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"?)
That's an asinine complaint. It's a good thing that the candidates did not craft some specially concocted set of answers for Slashdot.
Do you want to be pandered to?
www.niceFire.com
www.niceFire.com
Funnier than a speeding bullet
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.
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
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
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.
Maybe Gore's not replied yet because he invented /. and considers that Taco will help him out.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
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?
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:
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
The day may come. But I'm not so sure it will. Virtually nobody but a political junkie will do the research themselves, and this introduces intermediaries and, IMO, a vast potential for error.
Consider the Shrub's popularity; as far as I can see, it partially rests on the media's failure (in the general sense, obviously there are exceptions) to really look the guy over. Bush has declared certain subjects "out of bounds" (since when do the candidates write the rules?).
Al Gore is famous for "having claimed to invent the internet", and even a lot of the techno-savvy here seem to believe that (which is why it's no longer funny, not even as a joke). Yet the Shrub clearly claimed credit for laws he did not sign and even tried to veto (in the second debate), works off of anti-intellectualist sentiment (aw, Gore kept pushing Bush for answers, what a meanie), and so forth. Does the media bother to tear into Shrub for that?
(Note: I'm not saying anything about your preference here, I'm making a point about the dissection of candidates)
The problem is, no matter how savvy and info-hungry some of us are, the vast majority don't care that much. They won't do their research, they'll rely on the media (however little they say they trust them ... go on, how many out there know the details behind the things I've mentioned here?) There hasn't been *nearly* enough scrutiny of the right sort on the Shrub; whether that's due to media mendacity or just a sort of accident is in a way beside the point, because not everybody can keep up with all the info out there.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
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.
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.)
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
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
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.
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!
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.