare for change by embracing free trade, ensuring that every child is educated, cutting taxes on working families to increase their access to the middle class, and ensuring that no one is left behind.
Hagelin:
Globalization and corporate multinational control of government is a major concern of my campaign. America's crucial trade treaties, such as NAFTA, must be revisited and vigorously renegotiated--with adequate representation by labor, environmental, and human rights proponents to ensure that America's interests are truly upheld. In particular, the World Trade Organization (WTO), with its sweeping authority to adjudicate international trade disputes, has become a tool of multinational corporations, which have inside access to WTO negotiations that typically occur in secret. We would give the WTO twelve months to adopt more open, democratic procedures--with adequate labor, environmental and human rights input--or we would withdraw the U.S. from the WTO and negotiate individual, tailored trade relationships with America's various trade partners. These agreements would
- promote the economic welfare of all Americans;
- provide markets for our domestic small businesses;
- safeguard American employment and labor standards;
- protect human rights; and
- ensure that imported goods meet environmental and product safety standards.
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
Hagelin:
Scarce military resources are squandered on pork-barrel weapons like the $2 billion B2 bomber and the $60 billion flawed missile defense shield. As a scientist, I do not support the missile defense shield because it does not work. Similarly, I do not feel that military funds should be spent on asteroid defense.
(Gov. Bush did not answer this question.)
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
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 captivated 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?)
Bush:
Throughout this campaign I have said that our great prosperity must have a great purpose. The purpose of our prosperity should be to ensure that the American Dream touches every willing heart. We cannot afford to have an America segregated by class, by race or by aspiration. America must close the gap of hope between communities of prosperity and communities of poverty.
My priorities are to bring local control, high standards and character education to our public schools. To restore morale and shape a modern American military. To continue our prosperity and make our tax code fairer by cutting rates for every taxpayer, from the entrepreneur who creates jobs to the single mom working for a better life for her children. And my priorities are to save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare - to keep our commitment to the greatest generation, and enact reforms so that commitment is secure for generations next. Overall, I want to make sure that our prosperity has a purpose.
What I have learned from these months on the campaign trail is how much Americans have in common. Our faces and our landscapes are diverse and different - but the spirit of hope and renewal I saw at work in a drug rehabilitation program called Teen Challenge in Colfax, Iowa, is also at work in food pantries and after school programs and crisis pregnancy centers all across America.
These past eighteen months have reconfirmed my belief that the strength of America is found not in the halls of government, but in the hearts and souls of our people, and they deserve a government that respects and reflects their values.
The Americans who began choosing our next President tonight took a stand for a leader who unites, and an agenda that inspires. A messenger committed to bringing people together, and a message meant for every American.
If you are tired of the bitterness that poisons our politics, come join us. If you think that government should be less partisan and more practical, come join us. If you are weary of polls and posturing, of scandals and alibis, come join us.
I promise an administration that will bring out our best.
Hagelin:
Our national mission may seem obscure because government today is torn by conflicting national interests and faced with seemingly intractable challenges. This is because governmental theory and policy are rooted in obsolete 19th century principles. As a quantum physicist, I offer a profound and fresh new foundation for governmental administration -- one based upon the most modern and comprehensive scientific understanding of how Nature functions -- that will clarify and redefine our national mission. Unified quantum field theories have revealed the ultimate unity underlying all of life, and provide deep and practical insights into how to skillfully administer and harmonize society's diverse tendencies -- with the same organizing intelligence displayed throughout Nature. America's problems are human problems -- crime, drug dependency, domestic violence, even pollution result from a narrowness of vision that fails to comprehend life's essential unity. The only way we can overcome these problems is through the expansion of consciousness -- education that actualizes the full potential of the brain. I have spent the last quarter century conducting cutting edge research in unified quantum field theories, and have led an international scientific investigation into the nature and origin of human consciousness. The conclusion of these 25 years of research is that human consciousness, at its deepest level, and the unified field which underlies the whole of Nature, are one and the same. This means that human awareness, fully expanded, naturally comprehends the ultimate unity underlying all of humanity, earth's complex ecosystems, and indeed, the entire universe. It also means that the most profound appreciation of life's essential unity, described by the greatest physicists and philosophers of all traditions, is available to everyone through proper education. With this direct experience of life's essential unity, and with maximally expanded comprehension, individuals naturally behave in their own best long-term interests while promoting the interests of society as a whole -- action fully aligned with natural law. Thus today, 225 years after the birth of our nation, with our far more complete and profound scientific understanding of natural law, we can practically fulfill our Founders' dream of a self-governing nation, where all citizens naturally respect and promote each others' rights to life, liberty and happiness.
After reading through the questions and answers, am I the only one who gets the odd feeling that the candidates -- but the Shrub especially -- has no sense (at least from their answers) that they're writing for Slashdot's audience? (Or, worse yet, that they even know what Slashdot is? Or that, yeah, Slashdot is, um, actually on this "thing" called the "web"?)
The Shrub's answers sound like well-crafted speech points. Obviously, he didn't write these-- his aides did. Yeah, I realize that.
But you might as well just tape record the Shrub's answers, get one of those chit-chattering teeth things, wind it up, play the tape recorder, and watch how the teeth jump and skitter and pop with the answers on the tape recorder until they chatter right off the table and onto the floor...
What will you do to protect the rights of athiests and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
Bush:
I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity. Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion.
Let's have a show of hands. Is your religion Government Approved?
"If elected president I pledge a renewed commitment to fight the war on drugs. I have a plan that includes $2.767 billion in new initiatives to help parents, teachers, and faith-based leaders influence children to steer clear of the evils of the drug culture."
I can just see the anti-drug commercials now.. "Cocaine is bad, mmmkay." -George W. Bush
I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity. Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion.
I am committed to the First Amendment, whether the person believe in a Judeo-Christian God, a Judeo-Christian God, a Judeo-Christian God, or a Judeo-Christian God.
-----
I remember hearing representatives from Canada's Natural Law party speak a few years ago and thinking what nuts they were. (Entertaining, but definately crazy.)
It says something about the state of politics in the U.S. that the Natural Law candidate actually comes accross as an intelligent, rational human being next to the Republican candidate. It would be funny, except for the fact that Bush might actually win.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
this isn't why we should vote for bush, but why we shouldn't vote for gore. makes me not want to vote for any of them. Go Harry Browne!
I post links to stuff here
- Debt reduction
- Tax cut
- Increased spending
While Bush's staff minion is literally correct (yes Greenspan prefers tax cuts to more spending), the minion omits the crucial point that Greenspan would prefer debt reduction over tax cuts."I believe that strong encryption products enhance consumer privacy." To him we are consumers the only reason we would want encryption is as consumers to help business. BS we are people we want encryption to keep secrets from people whom we think would cause our freedom to decrease. It is about the right to say and think what you want without intervention from the government. It is *not* about 'consumer privacy'. It is about making sure that unpopular thoughts and ideas do not go away and that people can have and share them. To Bush it is about being able to buy stuff. This is sad that this man might win. Also on the religion question it was funny you can be whatever flavor of Judeo/Christian/Islam you want. Oh yea I forgot the rest of the world outside of the mideast and Europe does not matter. :(
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Translation: Clinton and Gore were bad for not shoving large corporations down people's throats hard enough. Gawd, did he even catch the tone of the question?
1) War on Drugs
Bush's answer:
My first act as President will be to imprison myself.
I have possessed cocaine on several occasions, too many times to count.
Additionally, I have been guilty of drunk driving on several occasions, again too many times to count.
I have heretofore concealed these facts from the American people. That information was "need to know" and the American people just didn't need to know...
My opponent, Al Gore, eats babies, and if he is elected to office, will use his corrupt influence to eat even more babies than he has before. A vote for Gore is a vote for a baby eating demon, and you should vote Republimican. Thank you.
From his response to the challenge to the electoral college:
Now - how many times does this man attack Clinton (and Gore) on this page? How many times does he give credit? He's just as divisive as the rest of 'em. At least the rest of 'em are honest about it.
I realize most slashdotters are smart enuff to figure that out for themselves. I just bite when my intelligence is insulted!
Stop the brainwash
i wish i had moderator points...
:)
it is good, i think, that the campaigns are willing to respond truthfully. for bush to say anything other than what he's been saying the entire campaign would be dishonest...
let's give them credit for answering, regardless of how much crap slashdot will put them through on the discussions.
on an unrelated note, there's a very good defense of the electoral college system available on the washingtonpost.com site. you can find it here.
jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
Hmmmmm, and where is freedom from religion spelled out in our country's constitution or laws? Or did you just make that one up.
:)
Maybe it's spelled out in the same 'hidden' part of the constitution that a women's "right" to abortion is declared.
Yes, this is blatent flamebait, but I've got more karma than I know what to do with and it felt good to write
Finkployd
It seems to me that George W. Bush has purposefully not-answered the question with a careful, purposefully deceptive response. Here is another analysis of Bush's views on minority religions from the context of the decision of the US Military to accept Wicca as a bona fide religion.
have a day,
-l
Realistically though, most of the questions that candidates are asked are pointless since the president has little or no influence over the issues. Maybe a little on strategic defence and the policy direction. In the end Congress makes the laws and spends the money.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
...but he's a politician. Should we expect any more? The current system puts up a lot of shields. I hope that this election does a lot to knock those shields down--killing the Electoral College, removing campaign finance limits on contributions, killing PAC's, requiring complete donor lists--and I think it will.
The biggest sea change you're going to see in politics is that it will start to become more real to the average Joe Six-Pack out there. Why? In this age of better information and faster access to that information, our politicians will be as naked as frogs for dissection in biology. That's a good thing--we'll be able to see what makes them tick and vote accordingly.
Yet I'm voting for Bush.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
I don't know if I'm the only one feeling that way. But after reading these answers a first time I really feel like Bush carefully wrote his answers to make sure no slashdot reader would vote for him. Am I the only one feeling that way?
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
To be fair, Gore refuses straight answers also. Every question in the debates was answered with a completly off topic tangent or simple restatement of the question (forign policy especially)
Finkployd
Chairman Greenspan has gone on record saying that he would rather see the surplus returned to taxpayers than spent on new government programs like Al Gore proposes.
Greenspan has requested the complete OPPOSITE of tax cuts using this surplus. What he suggested was that the Govt. hold this money to be used on programs when the economy is not as strong as it is now. Bush is blatently wrong with the statement that Greenspan thinks he need tax cuts. Whether this is a misunderstanding, or an attempt to misquote, I don't know. Either way, he is VERY wrong.
I wish Bush and all the other politicians would once and for all realize that the people targeting children with drugs are children
I have been there, done that, and I know how this works: The 13 year old 7th grader got dope from the 15 year old in 9th grade who bought an eigth from the 17 year old in 11th grade who bought a half from the 19 year old in college or working who got a qp from a 25 year old who bought 2 lbs from the 30 year old grower. I guarantee that the 30 year old grower would be appalled if he knew that his crop was in the hands of a 7th grader.
So go ahead Bush, lock the 15 year old away for ten years. Kids make mistakes, they shouldn't have their lives ruined for them. Suspension and counselling for drugs, not this zero tolerance crap. Kicking a kid out of school is not going to help him. Besides, these evil drug dealers are usually kids with divorced parents and/or fathers who beat them, and are socially rejected because their parents haven't taught them basic social skills, and turn to drug dealing to make friends, get respect, and also money.
So much for compassionate conservatism. You would think a recovering alcoholic who snorted blow would have more understanding of youthful mistakes.
(Sorry if this post shows up twice, Mozilla acted a little funny there).
Man, Bush is going to take a beating for some of his stated opinions above. More money for the War on Drugs? Lock up more people for nonviolent drug offenses? He might as well advocate making the internet illegal and suggest that anyone reading slashdot is a dingleberry. In fact, in almost every comment posted, I could hear thousands of Slashdot readers shouting in unison "Wrong Cretin!". At least Haglin isn't likely to draw a lot of flak (his answers seemed downright sane in comparison.)
All I can say is: On election day, may the better man win. Even if I don't belive this is going to happen.
I read the internet for the articles.
As a scientist, I do not support the missile defense shield because it does not work.
Imagine:
As a scientist, Thomas Edison abandoned the light bulb because initial attempts to make one did not work.
I find Hagelin's comment here really lacking. He doesn't support a missle defense shield because we do not have a working one? He abandons searching for success because he thus far has encountered only failure?
If these are his only reasons for being against a missle defense, they are lame. He should provide a better, more candid answer here.
And I am not arguing here for or against a missle defense system. I am arguing for better reasoning than he provided in this answer.
BTW, have we seen the Internet-savvy Gore's answers here yet?
Vote Harry Browne!
As we introduce American goods and services around the world, we will also introduce American values.
Whether we want them or not. There are lots of different value systems, why should they be subsumed by the American corporate collective merely to allow McDonalds to sell more burgers or Nike to sell more trainers.
Maybe Gore's not replied yet because he invented /. and considers that Taco will help him out.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
"Tragically, without presidential leadership on the issue, teen drug-use rose dramatically during the first five years of the Clinton-Gore Administration, and it remains at unacceptably high levels today"
The man said he didn't inhale, what else do you want him to do?
Many people have been saying (both in response to this and the last interview responses) comments to the extent of "Don't these people know what slashdot is?!?!?" and complaining that the candidates are answering the questions the way they believe is right, rather than echoing the slashdot party line.
:)
Well, duh.
First, I'd be wary of saying all slashdotters think ____... some of us, in fact (or maybe it's just me, but at least one!) think that music piracy such as the kind that goes on via napster and gnutella (and IRC, and web sites) is BAD. Not all of us are libertarians... please don't force your views on me, and I won't force mine on you.
But about our topic... isn't the main complaint people have with today's candidates the fact that they are fickle, saying whatever a given audience wants to hear? So what happens? Here, candidates answer the questions in a way that will probably make them unpopular, and we fault them for that! I don't care if you hate Bush... wouldn't you rather know what he thinks, and then disagree, rather than have him pretend to agree with you? I think Harry Browne, for example, would be an awful president, but I truly enjoyed seeing his responses.
Of course, the major candidates do tend to view questions as springboards for rants, but that's a different story... of course, so do we
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Is it just me or did Bush just fail the Turing test?
Have you read my journal today?
Doesn't he know we don't fight wars anymore? We play Space Invaders now thank you.
"...I have a plan that includes $2.767 billion in new initiatives to help parents, teachers, and faith-based leaders influence children to steer clear of the evils of the drug culture.
George, you're not fooling any of us. You haven't the foggiest clue what culture or community is all about with your segregationist meanderings and your public cowtowing. What you're thinking of is a conglomeration of folks who live on the same street, send their kids to the same schools, but don't even say hello when they bring their traszh to the stoop. That's the American way. Why don't you put that money into tracking down deadbeat dads, giving our nation's high school teacher's some oratorial lessons and doing whatever you GOD-well can to keep faith out of the domain of authority.
I'd go on, but why bother? George's nose, er face, is red already.
O P E N___S O U R C E___H U M O R
great comedy company.
Seriously. Isn't this crowd against government expansion? I mean, don't we want less government control over our lives? And less government beuracracy? I'm voting for Bush mainly because I don't want Gore's inflated government. If the economy tanks, you can always just not give out a tax cut. How often has the government just killed the 40,000 new jobs they created because the economy "dipped" for a bit? Never... they end up increasing debt to cover the new jobs.
Just my bit. This isn't a flame/troll/whatever. I just want to know why everyone is for big government. They're both bad, but I'd rather Bush than Gore.
You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco
Bush has said publicly that "there should be limits to freedom" in response to criticism he faced from a satirical website. It seems he belives the freedom afforded by a separation of Church and State should be eliminated as well.
On FuckedCompany, a few weeks ago, somebody posted a link to a 1988 interview with Bush when he was running for governor. It is well-known that Bush supports prayer in public schools and, while being asked about atheists who object to this practice, he blurted out: everything American Atheists are is bullshit (sic). This offended a lot of people, who wrote his campaign asking him to retract the statement. Instead, they received a letter which explained how Bush is a man of faith who strongly believes in God and the merits of religion. Bush is an asshole.
Does anybody still have the link?
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
I agree with a lot of what he says, and then he rambles off on some natural law tangent. At least he hasn't gone quite as far as those who want to reduce crime by yogic flying.
As for Bush, his intransigence on the doomed war on drugs is really starting to get to me.
You last used cocaine 28 years ago. Are you:
a) still in jail; or
b) running for president.
Discuss the effect that your race and your father's net worth had on your answer.
--
--
E_NOSIG
The idea I got about the Natural Law Party (truly international) is that they (he?) really are a religion based around Transcendental Meditation trying to get some publicity.
Do you know otherwise?
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Maybe I don't want my tax dollars pissed away on a completely ineffective war on drugs. Maybe I don't want to piss away yet more money on perpetrators of victimless crime.
Maybe I don't feel the need to prop up several million people I don't know or like, just because they're old. Maybe I think they should have had the common sense to save their own god damned money. Social security is a flop.
It's not too late to live in a free country.
Vote for Harry Browne.
Bush:
Trust me kids... you don't wanna do drugs. For a good twenty years I was firmly entrenched (Dick, are you sure that's a word?... OK.. whatever you say) in the 'evil drug lifestyle,' and look at all the trouble it gave me?
* Millions of dollars
* Ownership of a major league baseball team
* Gov'ner of the Great State of Texas
* More sex with hot babes than a frenchman who lives next to a cat-house
Now, just imagine (did I spell that right Dick?... hand me the dicshun... dictch.... big book with words in it) what would have become of my life if my daddy wasn't an important and influe... infla... (I'm trying to sound it out Dick) influential and important person who could pull strings. I'd be in a whole lot of trouble, that's where I'd be.
So let that be a lesson to all of you young folk. I made a mistake in my past, and now I want you guys to pay for it. Don't do drugs!
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
This is duckspeak -- the slightest thought makes it clear that any attempt to prevent campaigning "out of season" would violate the First Amendment.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Do people really not see through this? Or are there really people looking forward to the day when their 3rd grader comes home from school and practices 'levitation'?
Note: I'm not trying to flame anyone, just stating my view of the American Way as a Finnish citizen. (Note2: I have never even set a foot on American ground so all this is hearsay.)
So, you wan't a tax cut even though you pay only minimal taxes already. I think there would be great many ways to spend that money even that many to make the lives of the poorer Americans a little bit better. I'm comparing to the Scandinavian and Finnish system where we often pay approximately 50% taxes from salaries and 22% from most stuff and services (I as a poor student pay up to 17% income tax). But with that money we have full social security, almost free healthcare and fully free schools.
I would certainly not wan't to be in America and lose a job.
Another thing I'm amazed by is the electoral system where only the local majority has anything to say. And THAT is called democracy. Compare this to the Finnish way, where everyone votes both a list and a person on it. When a person doesn't get elected, the votes he got go in favor of someone else on the list who got more votes. Each party has generally a list of it's own. In this system a vote almost always has an effect.
Bush: In the international community, the challenge is even tougher since we must both help establish a legal framework for intellectual property protection and ensure it is enforced.
Oh dear.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Not clear enough for you?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Yeah, he's a little new-agey, but John Hagelin is awesome. He's got my vote.
It is perhaps debatable what a president should be, since he can't be everything to all people. However, I like the fact that Hagelin is a scientist. If you guys look at his background, he's got more in common with this crowd than all the other candidates combined.
He's undeniably very intelligent, and is (imho) in this for the right reasons. Of course he doesn't realistically expect to win, but the natural law party is in it for the long haul. They are building from the lower levels on up - where I live, there are more natural law people running for office than any other third party. It is my hope that a number of those people will be elected, and their party will eventually be a force to be reckoned with.
Anyways, I realize that there is no way Bush wrote those answers (or evasions, in some cases), but I think they speak for themselves.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
You have the right to believe anything you want. What freedom from religion sounds like is being shielded from religions. Sorry, but it says God on our dollers and we have the ten commandments in the supreme court, government has to obligation to make sure you never come in contact with religion, it just can't force you to believe in one.
Finkployd
Do I imagine a load of slashdotters not wanting to vote for Bush after this????
I think I was offended by half of Bush's answers.
That does not free you from ever coming in contact with religion (what exactally do you want by freedom FROM religion), it just says "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion"
Seems pretty straight forward, sounds like it grants freedom of religion.
Finkployd
Regardless of what you think about free trade, think about this:
Bush thinks that the government should create a domestic consensus on the side of the issue rather than respond to the views of the people. i.e., the Clinton administration failed in swaying public opinion towards the wishes of Washington.
That's freedom OF religion, not from it. Freedom from religion would require that the government proactivly make sure that nobody pray around you or publicaly expressed their religious beliefs.
Finkployd
A while back, I got into an "Gore wants to kludge the tax code with a zillion if/then statements, Bush wants to tweak a few constants" argument.
I confess at the time I wasn't fully aware of Gore's proposals - only that they were of an if/then nature - and so I'm pleased to say that I found this pro-Gore Salon article (but I repeat myself ;-) that outlines my beef with Gore's tax proposals.
(sprog age < 1) {
$500 tax credit
}
(Earnings < $60K) && (sprog enrolled in daycare) {
expanded day-care tax credit
}
(sprog_age >= 12 && sprog_age <= 16) && (enrolled in afterschooplrogram) {
tax credit of 20% on cost of program
}
(sprog_in_college) {
$10K tax credit
}
I'd like to thank Salon for making my point about the kludginess of the Gore plan so succinctly.
Let's summarize:
1) No sprog? Gore says "Fuck you". No tax breaks. Period. Gore hates nonbreeders with a passion. Doesn't matter if the reason for your nonbreeding is being straight-and-childfree, straight-but-infertile, or gay. If you don't pop out a fucktrophy like a good little lemming, you get FUCK ALL under Gore.
2) Got sprog? Great! Now that you've done the first thing Gore likes, you'd better make sure you keep doing the things Gore likes! Don't stay at home to take care of 'em, even if you can afford it, ship 'em to day-care and provide employment for other low-tech "soft skills" people. Don't be at home in school either, ship 'em to "after-school programs" (which are, of course, probably federally-funded... more work for the otherwise-unemployable out of your paycheck...)
3) And even if you are the ideal Gore breeder-famblee, you still gotta make sure your kids are the right ages to qualify! That is, either less than age 1, or young enough for day care (and you've got the money to enroll 'em), or between the ages of 12 and 16 (and in an after-school program), or thouse magical four years of college.
So - a tweak of some constants where everyone gets a break, or a huge series of if/then statements, where a large proportion of famuhlees (nonbreeders are, of course, subhuman and don't count) can apply for one, but only one, of Gore's "targeted" tax cuts at any given time.
Unless, of course, you had the foresight to have kids precisely 18 years ago, 12 years ago, and plan to concieve your next crotchfruit shortly after Gore's inauguration.
What I'd really like to see - and I don't know the answer in advance - is for someone to sum up the tax credits for Gore and a family with either one or two sproggen over 18 years. And then compare their Gore-subsidies against what the same family would get with Bush's tax credits on, say, a $60K income over the same 18 years.
Oh. And is it just me, or are people who have money to enroll their sprog in after-school programs really in need of a tax credit?
(Wait a minute, sponsored daycare, sponsored age 12-16 afterschool programs. Guess even if you do breed, but decide you'd like to stay with the kid because you're lucky enough to be able to live on one income, you're still fucked under Gore.)
John Hagelin writes:
However, it is also true that intellectual property is a key motivator in the creation of new material and therefore must be given protection.
That is why I believe that the entertainment industry should make an all-out effort to find new ways to utilize Napster and similar services on a "pay per view" basis. This approach will serve all concerned and turn what appears now--at least to many in the entertainment industry--to be a disaster into a boon for both the industry and the consumer.
Hagelin doesn't get it. Pay per view is the problem, not the solution.
The problem with pay per view is that it doesn't establish a public domain. I don't mean "public domain" in the sense of expired copyrights, but "public domain" in the sense of "things that the public have access to." Things you can make fair use of. Things you can quote from. Things you can preserve.
For instance, if I wanted to review all of the books published on a certain topic from, say, 1900-1920, there is a very strong likelihood that I would be able to find most of them. They were published, sold to libraries and individuals, and still exist in the hands of libraries, used book dealers, collectors, and second-hand stores.
However, if I wanted to review all of the films on a certain topic from 1900-1920, I would be out of luck. The problem is that motion pictures at that time were pay-per-view only. The only way to see a movie was at the theatre. The films were never sold to the public, and in fact, over 90% of them no longer exist in any form -- all the negatives, and every last copy were all destroyed by the studios when they were deemed worthless by their owners.
Now back to the present. The copyright industries want pay-per-view. They don't like the idea of first sale -- the entire purpose of the DMCA is to allow copyright holders to control the use -- or lack of use -- of works even after they have been sold to the public. Under the DMCA, a publisher has the "right" to "recall" an electronic book after publication, and anyone who reads that book -- even if they are the rightful owner of the copy -- is committing a felony. This is so directly against the purpose of copyright that it is hard to know where to begin. The purpose of copyright is to incite publication. To create copies that are then owned by the public. Pay per view is not publication. It does not promote progress.
That's the problem with the DMCA, and the current direction of copyright law.
A better point of his is that it will discourage candidates from visiting states with fewer voters. Valid, but his own statistics bother me - Wyoming gave out 1 electoral vote per 70K votes in 1996, and California gave 1 per 185K votes. This is obviously not a "one person, one vote" scenario, which is the central tenet of democracy.
Another bad argument: the Electoral College would "not survive the abandonment of [the] winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes." I didn't know that our main goal was insuring the survival of the Electoral College...
Further, he claims that this would allow minor candidates to take away electoral votes from the two main parties. Again, so what? Americans should not be forced to choose between only two parties, especially as they move closer together every election. Very few governments run on a two-party democracy.
With the internet and ubiquitous media, candidates should be free to campaign where the people are, and can be confident that their message is being transmitted to places with less population.
This would also make pandering more difficult - instead of sucking up to a few key states, a candidate would have pander to NYC, Washington, LA, Chicago, etc - a more difficult task, and although they have a high population density, they do not hold the majority of the population. Viola - now you need issues that affect everyone, not just midwestern soccer moms.
Secondly, Bush is doing a good thing by being Opt-In, but it is not Confirmed (or double) opt-in. Alot of Internet users got e-mails they didn't opt-in for. Here's the discussion on it, as done on news.admin.net-abuse.email and reported on n.a.n-a.sightings. To be honest, the Democrats did the same thing, but their list manager (CheetahMail) admitted to it and is changing everything to be confirmed opt-in.
Will we get an intelegent president, or one that will get the White House kicked off the 'net for violating it's upstream's AUP?
--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
I'm really disappointed in the way Bush didn't answer the question about tax cuts countering the efforts of Alan Greenspan to keep inflation in check. However, I'm made even more cynical by his non-response that claimed Greenspan actually supported his move and demonized the Gore campaign by saying that he won't spend the money on new programs like Gore. Hello? Didn't he also say:
I have a plan that includes $2.767 billion in new initiatives to help parents, teachers, and faith-based leaders influence children to steer clear of the evils of the drug culture.
Then, didn't he immediately follow it up with promises to spend the majority of the $5 trillon surplus on new programs and not on debt reduction before giving $1 trillion back in a tax cut?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It's funny that the fruitloop who claims to be able to 'trancendentally levitate' comes across as significantly more rational, thoughtful, and genuininely in touch with the realities of the situation than the Shrub.
My favorite is the frothing-at-the-mouth "DRUGS ARE BAD!" rant by Shrub's staffers. It's like these blind men trying to drive a runaway tractor trailer - they know the motions, and are trying to play it calm, while all the shit is cascading down around them. They are even trying to convince themselves (and us?) that they are correct. The Drug War is going to do the same to the US that the Cold War did to the USSR, snap it's collective spine, and Bush is only going to accelerate the process. Dare to keep politicians from drugs and violence, kids, it only feeds their ambition.
Where's my freedom FROM religion?
VOTE LIBERTARIAN
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Sure, it's most likely script written, but I'm glad that so many people answered the questions. Sure, if I were American, I still would never vote for Bush, but I'm glad he has the guts to have his views answered like that. Of course, as usual, he completely ignored topics that I wish he would get into... For example, for religions, he gave the exact same answers (and wording) to Web White and Blue's question about religion, except he didn't put in the Wicca part... (that's a bad thing, considering it was half the question). Anyway, thanks Slashdot for letting me read them!
Oh, and I'm ticked off about Bush' answer to the Seattle protests. **rightwinggrumblegrumble**
Does this worry anyone here besides me? I hear about getting US law enforcement involved in copyright protection, and I start thinking about stepped-up abuses of procedure similar to those carried out by the FBI, the BATF, and the DEA in recent years. It's bad enough that the MPAA and Judge Kaplan have basically declared that source code is not free speech; are we going to see stormtroopers with machineguns tearing up the homes of WINE developers?
fearbush.com
Finding God in a Dog
Perhaps I missed a post, but where does the issue of coming in contact with religions even appear? Current laws prevent forced religion by government agencies and also are geared to prevent religious persecution (for those in unpopular/minority religions).
School prayer for instance, is only forbidden as a mandatory act. Many (if not all) schools allow student run religious groups to gather in prayer or religious discussion on a voluntary basis (provided they do not receive government funds or receive funds on an equal footing with all other religious groups).
Religious freedom is freedom from *state* mandated or funded religion, you still have to put up with all the crap from your friends, parents, and door-to-door evangelists.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Ummm...because you don't agree Bush's answers, you say that he is stupid? That sounds pretty intolerant and stubborn to me. I don't agree with Bush and a lot of what he stands for (I don't agree with Gore either, I'm voting for Browne) but I do think he is allowed to have whatever opinions he has.
Unfortunately, like a large portion of the population, you will vote for whoever lies to you the most because they at least recognize you are part of a group with some sort of (voting) power. Personally, I see voters as a woman that is being beaten by her husband. If he beats her enough, then turns around and apologizes, she is going to stay with him. I don't understand why it happens like this, because the best choice would be to leave him. Voters are the same. People keep voting for Republicans and Democrats because they are both corrupt, and people stick with their political parties because "they could never find someone new again" or one of those excuses that victims often use to explain why they stay with attackers. My opinion, is that voting Republican or Democrat is simply staying with a government that will continue to rape and beat our country.
In any case, what we need are honest politicians. On here, Bush's statements (whether someone else wrote them or not) are true of what his goals are. They are probably not what the slashdot crowd wants to hear, but at least we know where he is going. I've seen a lot of the same for Gore, even if he won't reply to slashdot, I imagine he would piss off people by being against other things that are popular here. If you don't like what they stand for, don't vote for them. I think that true Democrats would be better off voting for Nader, Republicans should vote for Buchanan, and that the people that just want to end the political games would be better off voting for Browne. I don't think we will ever be able to have a purely innocent government that is not corrupted somehow, but if we can send a message to politicians to tell us the truth we the people could end up winning.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
You're splitting hairs. The government obviously does not forbid prayer in it's myriad forms. The amendment is there to basically state that state funding and support either must be non-existent for all religious or equal for all religions and that no religion should be suppressed by the state.
It is interesting to note however, that Satanism (at least) is proscribed by the state.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
I interpret freedom of religion as meaning that students can form prayer groups if they want, and all that you said. Maybe it's just vocabulary semantics but I imagined freedom FROM religion (the request that started this thread) would mean that they wouldn't be allowed to form prayer groups and etc. Maybe I just need clarification on what the origional poster meant by freedom from as opposed to freedom of religion.
Finkployd
Yes, I am splitting hairs but I didn't start it :)
The origional poster said freedom of religion was fine but what about freedom FROM religion. I simply replied that there was no such right spelled out.
Finkployd
Why are all drugs lumped together?
Reefer is no worse than alcohol and tobacco. You don't see any reefer addicts selling their babies or bodies to support their habit.
Anybody agree with me?
"Yeah man. I mean, you're supposed to wait until you're in college to try drugs. Doing it in high school is totally not cool."
I would understand if this got moderated down...
Speaking of italians, did anyone see the Simpsons Halloween special a couple nights ago? In one sketch, the dolphins were taking over the world and they forced the TV news to change the lead story from intelligent dolphins taking over the world to intelligent italians. Homer was watching TV and said to himself, "intelligent italians? (shudders) something is wrong here!"
Later on, in the town hall, Homer starts beating up the dolphins and calls them a bunch of "tuna munchers." Now, I know he was addressing the dolphins and I've been known to have a dirty mind, but I found his choice of words very interesting.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
While it is true that Bush has said some very dumb things (let's face it: it'll take eight years just to educate him to the point where he's fit for office), your "translation" is out of line. Never once has Bush proposed a crackdown on religious minorities, despite the flagrant ignorance of such religions that he displays. That's more than can be said for some of the candidates.
More likely, the choice of religions which he listed was a botched attempt at alliteration, to make the reply sound better. Never underestimate the power of a good speech-writer. And let's hope Bush gets a few of them when and if he's elected.
If religious freedom is what you're worried about, there are far greater threats to it in this campaign than Bush. Lieberman, for example, openly seeks the erosion of church and state, as evidenced by his own admission in countless speeches. And given Gore's known wishy-washiness (is that even a word) he could easily be manipulated into giving Lieberman his wish. And there are people in this presidential race that are even worse than him, if you know where to look (hint: check the "Constitution" party out).
The point: Don't be so paranoid. Sometimes, people don't bear any malice; they really are just plain dumb.
----------
I believe that George Will's defense of the Electoral College is predicated on his belief that there should only be 2 parties: the Republicans and everyone else. Thus Will's observation that "The two party system will not survive the abandonment of [the] winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes." He's worried about preserving the status quo, instead of allowing equal representation to all voters.
Will also believes in the one-buck, one-vote system ... excuse me ... he believes in no limits on campaign contributions or campaign spending, since any limits would be limits on the candidate's (or contributer's) First Amendment rights. I don't think he's right, but he has some good points: most of the campaign finance rules either eliminate anonymous speech, or can be interpreted as censoring speech (ie: after you've spent your limit, you're not allowed to say anything else). I don't have any good answers to these issues ... anyone else got any bright ideas?
Are you moderating this down because you disagree with it,
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Actually, the abortion issue can be simplified to one question:
"Is a fetus a human being deserving of full rights".
If your answer is yes, then no matter what rights a woman has, then it would be murder to kill it. Murder, even if it benefits somebody (the mother) cannot be condoned in a civilized society.
If your answer is no, then (depending on your interpretation of lack of "full rights") the fate of the fetus becomes the decision of the human being that the fetus is housed in.
Personally, I don't believe a (1st trimester) fetus qualifies as a human any more than a skin scraping does, so I have little trouble with most abortion. But I can certainly understand the point of view of pro-lifers who believe otherwise and I can understand their vehemence on the issue (most pro-lifers think abortion is sanctioned murder after all).
In any case, the constitution does not mandate pro or con in any respect to abortion. Religious freedom (including lack of religion), on the other hand, is specificially covered.
There is some overlap mind you, as some religions infer or state that a fetus has a soul, however, that aspect of abortion is not one that can (legally) be considered by the state/law.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
What else do you expect from an economist? And anyway, as we all know, it's not up to him, so this whole discussion is somewhat moot.
I guess my final dig at Bush is that newspaper pieces across the country have pointed out that if you take Bush's numbers at face value, the monies he promises to various groups adds up to way over the monies he started with. That makes it very hard for me (a mathematician) to take Bush's numbers at face value.
When you get a security clearance, you go through a huge investigation, I know, I had a security clearance at my last job. They get detailed about your police record, your drug use, your involvement with rebellious organizations, and even your character as they ask your friends and friends friends and friends friends friends about you. Many of Bush's past misdemeanors (DUI, cocaine use/sale, etc) would most likely disqualify him for such a security clearance. That is, the government would deem him not trustworthy enough to handle sensitive US information. In fact, it's on a need-to-know basis, so if he did hold a government job with secret clearance, he'd only know what he needed to do his job.
Yet the ironic thing is that he can now run for president, where he'll be in CHARGE of making decisions involving nearly ALL of the sensitive information available that he wouldn't normally be privy to, in a normal job.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?
make world, not war
After the questions gives three examples of religions, it's curious that Bush responded to the question, citing four totally different ones. I'm no religious scholar, but isn't the message here "I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity, for all people who worship exactly one God."
All of Bush's examples are monotheistic, yes? That certainly isn't the case for some of the "minority religions." The implication is that he will be tolerant to those who are already tolerated.
Boy, I'm sure glad I'm not in a country where this guy might be the President in a few days.
A question should be puncuated with a question mark, not a period. And a proper name such as Bush or America[n] should be capitalized.
Almost every time ive seen him answer a questionj on TV he seems to go off on a tangent talking about the issues that the "american public" wants to know, for example, in the encryption question he(or his aids) went off talking about consumers right to privacy on e-commerce sites but the question was about encryption export controls.
The pronoun "I" should be capitalized, even in contractions such as "I've". Oh. A "contraction" is a compression of one or more words by eliminating some letters. Like "I have" or "do not". Wherever those letters are removed, we put an apostrophe in to represent the "hidden" letters. A person who assists is called an "aide" (so two or more would be "aides"); an inanimate object or abstract form of assistance is an "aid". Here's (Hey! That's a contraction! So's "that's"...) an example of a visual aid: [Preview]. I suggest that you let it aid you in composing any future posts critical of others' grammar. If you do that, you might also notice that the quoted sentence is a horrible run-on, which should be separated into two, by converting the comma after "know" into a period, and making the next letter a capital: "For..."
Another thiong that really bugs me is his constant use of bad grammer when he has a "masters degree" in business from HARVARD, dont you have to know basic grammer to even get into HARVARD. I just wish the elections were after Febuary so that I could vote...
Unless you learn a lot between now and February, you'll have proven that you don't have to know basic grammar (as opposed to knowing [Kelsey?] Grammer, which perhaps a state Governor might), or spelling for that matter, to vote.
Or were you just trolling?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
The guy who I really hope answers the slashdot questions is one Howard Phillips, though I'd bet money he won't. That would be some real comic relief. This guy is more of a bigot than Pat Buchannan - he left the republican party because they are - get this - supposedly too liberal in matters of religion and morality...
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Umm,
Someone needs to explain what surplus and debt to the Republicrats.
We are 5 trillion dollars in the hole with our national debt.
The debt is increasing every year. Since the debt is increasing, this means:
- The budget is not balanced.
- THERE IS NO SURPLUS.
Also the "surplus" money that they refer to is Social Security fluctuation.
If they want to use that money to pay the debt, I'm fine with that, is that insures a better life more than a pyramid retirement system. But, any other use of that money is not appropriate.
"hey dad, if we owe more on the house than last year, why are you saying that there is extra money for a raise in our allowances?"
I can't tell my elephant from my ass.
True, but even if you consider that a fetus is not a human life, there is no actual "right" that women possess to do anything to their bodies. Hard drugs, prostitution, etc are illegal even though they are arguable the same thing, a destructive act preformed on one's body.
You may argue that these things should be illegal (For that matter, I have no problem with legal abortion, I just don't want my tax dollers supporting it) but they still aren't and a women doesn't possess this mysterious right to do whatever she wants with her body.
Finkployd
You do have the right to be an atheist. Heck, you even have the right to believe the world is flat, or that the moon is made of green cheese. You can even share your beliefs with others (for example, you can post them to /.). You don't have the right, however, to make everyone be silent about their own beliefs.
Do you see the difference?
You have the right to believe however you want, but everyone else still has the right to "look down" on you for your beliefs (just like you probably look down on them for being so gullible as to believe in a supernatural entity).
The only way that you could be free from religion as you propose is if everyone shared the same beliefs. Since there is little chance that everyone is going to ever believe the same things, that means that we must learn to be tolerant. In your case that means ignoring people who think you are evil because you don't believe in God. In my case that means ignoring people that believe I am evil because I believe in the wrong god.
I find the Bush answer particularly interesting, considering that he's got one DUI and his VP candidate Dick Cheney has two DUIs. That we know of.
Does hypocrisy know no bounds?
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
That may overstate the number of people that vote for GWB a mite, but is a pretty important point nonetheless.
If the People want to have, as president, a candidate with the merits and demerits of GWB, then that is something they evidently can vote for.
There are points of view under which his demerits are disastrously bad; even the most pessimistic views must be tempered by the factor that the President is merely one person, head of one branch of the US government.
The same is true for those that consider him the Second Coming of the New Zenith of Republican Ascendancy; even if he's better than his campaign literature would have you believe, he can't have all that much positive impact.
Check out reruns of the BBC comedy "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" for wonderfully examples of the "filtering" of information between bureaucracy and politicians. It may be fictional, but after growing up in a political town (Ottawa), it appears the main difference between TV and reality is that the scripts they read on TV are wittier...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Bush "believes" the federal government should be smaller. At least he's stated that many times in the past, e.g. "more local control." He proposes to increase spending by billions of dollars, on defense, education, the so-called drug war, etc. He guarantees, along with billions in spending, billions in tax deductions. I'd like to know how that's economically possible. He states we should "give back" much of the money taken. Yet he states that the poorest in the country would be relieved of a tax burden at all. Well if you're already taxed, then years later you choose to return it, what good are you doing for the poor now? Permanently remove the poorest people's taxes and you're helping them.
With respect to the debt, I think he doesn't realize (or the people who really speak for him don't realize) that the interest on debt costs too much money. If we are the richest country in the world, with the best economy in history, why can't we pay off the debt. It's like saying that Bill Gates should keep maxing out his credit cards and never pay them off. Ah, it's only a few billion a year, so what's the difference. I imagine his 18 year old child has huge credit card bills that daddy won't pay off, if he runs his household like he wants to run the country.Developers: We can use your help.
As a Bolivian-American, I have many things to consider before voting. One of those things is the candidates' views on the drug war. I am writing from Bolivia right now, where I am on vacation and where I grew up. And where I am stuck in my hometown of Santa Cruz because the coca growers and drug force are chopping limbs off and killing each other on the Santa Cruz-Cochabamba highway. (This is the area where the drug war goes on.) All because the United States cannot and will not concentrate on its drug problems FROM home and AT home. Its easier for us to kill each other and human rights violations to not come out in the open, than for the US to allow anything that comes close to this to happen in their homeland. My other homeland.
And here comes in Bush, whose VP Cheney is renowned for his work in this area. So to me, Bush is out of the question and I feel he should be for anyone with Latino relatives in countries infested by the DEA (whose reputation of corruption overseas is not unknown). But of course it is an individual decision.
And our current president has definitely asked for US help, of course if we deny the DEA our help, ALL our USAid would be cut off. And Pres. Banzer is an ex-US puppet dictator from the 70s, just like Pinochet and others.
So my country is in chaos and Bush uses his drug war plan (Cheney's?) to bait voters. And I still havent been able to visit my relatives in Cochabamba. And the coca growers are penniless as acres and acres of plantations are erradicated and they are forced to switch to less viable crops such as bananas. Which we couldnt export if we wanted to since the US fixed that with the Banana Republic (Guatemala).
You're absolutely right that Gore is not really much better than Bush when it comes to debt reduction. But let's not kid ourselves: Greenspan supports debt reduction (i.e. doing nothing), and Bush made it sound as if Greenspan supports tax cuts instead.
As for privatization of pension funds (a totally separate point), I'm all for it except that Bush has promised to continue paying out current obligations without giving any indication where that money will come from. You can't divert incoming payments to private accounts and at the same time use them to do what you were doing before (paying existing obligations).
It has to do with the total number of moderations, and which moderations happened last. That post currently has moderations of:
Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Insightful=4, Funny=1, Overrated=1, Total=9.
(viewable here)
(I think that's every moderation but "informative")
Apparently it's impossible to respond to/start a discussion about religion (even in direct correlation with the slashdot story) without it being both flamebait and troll material. That seems unnecessarily restrictive.
-----
Cut-n-paste, distasteful, or whatever you think about George W's answers, I'd say he (and any other candidate) deserves some credit for being willing to answer.
Anyone who feels really strongly about public domain has their candidate right there- it's really obvious how central the underlying concepts are to Nader, and how meaningless they are to every other candidate except probably the Socialist (and Nader's getting a hugely stronger turnout than him)
Personally, I think that all these whiners complaining about the electoral college have no idea why it was implemented.
Our founding fathers (whoa, hows about an all male hegemony!) created the electoral college for the same reason we have three branches of government with checks and balances. So our government will move SLOWLY. That's right, SLOWLY.
Believe it or not, most people don't want sweeping change in our government based on whether or not some fickle minority changes its collective mind. Believe it or not, the statement, "majority rule, minority rights" SHOULD apply to the United States.
I like the fact that we haven't had five or six constitutions in the last 100 years like the French.
Brad
Shrub:
"... The violent protests in the streets of Seattle also reflect the Administration's failure to build a domestic consensus in favor of free trade. In fact, this is the first administration in 25 years to fail to secure presidential trade negotiating authority from Congress."
wtf?!?!? I'm sorry, maybe I'm a little stupid here, but does any of this answer the question? Essentially, is he saying that Clinton failed because he couldn't brainwash everyone into thinking "Free Trade"?
By not answering the question, I assume he doesn't care what protestors think. Grrr.
.02
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Tragically, without presidential leadership on the issue, teen drug-use rose dramatically during the first five years of the Clinton-Gore Administration, and it remains at unacceptably high levels today. Drug use by children between the ages of 12 and 17 more than doubled between 1992 and 1997. Recent data suggest that teen drug use may have leveled off, but is still at near record levels for the decade.
It's actually a little higher in Texas. Whatta rube.
If you wanna stop government fraud, maybe the first thing to cut would be the aforementioned pyramid schemes.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I just got done reading/skimming ~150 replies, and counted only 1 that was vaguely pro-bush, and only three that were independantly defending him over the pandering to slashdot issue, and two which commented that his CIO idea was "interesting".
/. crowd. Surely there is some other /.er who likes Bush besides me.
/. poll, 18% of Slashdotters are planning to vote for Bush, 6764 of you. Where only 1% more plan to vote for Gore. (The largest percentage of you don't live in the US.) Why don't we see that represented in the posts? Why are the numbers of pro-Bush posts so contrary to the numbers of Slashdotters who plan to vote for Bush?
I'm used to feeling different, but I didn't expect it so much from the
In fact, accroding to the
I see the same thing in the media. The voices that are the loudest seem to always be attacking the Republicans. Take this DUI issue that came up today. Is Bush attacking Gore's *very* shady past? There are plenty of terrible things Gore has done too, but Bush is trying his hardest to play fair, talk about the issues, talk more about why he'd make a good prez than about why his opponant is terrible because of his past.
As for the CIO idea, I think it's more than just "interesting" -- it's FANTASTIC. I've said all along that the problem with the government in passing all these stupid technology laws *isn't* because they're trying to destroy life as we know it, but instead because they don't *understand* the technology issues. Because they're career politicians, and the only voices they hear are the voices on the other side. When they *do* hear our voice, it just sounds like a bunch of technobabble, and they don't get it.
The best thing *anyone* could do would be to appoint a CIO. That's the first step. You get someone close to you who can interpert this stuff, someone who can give you a clearer picture, and help you lead with knowledge. This is the best idea concerning technology I've heard come out of *any* politician's mouth EVER.
And I think that's Bush's strength. He's not the smartest man in the world. He knows he doesn't know everything. No one knows everything. And rather than being in denial that he's ignorant about some things, he comes to realize it, and then appoints the appropriate people around him who can successfully fill the positions. (Remember, the job of the President is in the Executive Branch, not the Legislative, and yet people seem to look to the President to solve all their problems -- that's not what the Preisident is for. Skill at appointing competent people to Executive positions is *very* important.) He admitted once that his running mate was smarter than him, and said, "That's why I picked him".
Isn't this a breath of fresh air to all the arrogance we've seen for the past 8 years? All the self-glorifying bullcrap we've heard out of Gore this past year?
To me it is a breath of fresh air. To me, that's as close to Integrity as you can get (while still being a politician). And I still think Integrity is important. Call me old-fashioned, but you can see what the lack of it has done to the office of the President.
Incidentally, I think I'm a Liberetarian... But I haven't decided yet, there's a couple of Liberetarian platforms I'm unsure about. But I still think Bush is the best all-around Presidential candidate to come along in a *long* time. I didn't like voting for Dole. I'm going to actually enjoy casting my vote for George W. Bush.
Even if I'm the only Slashdotter brave enough to admit it.
Therefore, for each, the job of the President is to cause people to be more in favor of, less resistant to, the wishes of those _really_ running the country. It's a tacit admission that for either, the President is a figurehead in charge of controlling and synthesising public opinion.
If the Firestone deaths by corporate negligence had happened a few years later we'd be seeing the President interceding for Firestone in a PR initiative designed to put across the idea that highway deaths are exciting and add life and thrills to driving :P that would be a good domestic consensus too!
yeesh, can you tell I'm one of the nader guys? ;P :)
Anyone else got any bright ideas?
Yes, election campaigns should be publically funded. Every potential candidate who actually has a chance to win recieving the same public funding, same access to the media, debates and everything else. If the candidate fails to achieve 10% of the popular vote, the candidate has to pay back all the money after the election.
This should be extended to senators and congressman when they run for elections.
Theoretially the winner should pander to the people who payed to get him elected, the American people. ;)
Of course, American politics would probably be a lot less interesting after such a reform...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Social Security has since its inception relied entirely on incoming funds to support outgoing payments. The historical surplus accumulated by Social Security has already been spent away. Replacing any loss of incoming funds is going to take real money. It's not just some painless utilization of existing surplus funds that we already have.
The statement to the Dallas Morning News report in the National Review is the most damning. Remember, it wasn't the sex that Clinton was impeached for, it was the lying. This is just too close to the election for the first shoe the drop, you don't want the second shoe to drop AFTER he's the ruler of the free world do you?
Work for Change & GET PAID!
You're falling for the same fallacy that the Republicans and Democrats have used for years to deny the third parties from gaining any significant power base. Yes, in the decision between the predisental candidates, your vote for a 3rd party candidate probably won't matter. However, in your decision on whose policies that you feel would be best suited for this country for the next 4 years, that vote can be rather important.
Did you know that there are 257 presidental candidates this year? According to NPR yesterday, there's this many. Of course, some are running on rather narrow platforms, such as the guy that wants to impliment triple couple Saturdays, or the one that wants to reinstate Pete Rose to MLB. Most know they can't win, but it's not the point of their campaign: they want to make sure that their issue is heard by a large number of people and to try to rally their votes towards that. If a significant number of votes are gotten to at least make a blip on the radar, government leaders would be lax if they didn't at least investigate what that issue was.
Which is why most of the 3rd party candidates have rather narrow platforms: they are trying to spearhead small but significant set of issues at the government. Nader, for example, wants to fight the corruption in the government by outside influences and fix the financal situation of this country. If you want any of the interviews with Nader, when he's asked about an issue that is off of this agenda but is important to Bush and Gore, such as health care and drug plans, he's got an answer, but he's rather terse with it and wants to talk about other issues. From what I've seen of the other 3rd party candidates, they are running similar campaigns, trying to be narrow instead of broad.
So if you are going to vote, vote for the person that you feel will handle the issues that you feel are important to you best. Whether that is Bush or Gore or any third party candidate. Any other voting selection is a wasted vote.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I found this one rather amusing... Ahhh, Photoshop.
Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
Both you & George Will brought up some good points. Do you think it would be better to try a system like this: Elect Electorates from each congressional district (Most congressional districts are roughly the same size, though not exactly) , and then give the remaining two votes to the highest vote count in the state. I think that this would force the canidates to care about all states, while making it extremely unlikely that the popular & electoral votes are different. Also, it would break up the votes inside states, so that it wouldn't mean as much to win California (heh, since I live in CA, it would be great to see the politicians here less! :-)
Doh!
I'm going to disagree with your beliefs, because I hold them as well. But yes, there IS legal limits to what we can do with our bodies. Should there be? that's a question for the politicians we elect.
The argument has been made that abortion (like prostitution) can also undermine the moral fabric of society. Does it? Well, it doesn't affect me any so it's not something I can answer.
If so, it's a fairly disconcerting statement. Why wouldn't a woman be allowed to do whatever she wished to her body (provided it did not harm another "human being")?
That get's back into the whole "what is a fetus" arguement that isn't going to ever be solved by the look of things. However, I certainly agree with the statement, and wish that kind of logic was applied to all our 'rights' in this country.
Finkployd
It's also freedom fron religion, and this is why: government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Therefore, if I choose to be an athiest, they cannot make me get religion under the 1st amendment.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Incorrect. A lot of people are, quite reasonably, complaining that the candidates (well, honestly, Bush) does not seem to be aware that we -- and people like us: computer professionals, students, single young adults, etc. -- exist and have our own positions.
It would be one thing if Bush had writen, for instance "I do think the War on Drugs has had some successes, but has been crippled by lack of funding, etc." that would have been completely different than what he did write, which ignored the question ("Do you think the War on Drugs has been a success?") and went into rah-rah-isms. Even though they express the same position.
I would disagree with him, all the same, but at least I would feel there was a modicum of attention and respect, and I could respect him back for it.
I see nothing in your comment which acknowledges the fact that our elected officials are supposed to represent people -- all of the people. If Bush doesn't even know what our point of view is, how can he possibly represent us?
He makes utterly clear that not only doesn't he know what we think or care about, he doesn't care. He can't be bothered to find out, or even leave the possibility open that people might disagree with him. He was, in short, completely disrespectful.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Q: What do you think of the Electoral College vs. 1 man, 1 vote?
A: Well, the Electoral College comes from the Constitution, and I support the Constitution. By the way, I wish everybody would get out and vote - but they don't, because the current Administration blah, blah, blah...
That said, these answers form a fairly cohesive statement about his positions - which leads me all the more to believe that the whole thing was handled by an aide, and W didn't have anything to do with it. I'm not saying that to be mean towards him, but the guy's pretty busy these days!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Gore isn't running primarily on a personal integrity platform. Bush knows that more Americans agree with Gore on the issues and think that Gore is more intelligent and more competent for the job. Therefore Bush has based much of his campaigning and message on his personal integrity and honesty, which, since it seems to be so bad, deserves special attention in proportion to the amount he himself touts it.
First of all, the reason people are tearing Dubya apart is that Dubya posted to
Duh.
Secondly, Bush's responses were actually embarassingly bad. This has nothing to do with "pandering" and everything to do with basic courtesy. Note how during the debates the candidates thanked the moderators and hosting institutions for having them. Bush didn't even do that much here. Further, his actual answers didn't even acknowlege the questions. That's just rude. He comes off not as compassionate but as contempt filled.
In fact, his answers were bad enough as to be embarrassing. Who would want to defend someone who has just done the rhetorical equivalent of pissing himself in public?
What you evidently see as "integrity" I see a "smarminess" and "forked-tonguedness". I am a big fan of "integrity", but I don't see any reason to suspect it of Bush.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
It also means that the most profound appreciation of life's essential unity
Did anyone else hear General Ripper (Sterling Haden) say "I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids." when they read that?
Im not saying anything negative about Mr. Hagelin, I just had a strange recall...
VICE PRESIDENT GORE:
I fight for the chickens and I am fighting for the chickens right now.
I will not give up on the chickens crossing the road! I will fight for
the chickens and I will not disappoint them.
GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH:
I don't believe we need to get the chickens across the road. I say give
the road to the chickens and let them decide. The government needs to
let go of strangling the chickens so they can get across the road.
SENATOR LIEBERMAN;
I believe that every chicken has the right to worship his or her God in
his or her own way. Crossing the road is a spiritual journey and no
chicken should be denied the right to cross the road in his or her own way.
SECRETARY CHENEY:
Chickens are big-time because they have wings. They could fly if they
wanted to. Chickens don't want to cross the road. They don't need help
crossing the road. In fact, I'm not interested in crossing the roadmyself.
RALPH NADER:Chickens are misled into believing there is a road by the evil tire
makers. Chickens aren't ignorant, but our society pays tire makers to
create the need for these roads and then lures chickens into believing
there is an advantage to crossing them. Down with the roads, up withchickens.
PAT BUCHANAN:To steal a job from a decent, hardworking American.JERRY
FALWELL:
Because the chicken was gay! Isn't it obvious? Can't you people seethe
plain truth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the "other
side." That's what "they" call it-the "other side." Yes, my friends,
that chicken is gay. And, if you eat that chicken, you will become gay
too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like "the other side." That chicken should not be free to cross the road. It's as plain and simple as that.
DR. SEUSS:
Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes! The
chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed, I've not been told!
RONALD REAGAN:What chicken?
CAPTAIN JAMES T. KIRK:To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.
FOX MULDER:
You saw it cross the road with your own eyes. How many more chickens
have to cross before you believe it?
BILL CLINTON:I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What do you mean by
"chicken"?Could you define "chicken" please?
GEORGE BUSH:
I don't think I should have to answer that question.
LOUIS FARRAKHAN:
The road, you will see, represents the black man. The chicken crossed
the "black man" in order to trample him and keep him down.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
Wasn't gay marriage the one thing that Gore and Bush agreed on during the debates?
What are you kidding?
Here's my favorite example. From the 2nd debate, I believe.
When asked about the death penalty, Bush replied that he favors executions, because he thinks that killing murderers prevents them from killing more people.
Gore, on the other hand, had an entirely different view. He favors executions because killing murderers serves as a deterrent.
So there. You decide which candidate best fits your beliefs. I mean, what other choices could there possibly be?
Hi folks,
I know I'm too late to submit questions, but I wasn't around when submissions were taken. I do have some comments though, and some food for thought that some readers may find interesting.
I'm glad that questions about corruption related to big corporations came up. I believe that many of our country's problems result from the greedy rich who care only of themselves and actually ruin the country's future to help their own personal success. Many large corporations, for example, cause all kinds of laws to be passed for their own convenience.
In that light, I'm very surprised that some of the following questions were not brought up by fellow Slashdot readers (and if they were, that they never reached the candidates):
The Patent System
Issues surrounding the current state of our patent office, which makes it easy for big corporations to patent practically everything they do, calling it "technology." I know there was a question about intellectual property laws but I think that more emphasis should have been placed on this issue.
The spirit of our patent system, as intended by the Founding Fathers, was to encourage the scientific and technological advancement of our country by encouraging inventors to make publically available the secrets of their inventions. In exchange, the patent system gives them the opportunity, for a limited time, to charge royalties on use of their invention while it makes its initial penetration into the market.
The spirit of the patent system is to award inventors this patent protection for inventions (not discoveries) that are not prior art and are not obvious to an expert in the field. It is also possible to patent the invention of a process that produces some result.
I believe that today, the patent office is awarding patent protection for so-called "technologies" that are obvious to school kids, let alone experts in the field. Furthermore, I believe that the prior art search for many of these patents is almost nonexistant. This has become the subject of many heated debates, especially in the field of computer software. I would like to know what our presidential candidates think about the current state of the patent office.
The Food and Drug Administration
This post centers around issues caused by the influence of big corporations on government. Some readers may be surprised to learn that this also affects what many of us eat and drink.
There is a substance called Aspartame (commonly misspelled Aspertame). This substance is used in many artificial sweetners (such as the popular Equal) and many foods and drinks that bear the words "Diet" or "Sugar Free." Artificial sweetners containing Aspartame are said by large corporations to be safer than those containing Saccarin.
However, at 86 degrees Farenheit, Aspartame breaks down into two chemicals that, when taken over time, are proven to cause physical and mental damage. Since the human body operates at more than 98 degrees Farenheit, this breakdown occurs when humans eat anything containing Aspartame.
Many myths and facts circulate around the net about the safety (or lack thereof) of this substance. On one end, companies like Nutrasweet (of the popular artificial sweetner Equal, which contains Aspartame) say that Aspartame is perfectly safe. On the other hand, doctors have scientific data that proves otherwise.
Do a search for Aspartame on Yahoo! and you'll quickly find sites debating either side of the argument. Ask yourself these two questions when you read those sites: "what do doctors have to gain and/or lose by proving how dangerous this substance is?" and "what do huge companies like Nutrasweet have to gain and/or lose by defending it?"
I have personally spoken with two such doctors whom I know well and trust, and they showed me proof that Aspartame is not to be taken at all. Furthermore, I know several people who have been seriously affected by it.
Rapid-onset symptoms of Aspartame include everything from migraines to seizures. Most users of Aspartame, however, experience symptoms from long-term use, such as arthritis, Alzheimer's and other memory-loss problems, Diabetes, even birth defects, and many more.
All of this has been proven scientifically, and yet this substance remains in use in many of our foods. I'd like to know what the presidential candidates think of this, and what they intend to do about it.
Mom and Pop Stores
The competition between big corporations is cutthroat. I believe that big corporations are ruining America by killing (or having killed) the little Mom and Pop stores and businesses. For example, Home Depot killed a lot of small hardware stores; Wal Mart killed a lot general stores; the banks keep buying each other and putting family-owned banks out of business... the list goes on and on. I wonder what our presidential candidates think of this, and whether or not they intend to do anything to help the little players who need all the help they can get. I'm not saying that corporations should be punished for being "too successful." Instead, I'm saying that America is supposed to be by the people for the people. Instead, big corporations practically rule this country, and the people have to put up with it.
I welcome any further comments and suggestions on these or other issues.
Kind regards,
Nathaniel G H
Notice that the article cited in the previous message has been modified so that the cited words are no longer there.
This was the cover story. Does anybody have a printed copy of the magazine to verify the attribution?
This is an odd situation where only the extremists can claim the moral high ground.
The answer "Yes, a fetus is a human being, and I oppose any and all abortions whatsoever" is consistant. It defines a fetus as a human being, and proceeds to the conclusion that human beings have the same rights before birth as after birth.
The answer "No, a fetus becomes a human being when it is born; until then it is a part of the woman's body" is also consistant. You can then proceed to claim the absolute right of a woman to have an abortion, because a fetus, not being a human, has no rights, whereas the mother, being a human being, has full control and rights over her body.
Here's the evil answer: "I oppose abortion, except in cases of rape or incest." Every time I hear that, I wish I could throw back two question:
1) If you do not consider a fetus to be a human being, then on what authority can the government assume control over a woman's body?
2) If you do consider a fetus to be a human being, then how can you sanction the killing of human beings on the sole basis of parental lineage?
but the Shrub especially
/. again.
Yeah, yeah, we all know that the great evil Bush has screwed up in the eyes of
Damnit, why can't politicians craft their every word to tell their audience exactly what they want to hear? Oh shit, I forgot that I hate it when politicians don't just give a straight answer.
Most of the answers were perfectly in line with what I've heard him say before. I really liked what he had to say about privacy.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Frankly, I got the impression that all of Bush's responses were cut'n'paste from white papers somewhere. Most of them didn't answer the question, although they sounded nice.
Let's see ...
Out of eight answerable questions, we have three answers, four evasions, and one not answered.
Somewhat more worrying is that, of the three questions he did answer, the answers could be interpereted as "bring out the jackboots".
The questions that he evaded show us an interesting use of what I call "political bait and switch". If you can't, or don't want, to answer a question, you answer a similar- sounding question. For example, the answer to question number two, about minority religions, does not tell us whether he's changed his views on Wicca. The answer to question three, on tax cuts, did not say *why* a tax cut was more desirable than reducing the deficit; it just said it was better than new spending programs. (This is also an example of another political favorite: Proof by Assertion.)
He'll probably be our next President. Be prepared for, um, rigorous enforcement of IP and drug laws ....
--
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
For some reason I believe these people are not interested in realpolitik, tho, and would rather wallow in their principles than make a constructive effort to win.
Believe it or not, many people out here think Kissinger is a scumbag, and the people who follow his "teachings" morally bankrupt.
I'll take people who "wallow in their principles" over your ugly cynical worldview any day. Which begs the question: if you don't wallow in principles, what value do you have to offer to this discussion?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/document.cgi?file=/k ron/archive/2000/11/02/dubyaco nfe ss.DTL
sulli
RTFJ.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/document.cgi?file=/k ron/archive/2000/11/02/dubyaconfess.DTL
sulli
RTFJ.
Not too surprising, though they're awfully scarce here in the SF Bay Area. There are plenty of libertarian Republicans and tolerant conservatives, even though they're currently a minority in the Republican Party. A gay person who likes the idea of keeping more if his income, or a strong national defense, or less bureaucratic regulation of life in general, would be a natural conservative, especially since gay men tend to have higher total and disposable incomes than straight men. It's only the Christian moralizing that keeps them away from the Republican party.
Pisses me off.
sulli
RTFJ.
Here in Canada we have a tax applied uniformly to all purchases which are deemed as being 'Goods' or 'Services'. It's called the GST and since almost everything you buy is a good or service you automatically have to pay 7% in tax, on every purchase, to the federal government. This tax was initiated to fight our national debt.
Needless to say, I was quite infuriated the other day when one of my friends brought it to my attention that one of the stipulations to this tax is that organizations of faith do not have to pay it!!! Now if that isn't one of the most assinine policies in a modern democracy I don't know what is.
Anyways, I had the same brief flash of insight that many of you have had in this thread: Atheists should band together to make their own organization based on the consensus of 'no faith'. They way I see it is that if we live in a flawed system that openly promotes faith based organizations then we should also allow this to be extended to any collective assembly of like-minded thinkers. - then again if this sounds kind of rediculous to you then maybe the best solution would be to remove special interest organizations right to 'exemptions' all together.
Anyways, just thought I would add that as it seemed relevent to this thread.
UBU
http://george-w-dance.homepage.com/ ;
sulli
RTFJ.
Could someone who is in the know offer any insight as to what the chances are that Bush even knew about this interview, let alone wrote any of the responses? I'd be interested to know.
--
To paraphrase someone else, let's say the election turns out something like this (numbers off the top of my head):
Bush: 43%
Gore: 45%
Nader: 7%
Browne: 4%
Other: 1%
If the number of people who voted for Nader or Browne is larger than the deciding difference between Bush and Gore, don't you think there's going to be some attention drawn to the issues that these 3rd-party candidates stood for?
Furthermore, it's people like you who are unwilling to vote for a 3rd-party candidate because they have no chance that ensure that they never will have a chance. Make up your mind to vote for who you think is really best, not the lesser evil. The more people that do this, the larger percentage the third parties will take and the more likely others will join in on taking them seriously rather than voting yet another evil into office.
Yes, it may take a few years -- but don't you think it's worth it? I'd rather think my vote is effecting real change, rather than just enabling the status quo which Bush and Gore both represent.
From the paperwork on the incident, it looks like there was an arrest, which makes sense. You don't just give a drunk guy a ticket and let him keep going.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I checked, and the cited words appear to be there.
/11 2999/cottle112999.html
...
First off, here is the correct url:
http://www.tnr.com/magazines
Here is the URL for the Google cache entry for the article. I don't know when the google cache was made:
The only difference I saw between the two was a minor spelling correction:
ughes's aura helps her control a media beast
-->
Hughes's aura helps her control a media beast
But you are right. This file was modified shortly after the citation on slashdot. Anyone notice any other differences between the two?
Both copies read:
Other times Hughes simply shuts down the conversation. Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. "He said, `After 1968? No.' I said, `What about before 1968?'
Did you save a copy of the allegedly modified page?
Slashdot citation: 1:10PM CST
Timestamp on the TNR file: 2:01PM CST
Your posting: 2:37 CST
Very irregular
Absolutely false. See for example this poll, which shows Bush's policies are preferred to Gore's on most of the top issues.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I don't like Bush, but I also don't have any desire to limit access to the presidency to only those that could qualify for a security clearance. That would, for instance prohibit a communist party candidate since he is a communist pary member. Hardly constitutional
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Indeed, the question seems to bypass the basic question of whether abortion is murder or not. It's certainly not fair to the mother, but if you believe a fetus to be a full human then you cannot allow termination simply because the pregnancy is imposed against her will. That unfortunately is a lose-lose situation, mother's freedom vs murder. Obviously murder trumps temporary freedom restrictions for being a "bad thing".
The only thing you said that I would even come close to disputing is the hypothetical viewpoint "No, a fetus becomes a human being when it is BORN; until then it is a part of the woman's body". Unfortunately, its very difficult to nail down a time when a fetus becomes a human being (if you believe that fetus' are not inherently full human beings). The being born is a convenient cutoff, but that issue tends to be a big deal in abortion debates. For my own purposes, I would go with "when it is viable without the womb", which is potentially as early as 5-6 months (and getting earlier as medical advances are made). That is why I stated I didn't have a problem with *most* abortions, since the vast majority are performed in the first trimester. Barring global disaster, it is quite likely that someday we will be able to put a fetus in an artificial womb from day 1. When that time comes if I am still alive I may have to rethink my position.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Consumer means us -- you and me. Our privacy is important to us. We need strong encryption to protect our privacy -- to protect our ideas. Your right to share your ideas is protected by the first amendment. If you want to share something you publish it. You dont encrypt it. Encryption is about the right to keep your ideas private.
Ok. That's another consistant position. "A fetus becomes a human being when it is viable outside the womb, Using this logic, a woman might have the right to have a fetus removed, but not to destroy it before removing it, as is done during abortions.
If you take this position, then how do you implement it? Cutoff dates? Here's two hypothetical women, one of which has a fetus one day over your cutoff date, the other has a fetus one day under your cutoff date. Why should one be recognized as a human being and the other not?
Or you could go the "try and see" approach. You could require that instead of abortion, all unwanted pregnancies must be terminated by the live removal of the fetus, and doctors must make every effort to save the resulting premature infant. Thus, the final decision is pushed by science, but made by nature -- the viable fetuses live, the inviable ones die.
As a matter of public policy, this is pretty close to a worst-case scenario though. Instead of millions of abortions, or millions of unwanted full-term healthy babies, you have millions of unwanted premature babies in need of overwhelmingly expensive medical care.
But yes, the viability position is consistant, but I don't think that it's implementable.
The flip side of the viability criteria is showing itself in the latest twist in the drug war. Women are being arrested after childbirth and charged with the crime of "delivering drugs to their child", because they had used, for instance, cocaine, and the cocaine passed through the placenta. If you can say this for drugs, then why not other unhealthy habits? Smoking? Not eating enough? The logical conclusion of this policy -- the bottom of the slippery slope -- is the idea that once a fetus becomes viable, a woman loses all rights over her own body, which I'm not comfortable with.
Here is the reply from the New Republic:
Mr. Schulien,
Thanks for your note. The explanation is a simple one. Yes, the page was
updated today. As you may have noticed, we redesigned our site a few weeks
ago. The new look allows us to link to more stories and is easier to read.
When I heard this morning that Michelle Cottle's article was in the news, I
decided to drop the text of her article into one of our new page templates.
The actual content of the article was not changed. You could check the
online version against the printed version if you care to verify this
further.
Best,
Jeremy McCarter
Editor, TNR Online
Case closed?
Question: With religious diversity increasing, what are your thoughts on the protection of religious freedom and the separation of church and state? Should religions like Wicca be banned from recognition by the military, as some legislators suggest? Submitted from Amber of San Diego, California through Yahoo! (10/15/00)
Answer: Religious Freedom And Tolerance Is A Protected Right I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity. Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion. I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it.
pronoblem
No, you can't. I didn't assume anything about the other posters in this topic, so please don't attempt to rationalize my opinions by pigeonholing me.
Given another example:
Yes, I honestly believe that'd be typical of the responses.
Look, if you hate Dubya, or disagree with his policies, that's fine, but please don't put words in his mouth. Al Gore didn't say he invented the Internet, and George Bush didn't purposefully leave out unpopular religions.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
He wasn't even in Texas when he was stopped.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You do realize that Puerto Rico is not a seperate country but part of the USA, right?
which he provides in the next question when asked about "consumer" (or "citizen") privacy.
Notice and Consent. Everyone has the right to know what information is collected and how it will be used, and to accept or decline the collection or dissemination of this information - particularly financial and medical information.
So you've got the first cast iron contradiction from this interview.
--
+&x
So just because you "don't want Gore's inflated government" you choose to ignore all the actual issues, all the actual credentials, all the actual abilities and character of the candidates who will helm the most powerful nation on the planet?
I'm sure that must make a lot of sense to you. Who cares about the fact that Bush and Gore BOTH will increase the size of the government? (Find some real facts. They exist. The difference between the two on this point is very small. Bush's stance on this is pure rhetoric, and Gore too provides the same rhetoric. And in fact, can claim to have eliminated thousands of government jobs).
Who cares that it is CONGRESS who would be the body that makes inflating decisions? Why deal with the real facts? Real facts are just Washington fuzzy math I guess, and Dubya's a good man to chug a beer with.
Fully 50% of this country must be retarded.
Sure, Hagelin bothers to answer the questions but he doesn't make it into the Slashdot poll.
You're so wrong on so much here. I don't have the energy to get into it right now, but CATO does a pretty good job clarifying your supposed facts. Though you might argue with CATO's conclusions given their conservative bias, you can't credibly argue with the actual verifiable data collected from the US census. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.
Good night.
> Many of Bush's past misdemeanors (DUI, cocaine use/sale, etc) would most likely disqualify him for such a security clearance.
As someone pointed out in a newsgroup, the DUI conviction is a criminal record that would keep him from being hired to flip burgers at most fast-food chains.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> He claims he learned from his mistake
But he's plenty happy to slam others in the pokey for 20 years, the better to learn from their mistakes.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Bush: Sure, I like dogs. St. Bernards, German Shepherds, Maltese, I like all of them.
Anonymous Coward: I KNEW IT! HE DOESN'T LIKE PEKINGESE!
Not quite.
It would be more like this:
Interviewer: Mr. Bush, do you like domestic dogs?
Bush: Sure, I like wolves, jackals, and foxes.
Anonymous Coward: I KNEW IT! HE DOESN'T LIKE DOGS!
Just Some Guy: You AC's are being unfair to Dubya, just cuz he neglected to mention every breed of domestic dog dosn't mean he dislikes domestic dogs. Doesn't everyone keep wolves and jackals in their apartment?
You see, he was asked about minority religions and he responded with examples of Christianity, Muslemism and Judaism - the three biggest religions. That fails to answer the question. Personally, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't even realize that he wasn't answering the question. He probably thinks that Mormons and Muslims are *way* out there and that the other stuff is either too hot to touch or perhaps even a trick question (like that one about the Canadian Prime Minister). Not that that will make members of minority religions feel any better.
- bridgette
>scares the living fuck out of me.
Okay.. seriously.. that's not meant as bait for flames. I'm serious! Those answers are terrifying! If he gets elected, I will be terrified, both of him and those who elect him!
> Therefore Bush has based much of his campaigning and message on his personal integrity and honesty
And the DUI story continues to grow. The following story hit the news in parts of Texas today, though the national press does not seem to have picked it up.
As recently as 1996, governer GWB got called up for jury duty, and made a big PR show of "just doing his civic duty like an ordinary guy". He showed up at the courthouse in a limo and surrounded by TV cameras (just like an ordinary guy, right).
Then he found out that it was a DWI case.
He left the "have you ever been accused or convicted" part of his juror's questionaire blank, and quietly had his lawyers get him off the case. No more regular guy; governers have more important affairs to tend to.
However, before he got away he did have to face a question from a reporter, who (jokingly?) asked why not just pardon the DWI guy and get the case over with. Bush's reply? "I'm more likely to hang him."
The above is not hearsay: everything except the actions of his lawyers was shown on television in various parts of Texas tonight. They even showed his juror's card.
Now if all else were equal I might be willing to let 24 year old bygones be bygones indeed. But as you say, the hypocrisy is a huge issue. When his campaign was sagging a couple of months back, he tried like hell to bolster himself by painting Al Gore as a liar and a hypocrite. I guess his daddy didn't teach him that what goes around comes around.
His crybaby "the timing is suspicious" isn't a very good defense either. He could have managed the timing himself by coming clean on the subject when he first threw his hat in the ring. So much for don't-ask-don't-tell. Now we can reasonably be asking, "What else is there that we don't know about him?"
But what alarms me the most is this. Even if GWB had great credentials for the job (he doesn't), couldn't the Republican Party find someone in a country of 350,000,000 citizens, who has decent credentials and a squeaky clean background? Especially since the party has primarily subsisted on scandal investigations for the past eight years? I can't decide whether to call nominating GWB "sheer arrogance" or "sheer insanity".
Just what the heck does GWB think is going to happen if he gets elected? D'ya suppose that the Democrats (and Larry Flynt) will forgive and forget, and not be tempted to investigate every rumor that comes out about him? And get it plastered all over every news outlet on the planet? Does he think the media are only interested in Democrat's scandals? Does he think Jay Leno will keep telling Clinton jokes for the next four years?
GWB's such a big crybaby (running to the elections board to complain about parody Web sites), that I honestly don't think he's tough enough to last four years in office. If not for the likely Supreme Court appointments, I'd be hoping he would get elected, just for the entertainment value of what happens next. Jay Leno certainly won't lack for monologue material.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> If you're rich, drugs can apparently be just another interesting experience; if they get you into trouble (and you or your friends get you wrung out) they can be used later in life as an example of character building in the face of adversity.
I think the message Bush is sending his children is that rich white politicians' sons are able to learn from their mistakes, whereas the rest of us are from a social class that can't learn from mistakes. That's why he joked about hanging a guy accused of DWI when he went in for PR jury duty, and that's why he'll happily send young kid's mums off to prison for smoking pot.
Voters should really stop and consider the notion of class distinctions that arises in families of rich professional politicians.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You know, back in '92, I thought the GOP might be in trouble. Perot's Reform Party was hitting the far-right and populist issues pretty well. The GOP was without a place to stand--the RP had taken their extreme positions, the ones they always use to define themselves in one of the elections.
Look at '96: that was a far-right GOP running for President. This year, Bush is a populist-rhetoric President: "I believe in people, not government."
The Reform Party, if they'd then gotten several candidates in statewide offices and into Congress in '94, would have been a juggernaut and replaced the GOP. But they didn't, and in '94, the GOP released the Contract of America, which took back both flanks of the party with reckless abandon.
As a result, the RP was a laugher in '96.
Now we have Nader, who seems to be out-flanking [heh, I almost typed "out-flaking"] the Democrats. He has the far-left environmentalists, and he has some populist appeal from those frustrated with the Democrats' move to the right. Nader won't win this election, but he might set the Greens up for a move in the next twelve years.
We'll see such a move only if the Greens follow up with getting a lot of people to run for Congress in '02 and statewide offices for the next year. Then run another solid, personable candidate in '04 for POTUS, lose again, and see if you're at 15% or so. If so, let all hell break lose--because the Democrats can be had, just as the GOP could be had eight years ago.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
He left out every religion mentioned in the question.
... which, I've always suspected, was connected to his father's CIA ties. This, in spite of persons who cannot safely testify to the fact noting that he's still using cocaine... fortunately for him, Gore isn't using unsubstantiatable allegations based on tips to attack him (like Bush's allegations about the buddhist (ooh! non-christian!) temple) ... and he's playing on Clinton's sordid (and I think disgusting) affair... in spite of his own six-year fling behind his wife's back. And why the hell hasn't that been an issue? There were enough people that found out about it...
He left out every belief system mentioned in the question. Minor distinction. He also left out any examples from the Set Of religions mentioned.
Bush is freightening. If he could, he would ban Islamic, Mormon, and Jewish worship as well. As a Jew, and a descendant of people almost killed (I'm here, so yes, they escaped. Their siblings, cousins, and friends did not) in Russian Pogroms and German Holocaust (No, I'm not invoking the 'N' word without reason), he terrifies me. He would be a theocrat if he could. He would start an Inquisition on many of my friends (Wiccan, Daoist, Buddhist, Humanist, or Other) if he could. And he's a hippocrite.
He mentions renewed push on the "War on Drugs"
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement