Slashdot Mirror
Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
We're teaming up with the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate to ask the two major party candidates "the 12 previously unasked questions that most concern young Americans." This is different from the usual Slashdot interview because we're asking you to submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post. Next week you'll have a chance to help select questions for the candidates from among the top 50 asked by everyone -- not just Slashdot readers -- by first winnowing those down to 20 through the Slashdot moderation system, then by voting on the "final 12" displayed on the New Voters Project site. On October 12 we'll post the answers, and on October 19 we'll post candidate-supplied rebuttals.
Note that the idea here is to solicit questions specifically from voters 18 - 35, because this age group tends to vote less than older Americans, plus questions from people 13 - 17 who will be voters before long. But the question selection process is not age-restricted, and it's where your comments and moderation become most important, because one great hope here is to avoid asking questions the candidates have heard (and answered) over and over.
The other question-selecting moderators are groups like Youth Vote Coalition, Earth Day Network, Rock The Vote, Declare Yourself, and 18to35.org, plus lead moderator Farai Chideya.
Anthony Tedesco, founder of the Presidential Youth Debates, has been doing this since 1996. 2004 is the first time an entire online community has participated in the moderation process. It's a logical evolution of the group-questions idea, and Slashdot is the obvious community to choose not only because of the wide range of political views held by Slashdot readers but also because the primary Presidential Youth Debates tech guy, Dan Collis Puro (AKA Hero Zzyzzx), is a Slashdot member himself (and would be happy if you volunteer to help work on their all-FOSS Web site).
Anyway, this is an interesting experiment. Ask your questions, prepare to moderate and comment next week, and to read the candidates' answers and rebuttals when we post them next month.
The other question-selecting moderators are groups like Youth Vote Coalition, Earth Day Network, Rock The Vote, Declare Yourself, and 18to35.org, plus lead moderator Farai Chideya.
Anthony Tedesco, founder of the Presidential Youth Debates, has been doing this since 1996. 2004 is the first time an entire online community has participated in the moderation process. It's a logical evolution of the group-questions idea, and Slashdot is the obvious community to choose not only because of the wide range of political views held by Slashdot readers but also because the primary Presidential Youth Debates tech guy, Dan Collis Puro (AKA Hero Zzyzzx), is a Slashdot member himself (and would be happy if you volunteer to help work on their all-FOSS Web site).
Anyway, this is an interesting experiment. Ask your questions, prepare to moderate and comment next week, and to read the candidates' answers and rebuttals when we post them next month.
Mr. President, Do you believe the government should decide who should marry who?
What I want to know is each candidates position on reinstituting the draft. As someone who is going to be up for selective service once the new president is in office, I am very concerned about this subject. I also miss the election by a few weeks. So I have to deal with the reprocutions of whoever is in office although I don't get to vote.
You have said that recent CIA estimates of the instability and dire situation in Iraq represent the CIA "just guessing." Since you are choosing to disregard the intelligence community's considered assessment of the situation, on what basis do you formulate your contrary assessment of the situation in Iraq?
What is the biggest mistake you made in the last four years? What were the negative repercussions of that mistake and what have you done to fix it?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
What's the difference between you two? I mean, seriously, should I vote for the rich Yaley who was in Skull & Bones and went to Vietnam, or the rich Yaley who was in Skull & Bones who didn't go to Vietnam?
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Do you think that the two-party system is a good thing for America? Would you support voting reforms (instant-runoff, approval voting, etc.) that would make third-party candidates more viable?
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
I do. Marriage is what society holds up to be the ideal. If you disagree, then you must also logically hold polygamy to be a valid form of marriage. Who are we to say that fifteen consenting adults cannot express their love through a committed set of relationships?
Should we stop what private idividuals do behind closed doors? No. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional in my mind. But marriage is a separate issue.
Mr. President, Senator Kerry, why should Michael Badnarik, David Cobb, Michael Peroutka and Ralph Nader be excluded from the Presidential debates? After all, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, John Edwards, etc. were all included in the primary debates.
-moitz-
Screw 'em...who cares what anyone thinks.
The questions will not be answered by the two key-people. They will be answered by PR departments.
The key-people will not answer questions straight and honestly, but will waffle around them or lie through their teeth.
The key-people won't even think about holding any words, promises or whatever once they're [still] in office.
So... who cares?
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
...what business does government have in framing public policy around a religious institution?
The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members. Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
That's a friggin retarded argument if I've ever read one.
The original question basically was, "What's the big deal about gay marriage?"
Throwing in polygamy into the mix is NOT the same thing. The current argument is for 2 same sex people getting married, and if there should be a constitutional ban on that (which I say no!).
I'm not sure what you meant by "marriage is what society holds up to be the ideal." Ideal what?
Why shouldn't two same sex people be married? Keep in mind any religious based arguments are null - separate church and state for a minute, and make the argument. I bet you will not have one reason that holds up to the constitution.
I'd like to ask both candidates: 1. Do you think it's right for China to have the "Most Favored Nation" status in foreign trade, even though they continually violate people's human rights. and 2. Do you fair trade is fair to the American worker when people overseas can live on less than half the money Americans need to survive here, and companies overseas have no labor laws. Isn't "Fair Trade" as it is championed today just an excuse for US businesses to get cheap, powerless labor?
But what is the difference between a man marrying a woman, a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman? What real difference is there?
We're not talking about polygamy here, or animal husbandry - just the union of two people in love. Where does the government get off trying to interfere with that?
seriouslyexcited.net
How about the now century-plus old campaign to convince Americans there are only two choices?
They've screwed up the election process to make it extremely difficult to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Once upon a time, it was a write in ballot, not multiple choice.
After Perot appeared on the presidential debates, their media buddies helped them screw with those rules to make it virtually impossible for that to happen again.
For that matter, why are there no third parties in this "Youth Debate"? I'll tell you why, the last thing we want to do is have the youth find out that it doesn't have to be a two party system. Young minds are predetermined to see things in black and white anyways.
Go ahead slashdot, help brainwash another generation into believing in this complete perversion of representative democracy.
Of course, they're the same people with the same agenda. All these people screeching "We have to get rid of Bush! Vote Kerry because third party votes are wasted". Gah.
Kerry isn't going to end the war in Iraq, repeal PATRIOT, lower taxes, allow same-sex marraige, he's not going to do anything to change the status quo.
Presidential politics are purely smear campaigns, because there's no issue that they actually differ on significantly.
Futurama:
Jack Johnson "I say my opponents plan goes too far!"
John Jackson "And I say my opponents plan doesn't go too far enough!"
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
er. the law, which is what we're discussing here, only applies to people. can a horse be charged with murder? does it need to submit income tax returns? no. and it can marry or be banned from marrying either. your point is moot.
if you're going to argue against gay marriage then i would request that you stay away from over-dramatic implementations of the slippery slope fallacy.
2 1337 4 u!
Do you care that over 10,000 Iraqi citizens have been slaughtered in the name of US foreign policy?
A lot more than that were slaughtered in the name of Saddam Hussein's authority...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I bet you will not have one reason that holds up to the constitution.
No shit. That's why they're trying to amend it.
That was like, what, 50 years ago? I think we might be somewhat out of practice. But the big thing is that occupied-Iraq is little like occupied Germany or Japan.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
One of the things I have found particularly alarming about the Bush Administration has been the assault on basic and fundamental consitutional protections. These include statements by Ashcroft that they would ignore judicial orders to release detainees after Sept. 11th, and comments by Rumsfeld that the right to habeus corpus, trial, etc. should be waived if the administration feels that this is in the public interest (i.e. that we don't want Jose Padilla to be, in his words, "lawyered up").
Bush: How do you respond to people who are very much concerned that your administration does not want basic to protect the basic checks and balances of our system?
Kerry: What are your thoughts on these issues? Why should I conclude that your administration will not continue these policies?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
But what is the difference between a man marrying a woman, a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman? What real difference is there?
Only one of those serves the real purpose of marriage: Keeping track of patriarchal family trees.
Marriage is a contract by which a woman enters into an exclusive sexual relationship with a man in exchange for material gain. If gay people are so desperate to be declared "normal" by emulating the rites and tradition of the patriarchal society that they reject by their lifestyle choice, then they should go see a mental health specialist instead of trying to have laws change to accomodate their insecurities.
P.S. I firmly believe that if people want to be with people of the same sex as theirs, and they find someone with whom to live happily that way, then nobody should get in their way. But marriage isn't for them. You don't need marriage to be with someone, you just need to be with them. Civil unions will give you all the tax breaks you want.
P.P.S. If you are gay and you want to follow the rites and traditions of the patriarchy, then become a priest or a nun. If you want to reject those traditions, don't do it half-assed and demand to be included in the tradition of marriage.
You can't take the sky from me...
How do you define victory in the war against terror?
Will this be like the war against drugs which seems to be perpetual and allow the government to fight both sides (Ollie North wasn't exchanging arms for jelly beans, was he)?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'm sorry to say that the war isn't over
That's because we never officially started a war. Congress and the President conspired to take on a military action that they call a "war" when it suits them, but never to actually produce a declaration of war, a cessation of war, or any other legitimate status. Who wants the formality of Articles of War (as the Constitution requires) when a blank-check, do-what-you-want, whenever-you-want permission slip will do just as well? Especially when people might then be interested to see an official end of wartime status, so the people and courts know when to resume the normal order of protecting those inconvenient things like civil liberties?
"Inter Arma Silent Leges (In times of War, the Law is Silent)."
"We are at war with Eurasia, and we have always been at war with Eurasia."
[
First of all, the government doesn't "prevent" marriage. People have marriage ceremonies without the government's consent, and it doesn't matter. The question is (a) should government recognize marriage, and (b) in what cases should government recognize marriage.
If marriage is viewed as an act of love, then government has not reason for involvement whatsoever. However, if you view marriage as the foundation platform for a family, then that view changes, for several reasons:
1) Stronger families mean that there is less need of government intervention in the general case. Strong families have less need of governance.
2) When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.
When marriage is viewed as a foundation for a family, then there are legal reasons for the government to recognize or not recognize certain marriages (but again, legal recognition of marriage is not equivalent with marriage).
On a different topic, one could also point out the absurdity of calling anything between same-sex partners "marriage". Even in the past when same-sex relationships were viewed as being better than man-woman relationships, same-sex relationships were not considered, even for a second, marriage. Why? Because marriage is more about family than it is about affections.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Why do you believe (or at least imply) that the US should have moral leadership over other autonomous countries? What gives the US the right to have any say whatsoever?
Random is the New Order.
So what's your point?
We're spending $2 billion a day to continue the war.
If we were to rewind two years, imagine if we offered a $2 billion reward -- in gold, or currency of your choice -- for Hussein's head. No questions asked. Witness Relocation Program included.
Somehow I think we would have had a dripping head on Bush's desk within a few days.
How is it a genetic defect? From the point of view of the survival of the species homosexuality itself is a minor risk, and you have to remember that many gay couples would be willing to adopt or be 'inseminated'. By your logic, we should also not have any laws that protect other 'genetic defects' such as handicaps, mental development problems, albinism, people with genetically elevated risk of cancer etc.
I doubt you fundamentally understand evolution.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Or how about
"Use of military power: If going to war with Iraq was so important, why was a declaration of war not asked for?"
You know, just to make it a question.
Now, if that makes sense to anyone, could you please explain it to me? I think I've confused myself.
Since the end of the Cold War, less and less federal support is given to the sciences. In the last few years, aside from some flimsy promises, I have seen nothing but restrictive legislation. Born-again Christians touting family values is all well and good, but without the ability to advance our understanding America is doomed to fall behind other countries. So with this in mind, I give five questions:
1.) "What is to be done with stem cell research? Will more federal funding go into this line of research? Will the restrictions currently in place ever be lifted?"
2.) "The space program is a joke. Decent advancement has not been made in the last twenty years. Will America cut this expensive program, or will adequate federal funding be provided? Will goals be set to form a permanent presence on the moon? On Mars?"
3.) "When the Religious community calls for a ban on a new technology, will the government listen? Is the separation of church and state truly coming undone? Are we doomed to become the Amish of the world? "
4.) "Nuclear energy is the only way to prevent the impending energy crisis as oil and coal reserves dry up. Will federal funding be provided to accelerate research in this field? Will new generators be built? Will new and better types of generators be developed?"
5.) "Will more money go into developing better science programs in public schools?"
Pick and choose if you like any of these questions I stated above...
"P.S, releasing all of the papers of Nikola Tesla that were seized by the "Office of Alien Property" and declared "Top Secret" when he died would be nice."
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
Do you feel that all electronic voting machines in use in the United States should produce a verifiable paper record?
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Some may say that same sex relationships are "ungodly" because they don't produce children,
What does god have to do with this? The primary reason for goverment recognition of family to to encourage children and a stable social environment for future citizens. If you're not encouraging "family", then there is no point in government recognized union. This has nothig to do with "god", just common sense.
Revenge on Saddam for murdering innocents, simply does not justify our own murder of innocents. Perhaps, if the fantasies of Iraq as a shining bulwark of freedom and democracy were to be realized it would be worthwhile. But the reality is that we are looking at ongoing bloodshed, and a pending civil war bloodbath worse than the inhumane and barbaric regime we cast down.
Until then, I have no problem with the cops picking your ass up for breaking the law.
And I have no problem if the cops arrest you for "terrorist activities" by tapping your cell phone without a warrant, and arresting you without trial. After all, it IS a law.
Sheep who mindlessly obey their government deserve to be slaughtered.
I don't respond to AC's.
There are some things that are more important than others not because of their immedieate consequences, but because of the CONCEPTS behind them. I agree that for the welfare of the average American, marriage reform won't make much of difference any time soon.
The problem is that this is a slippery slope that we are in the process of sliding down and if we don't grab a branch soon we're gonna hit the bottom fast. If the government can tell me what marriage is about then it's not a huge leap to assume that it can tell me what a "friendship" is. After all, friendship could be a legally viable term: for instance, "friends" are the only people, along with "immediete family" that can come over to watch a movie before I'm illegally displaying it in my house.
Soon I can't be friends with someone officially unless I've known them for 3 months (and see them at least an average of once every 2 weeks with no more than a 4 week break). Maybe friends are people that agree with you... so you, legally speaking, can't have any outside of your political party.
Yeah, it seems pretty silly to me too, but then again so does the government telling me what marriage is.
I don't recall having run into one blinking person who's said that she thinks Bush and his cronies are secretly plotting to reinstate the draft. Heck, Rumsfeld went out of his way to dismiss the military significance of draftees in previous wars, in a move I remember particularly well because it so upset my Uncles down in Oklahoma who served. Your entire premise is a misstatement of the objections to Bush's policy.
What is said is that Bush's policies have made the reinstatement of a draft more likely, and that the specific changes made to terms of military service -- not allowing scheduled retirements, dramatic changes to the terms of service of the national guard -- amount to a "back-door" draft right now.
It's funny how your "who's who" of the left in congress didn't include Teddy Kennedy or Mark Dayton. Those were the first names on my lips. Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.
There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.
You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points. Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Do you think it is fair for large corporations to set up divisions in the Cayman Islands or other locations in order to avoid paying taxes (i.e. Enron, Haliburton), especially when it's often just a mailstop?
Do you think companies that do this deserve all the benefits a company that does pay its U.S. taxes gets? Do you think the US government should do business with corporations that practice this behavior?
Do you think the law needs to be changed and if so how and if not, why not?
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Contextually, you'd be hard pressed to argue that the founding documents' primary impetus and foundation was not driven by the Enlightenment and the entire concept of the "Rights of Man". If it were a Christian document at heart, you'd see more than passing references to God.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Thats funny, an makes a point, however not a negative ones for christians..let me explain.
But first let me state that many Christians do not know there own theology.
here we go:
What you listed are from what is knwo as the Holy Code. Which was abandoned by Jesus Christ(Yes, THE Jesus Christ) who laid down the New Covenant.
Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."
Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."
Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."
Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."
As you know, this all stems from Leviticus 18:22
"V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
Literally translated:
"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"
nobody really knows what "lay lyings" means. It is assumed to be anal sex, but other interpetation exist.
At this time it is my opinion that the sins is not 'anal sex' but 'treating a man as a women'. remember the era. Men were perfect, women were considered property. This would be mistreating a perfect(and thus 'clean') thing as unclean.
This would also explain why NO WHERE in the bible does it condone lesbians.
Modern bibles(who need to sell a product) have added the word homosexuallity to the bible. There is no hebrew word for this, and in fact the word homosexuality was created in the 19th century.
God's word does change...hence the sending of his son, Jesus Christ.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Personally I feel that the government should pay for child care until your children go to school.
Oh, you FEEL that way, huh? And how can you possibly justify that? Why should I be burdened because YOU decide to have a child? You make a decision to procreate, you'd better understand the consequences of your actions. I have two children and never asked anybody for a dime, and NO, I'm not an evil rich republican greedy bastard, thankyouverymuch.
Business's should be able to afford it or people won't work for them.
Now I know you're smoking crack... you realize the majority of people employed in the U.S. are employed by SMALL businesses?
So let's say you start a small house cleaning company. People like your business and soon you have a full schedule, so you hire someone to help you to expand your business. First it's part time, but business keeps expanding so you hire her full time. Now you and her are making a living. You make a little more, say 25 to 50% because it is, after all, your business. Then she gets pregnant and has a baby. Now you need to hire another person FULL TIME to take her place AND pay her?
Your mistake in logic is that all businesses must be run by greedy republicans who can afford to pay people for not working.
This is one of those "sounds good when I wrote it" things, I hope... because what you'd be doing is encouraging employers to avoid hiring women at all.
When you take a job it's a private contract between you and your employer, and if you don't like the terms you can leave it to someone else. Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out while they're laughing at you for saying "but you run a business, you should be able to afford to pay me for not working!"
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Actually, your 'predictable copout,' is exactly WHY liberals have introduced the Draft. Today's all volunteer army is disporportionately made up of the lower income classes. The idea was to get a draft with fewer loopholes, so that *everyone's* kids would be at risk. It really has little to do with chilren of liberals vs children of conservatives. It has to do with putting some risk in it for the higher-income classes, when they start beating the War Drums. In that light, you can see why the Black caucus is behind the bill. Others get the idea to go to war, but a disporportionate number of Blacks pay the ultimate price.
OTOH, military service is certainly a way for lower income people to bootstrap their way into a better economic class.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Come play Moral Decay!
Interesting
Just keep telling yourself "they are sub-human, their lives don't count", and you can probably justify any number of deaths. That sort of thinking is how genocides happen.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I'm currently enrolled in College, and I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by John F. Kennedy Jr, nephew of President Kennedy. Most of what he said was that President Bush is the worst president the United States have ever had for the environment. He also said that in a real free market companies do NOT pollute, and cited the case of 1100 coal burning plants to produce electricity which produce about 60% of the mercury contaminating the US's waterways today.
Mr. President, you say you share family values. In my family, one of the aspects my parents taught me was to not leave a mess behind me, and also how to take care of the environment. Shouldn't that be part of your plans too? Or do you favor the coal plants more because they donated over $100 million to your campaign? Also, according to Mr. Kennedy's lecture, the mercury contamination in water will be responsible for up to 30,000 deaths a year. That's more deaths than the ones that happened in the Twin Towers on sept. 11th! WHY are you letting American citizens die? And why do you appoint people that fake the numbers when it comes to science? Wouldn't the space shuttle Columbia disaster be related to your negligence in appointing people knowledgeable in critical positions?
Mr. Kerry, what will you do to support the environment? Will you re-open the lawsuits that our President has closed against the coal burning plants? Will you listen to the scientific community in general instead of a selected few that tell you what you want to hear instead of the truth?
Yes, I am a supporter of John Kerry in this campaign, but to be frank it is more because I fear President Bush more than Senator Kerry.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
And if you can't do it without reference to religion, then the separation of Church and State says its none of the government's business.
(Of course, what you'd have to do is define objective morality. And its hard to make a good case for objective morality. Murder's pretty easy. Anything that directly affects people who are non-consensual to the act... you can make a case for that. Consensual gay marriage? Good luck with that.)
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"And "Al Qaeda" is rooted in the mideast. NOT in Iraq, but in the region. "
First of all Al Queda is not rooted in the mideast. It WAS kind of rooted in Afghanistan but now is a diffused worldwide cult. That's right, it's not an organization it's a belief system.
Secondly if it was NOT in iraq then there was NO reason to attack Iraq. Why not attack where it was? Doesn't it strike you as the supreme height of stupidity to start the attack on Al Quada by invading a country that they were NOT in? Explain that to me.
"And much of the Arab/Muslim world shares a lot of the same disdain for the US and/or West-at-large for much of the same reason."
The war is against the US not the "west at large". It's basically against the US and Israel until Iraq was invaded. Right now Britain and a few other allied who took part in the invasion and occupation of iraq are also in their target list.
There are specific reasons why the US was attacked and not Canada, New Zealand, Finland, Germany or any of the other western democracies. All those countries are also "free", they are all also "western". Americans for some reason can't understand why anybody might hate them or how any of their actions may be seen as hostile but it's true. They hate you for what you do. Not because you are "free" or because they "hate your way of life".
"Israel. Bush is the first president to call for a completely autonomous, sovereign Palestine. Short of exterminating Israel as a whole, that's the most dramatic position in FAVOR of the Israel-opponents' cause any US president has ever taken."
I think just about everybody realizes that it was all talk. Bush has done NOTHING to make that happen. He has completely abandoned his "roadmap". He refuses to even critize sharon for expanding settlements or building that wall. Even a casual observer of the situation knows who wears the pants in the Sharon Bush relationship and it aint bush. Do you remember when Bush told Sharon to pull his tanks out of some city (I forget which one now) and Sharon basically told him to fuck off. Bush did nothing. That was pretty early on in this administration. From that point on everybody knew who was in charge and it wasn't bush.
"Eliminating dependence on mideast oil. A nice idea. One wonders how he plans to accomplish that since he's also opposed to any new nuclear reactors,"
Conserve a little, increase gas mileage requirements and voila you are there. Nuclear plants are just gravy if they are built (and they should be IMHO).
" "Iraq" is but a first step to gain positive influence in the area as part of a much larger strategy. "
You keep saying that but there is no basis for it. You yourself admitted that Al Quada has no presense there. In fact Iraq was a SECULAR SOCIALIST state not a religious state like Iran or saudi arabia. If you want to attack "panislamic radicalism" (what an inane phrase did you come up with that?) then why not start with an islamic state?
"it will take a long time, will make a lot of people hate us in the meantime, and will require a lot of hard work and sacrifice."
Hundreds of billions of dollars that could have gone to repairing your schools, providing healthcare, feeding the hungry will be flushed down the drain. I guess your kids don't need those new books after all. Oh and all those people who hate us do you think a few of them might want ot kill us in the same numbers as we are killing them? You think one or two might resort to chemical or biological attacks on US soil? It'a all fine and dandy to talk about sacrifice now but wait till you actually have to start paying for all this with your money and lives. You think right now that OTHER people are going to die and OTHER people are going to pay and you are fine with that. But I bet you'll be singing a different tune when the economy starts backtracking and your city gets hit.
"But ULTIMATELY, it will be better for us, better for Europe, and better for the peoples of the mideast."
Ah
evil is as evil does
At one point it was not necessary for the government to try and define what marraige or friendship was because people did not try to exploit the looseness of the "rules." The more people try to do that, the more restrictions we get.
It seems obvious that either people must place restrictions upon themselves, or that someone else will do it for them.
Hmmm, I seem to recall some states used to have laws prohibiting interracial marriage. When people can't restrain themselves from passing discriminatory laws, well, the Supreme Court has to step in and smack them down. Just something to think about.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
$2000s = $1950s;
$2000s =~ s/nigger/faggot/g;
print "vote Bush";
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Why is it the Democrats tend to believe in freedom, except in fiscal matters, and Republicans tend to believe in freedom, except in social matters? Why can't we just believe in Freedom?