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.
When do you think is the appropriate time for the patriot act to expire? What action would be required to remove this "temporary" anti-terrorist legislation?
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
What about women getting paid time off from work after having a baby ? In Canada women get a whole year off and their job is guarenteed.
The USA incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other nation, due to an out of control War on Drug Users. What will you do to keep me, successful student, productive citizen, and pot smoker, out of jail?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Mr. Bush, I supported your decision to replace Saddam Hussein, and I'm not embarrassed to say that I don't care whether WMDs were found or not.
That being said, why does it seem that no one had a clue about what to do with Iraq once the war was over? With our proven experience in successfully occupying other countries (Germany, Japan), why did we stumble so badly in Iraq?
Follow up: Is it too late to get rid of John Ashcroft? He makes me ashamed to be "conservative"
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
The ultimate tax cut will be when there is no further servicing, paying interest on, the national debt. US tax payers would need only pay about 50% of what they currently do for approximately the same level of service from the federal government. Further, the extra money left to taxpayers would amount to considerable investment and consumer spending. The federal government has cut tax revenue and returned to deficit spending rather than hold spending below revenue and retire the debt. How would you address balancing the federal budget and paying down the debt, so americans will pay far less in taxes?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Do you feel it is important to reduce the deficit? If so, what are your plans to do so? If not, why?
How likely is it that a draft will be required to keep up our efforts around the globe?
Do you believe fellatio is sex?
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Why are you so much alike, yet you campaign in a way that makes the American public think that there is a significant difference. I can think of several important areas where you are virtually indistiguishable:
1) Use of Military Power: Both approve of foreign intervention, but one party prefers to get the tacit approval of the international community before invading.
2) Tax Policy: Moving the marginal rates around only makes a difference of a few bucks to the average tax payer. The user fees are almost exclusively a middle-class burden, and neither party looks to decrease any of them.
3) Intellectual Property: Both parties are rushing to become the poster child for media conglomerates. They constantly chastize the 'media', but can't wait to lick their boots when it comes time to pass legislation regarding extending copyright protection (as one sleazy congressperson said: "Forever minus one year").
4) Drug policy: Neither party can put a stop to the madness that the drug war has brought us. Nothing useful has been accomplished in 30 years of police-state enforcement of drug laws. That is, unless you consider the fact that the US leads in per-capita encarceration as a 'positive' social gain.
These are just a few. Why shouldn't we view the Demopublican or Republicratic Parties as two sides of the same bad penny?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Let's look ten years out. Since we have a wave of baby boomers planning on retirement, what effect will their retirement have on me, my family, and the nation as a whole.
How will we pay for the trillions that Social Security, Medicaid, and all of the other entitlement programs be handled?
How does having countries like Japan, China, and India who are buying our debt (thus allowing us to spend more money than we have), change the equation? How does the fact that Japan is heading for their baby boom retirement in 4 years change our equation?
Please answer in a fashion which is not compatiable to a 10 sound bite.
Thanks
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? What did you think of it?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Simple question: What is the role of war?
Ryan Fenton
For me it was when he said that non Christians shouldn't be considered citizens, much less patriots. So if in his eyes I'm not a citizen, I guess there's no way for me to vote for him.
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Why am I paying a fifth of my paycheck for a retirement plan that will be broke before I'm halfway to even thinking about retirement? What will you do to make sure I'm not turned into an indentured servant for retiring boomers?
"I would give my right hand to be ambidextrous."
As a followup question, what effect does this have on the health of democracy in states where a criminal record can render one ineligible to vote?
To Bush: As part of your Vision for Space Exploration that you laid out earlier this year, do you intend to direct NASA in the direction of human settlement of space, or just scientific research.
To Kerry: As president, would you direct NASA to continue with human space exploration of planetary bodies or would you contract it's focus to Earth and near-Earth subjects? (Please provide specifics as previous answers to this have been very vague.)
Blaze a trail to the New World
"How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?"*
*$2315.36 Bounty to the first person to ask George W. Bush this question in a public forum.
Contact john_goldstone@nospamyahoo.com with documentation to claim your reward!
A good question with youth-interest:
A lot of people are talking about a military draft for various reasons. Can you definitely rule-out a military draft? If it can't be completely ruled-out, what events might or might not evenutate a military draft?
Hopefully, the answers to that question will put an end to all the unsupported scare-mongering about the draft.
To both candidates:
If (re)elected, what will you do for the country in way of patent reform? With businesses big and small snapping up patents for COMMON and already public domain ideas/systems/methods only to use said patents for the purpose of preventing competition (i.e. Monopolistic Behavior), or suing everyone to make a quick buck - the system is obviously broken and no longer protects - but stifles innovation.
Some patents include (and there are thousands more, some even better examples)
Task List Patent:
"Use of a Task List generated from a "TODO" list" (Microsoft P#6,748,582)
URL and Domain Name Patented:
"Method , apparatus and business system for online communication with online and offline recipients" (Nizza Group, P# 6,671,714)
Email Forwarding Patented:
" Systems and methods for automatically forwarding electronic mail when the recipient is otherwise unknown " (Mail Registry, Inc. P# 6,427,164)
= Grow a brain...
Decreasing the amount of debt held by foreign entities should also be considered, so that we can keep the interest dollars in our country. Significantly cutting the debt would allow less interest to paid. This would allow the government to maintain the same levels of funding, perhaps increase funding, and perhaps lower taxes. If the ratio is pushed to 1:15 or even 1:20, imagine what we could do.
My questions is this: if this realization came easily to a sophomore in college, why is this not screamingly obvious to politicians in Washington? What are your realistic ideas about significantly reducing the debt over the next 5-10 years? (Note: I do not want vague answers like "cut the debt in half," I want specific ideas and plans.
It was indeed. My bad, I get my Bushes mixed up at times (if they had diferent names....). So hows this, I can't vote for his son if I'm not a citizen.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I would like your comments on the following http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=2004 0525
Is it true that: At a recent appearance at the City College of New York, Kerry talked to an audience of students about, of all things, "tax-code reform, outsourcing, Social Security and Medicare."
What do you propose to do about funding higher education in this country? The amount of aid given to most students is paltry compared with the cost of higher education, whose cost is only increasing.
What exactly has Bush done that you approve of?
.jsp?story=399573
*) Despite being warned of the 9/11 attacks, Bush did nothing to prevent them. He did even not allow his counter-terrorism expert to even brief him on the matter. Maybe it isn't fair to blame Bush for the attacks, but they did happen on his watch.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/ 60minute s/main607356.shtml
*) After the 9/11 attacks, George W felt it in his best interest to oppose the 9/11 commision. He refused to allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify before the commision until being forced to do so by tremendous public pressure. Bush himself refused to testify before the commision. He spoke with them, but wouldn't swear to tell the truth.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0, 8599,565 974,00.html
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/mo dules.php?op= modload&name=News&file=article&sid=447
*) Bush's cronies continue to blast John Kerry's war record. The fact is that John Kerry is a war hero, and George W has a really lackluster (even crappy) service record. Didn't he fail to show up for a physical after mandatory drug testing was started?
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
*) Despite Hans Blix (the UN-appointed weapons inspector in Iraq) declaring that inspections were working, Bush decided to invade iraq. Despite Colin Powell stating that Iraq was not a threat, George W decided to invade anyway.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/polit ics/story
*) Bush has dramatically INCREASED the threat of terrorism. Let's say for a minute that a lot of people in the middle east don't like the United States. Let's say they think it's an imperialist power that's out of touch with the needs of the region, but still imposes its will on it. Let's also say that fringe elements of that area are resorting to terrorism. Now let's say that an arrogant president decides to invade a middle eastern country based on little evidence of "weapons of mass destruction". After the invasion those weapons are never found, 17 thousand people are dead, and our troops torture the survivors. Would that increase or decrease terrorism?
*) Over 17 thousand people have died in Iraq including over 11 thousand Iraqi civillians. By low estimates, five times as many people have died in Iraq than in the attacks on 9/11.
http://iraqbodycount.com
*) "Pre-emptively" striking other nations is a new, radical doctrine (many call it the Wolfowitz doctrine) that I'd rather not see the US follow. It's radical to the United States, but many nation-states have decided to do this in the past. When you start pre-emptively striking, you eliminate any chance that your enemy will stand down and do the right thing. It turns you into the agressor; your enemy can fight under the banner of guarding their homeland. We live in a world that consists of many nations that all hear about what's going on. Due to the interconnectivity of the modern world, a moral victory has become more important than a millitary victory. When you kill seventeen thousand people to "prevent an attack" that was never even uttered as a threat, you've got a serious credibility problem.
*) The Bush Administration introduced to the United States the idea that a citizen can be arbitrarily declared an "enemy" or "unlawful combatant", devoid of any rights. Is circumventing due process really defending freedom?
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandF ree.cfm?ID =16019&c=280
*) Donald Rumsfeld (GW Bush's Left hand man) has denied that the Geneva convention applies to those he imprisons because they're "unlawful combatants". Subsequentlly, soldiers under his command have commited acts of torture. He failed to create oversight that would have prevented these acts.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080616/
http://ww w.msnbc.msn.com/id/5807013/
*) Bush's administration stretch
Actually, I think part of this question is actually quite good. The question needs to be re-phrased as:
Mr Kerry: why do you change your opinions so readily? Do you see reasons, or is it simply to get votes?
Mr Bush: why do you NOT change your opinions? Is well-reasoned analysis or just you being stubborn?
If either candidate could answer this question honestly, I think it could make a difference for a lot of undecided voters. In either direction.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
"How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?"
From The World's Shortest Blog.
Yet Another Web Site
Dear President Bush and Senator Kerry,
For the first time in history, this presidential election will make use of electronic voting machines to track more than half of all votes cast nationwide. Diebold is the largest manufacturer of these machines.
The Diebold machines have been proven insecure by numerous security analysts, and contain numerous security flaws. For example, it has been shown that anyone can change the electronic vote tallies by simply writing and executing a five-line computer script.
William W. O'Dell, CEO of Diebold and one of the largest Republican campaign contributors in the state of Ohio, has stated publicly that he will do "everything he can" to get George W. Bush re-elected.
My question is this: While there are clearly several advantages to electronic voting, do you believe that these problems could compromise the integrity of the 2004 election?
Free, Anonymous surfing: Pagewash.com.
Mr Bush,
when interviewed during the last presidential campaign, you were asked by an interviewer if you had a role model. To this you replied that Jesus was the closest that you had to one.
During your tenure as Governor of Texas, more people were killed in Texas prisons, enacting the death penalty, than during the tenure of any previous Governor in modern times. You presided over an execution nearly every two weeks from the moment you took office.
Considering the commandment of 'Thou shalt not kill' directly from God, and considering Jesus' stance on killing, how do you explain this glaring discrepancy between 'do as I say, not as I do'?
Thank you for your answer.
(yes, I read the blurb posted this to the site; I'm repeating it here)
The H1-B program has destroyed the careers of thousands of U.S. citizens while simultaneously making indentured servants out of the foreign workers it brings to this country. Will you take a stand and shut this program down, or at least revise it so that foreign workers cannot be virtually enslaved by the companies that sponsor them?
If you are not familiar with the issue, there is some excellent testimony about it here:
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
Loading...
Why have you lost interest in Osama bin Laden, the leader of the organization that attacked the United States of America on September 11?
Mr. President, in July of 2003 you said if anyone wanted to attack our troops in Iraq, they should bring it on. In March of this year you appeared at a reporters' dinner and ran a video in which you jokingly stumbled around your office looking for weapons of mass destruction. Can you explain this behavior to the families who have lost loved ones in Iraq?
You recently received a formal intelligence assessment provided by your own agencies, indicating that our mission in Iraq was in great danger of failing. You described this as the CIA 'just guessing'. and indicated that you did not believe what it said. What intelligence sources do you trust when it comes to giving you an accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq?
Do you believe it is best to stick to your guns on an issue even when history is proving the decision incorrect? What about the example of older members of your party were adamant segregationists who have now changed their views and don't apologize for this change of heart. Would you call this flip flopping and a moral weakness? Are there times when admitting your previous position was a mistake is actually a sign of strength?
Senator Kerry, How do you reconcile the strict environmental guidelines established by the Kyoto Protocols - which you have spoken in favor of - with the creation and continuation of high tech - and therefore high energy consumption - industries?
They already can, for the most part. There are no laws stopping a man from living with multiple women, sleeping with them, having those women carry his children, etc. And there is no laws against those churches performing marriage ceremonies for polygamy.
To religious people, the government has no power to marry. If it turned up that due to some legal mixup my wife and I were not legally married I would not consider us "living in sin" for 4 years.
Brian Ellenberger
What is a good balance between protecting citizens and protecting citizen rights? Apply your answers to legislation that you have supported/signed into law. What are the specific strengths and weaknesses of these laws? Explain the cost-effectiveness of your plans for domestic security? how much do your plans cost versus how effective are the plans, and couple your answers with the idea of the balance of such laws with nuisance and usefulness?
Well, to be cras, yes. What do you think the ENTIRE and SOLE purpose of an engagement and wedding ring is for? Basically, it's a downpayment for sex. If you have sex before you marry, the women is to keep the ring as compensation for having had sex. AKA, a prepayment on the intention to have sex. If the women does not have sex and a marriage is not completed, the ring is to be returned. This means, payment returned for services not provided (no sex, no payment). In the event the marriage takes place, and is consummated, then both rings are the women's to keep. In the event of death of the husband, the ring is to be sold to help sustain and/or support the widow. This is why both rings of traditionally of great value.
I believe later, it was realized that an engaged women that didn't retain her engagement ring was considered worthless and without honor, then it was understood that the engagement ring is hers to keep, to retain honor and worth.
In a nut shell, rings are socially acceptible forms of payment for sex. Period. It's just that most women don't realize that they are engaging in a historical practice that is tantamount to prostitution.
Given the fact that cocaine and meth amphetamine are Schedule II narcotics (able to be prescibed by a physician), and marijuana, a Schedule I narcotic ("no medicinal value and high potential for abuse"), which has been proven scientifically to be beneficial in many health cases where conventional medicines have failed, (See the Institute of Medicine study from 1999 for starters, it helps with wide angle glaucoma, anorexia, AIDS wasting syndrome, nausea from chemotherapy, migraines, chronic pain, etc.), what are your plans for the rescheduling of medical marijuana, also known as cannabis, from Schedule I to Schedule II so that severly ill patients may use the medicine which benefits them most, without fear of having their door kicked down by DEA agents, and their property seized by the federal government in a civil forfeiture?
-Myke
myke@compassionatecoalition.org
http://www.compassionatecoalition.org
Asking the "two" "major" candidates is capitulating to the dichotomy set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, recently ruled to be a partisan entity breaking FEC rules.
c id =152
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-731.pdf
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?
can you state: "Read my lips, No new wars!"
My question:
In todays world, it seems that the individual has virtually no rights, whereas big money corporations are now dictating the laws which keeps them 'in the money', while stripping more and more constitutional rights away from the individual.
For example, we have the DMCA, which companies can wield against tomorrows innovators. If this would have existed during the late 19th century, we would not have many of the inventions and innovations that have brought the country to where it stands today.
We also have people like Senator Orwin Hatch who it's been proven is accepting payments from the RIAA in return for submitting more and more legislature designed to remove consumer rights. I'm not referring to pirating or sharing music, but simple, formerly proven concepts like backing up our purchased media, and being able to record television shows for later viewing.
So why is money allowed to sway votes and legislation like this? Isn't this the very thing that existing laws are made to prevent? What's happened to our consitutional rights, and why as todays premier politicians, have you not done anything to stop this abuse?
So, my question would be
"Are you aware that a VAST majority of your constituents distrust you?"
I think most politicians think people trust them, and they're in some way respected, and I think most people distrust them, and disrespect them. Please reply if you do in fact trust any current politicians?
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
Mr. President,
Do you think you have made the United States safer by toppling Saddam now that Muslims are flocking to Iraq to join the fight against the United States and recruitment has become far easier for Al Queda?
Do you think we should have put a lot more troops on the ground in Afghanistan early on in our hunt for Osama bin Laden?
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
In addition to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are engaged in a "War on Terror." It would seem that the wars are being extended, and in the case of the War on Terror, there is no end is sight. How do you plan to keep the military strong enough to wage these wars, and any future wars ? Will you bring back the draft ?
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Given that the development of space could significantly grow the economy (and humanity for that matter), will you make space development a real priority in your administration?
www.lonseidman.com
There are TONS of websites, blogs, and emails circulating which either imply or directly state that "the administration" is trying to "quietly" bring back the draft. Some even reference the actual bills, but of course don't link to them. Most people just assume what's said is true on its face.
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.
That I will agree with. The Guard is being used for tasks for which it was never intended, quite inappropriately in my personal opinion. However, consider that the forces are there, and the current administration, frankly, doesn't want a draft. It was either that, or cripple active forces - or find more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines elsewhere. I don't agree with it, but since I agree that the radical elements in the mideast as a whole MUST be dealt with, up to and including with force, I agree with the general strategy.
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.
It's not really "funny", and "who's who" was a little tongue-in-cheek, but some of those representatives are pretty darned liberal.
Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.
How is that funny? I even noted that. I'm glad that sensible people on both sides of the aisle might be able to collaborate on a bill. What's "funny" is that there's not a SINGLE Republican on the former set of bills.
There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.
Sure, but I think that's a different discussion. Heck, I think if framed properly, a lot of people would support some kind of "service" (not necessarily military). But I don't think that's what people are talking about when they speak of the "draft".
You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points.
On the contrary: I simply don't have time to write a novel on the subject on slashdot. I realize it is insanely more complex than what will be discussed here.
This whole issue is ridiculously more complex than what people want to make it out to be. Sometimes I wonder how the United States ever had the will to fight and win the great battles of this century. Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...
Oh? Please, do tell. Because I really don't particularly like Bush. Or Kerry.
Kerry's detailed policy speech today was fantastic, in my opinion. (I'm glad he's stopped talking about something that happened over three decades ago.) He talks about Al Qaeda being the real enemy. He talks about holding Saudi Arabia accountable and responsible. He talks about becoming independent of mideast oil. He talked about radical Panislamism wanting to use hatred of the West to topple governments in the mideast to develop a new unified empire in the region, to fight the US and the West. He made some really firm statements about the things we should be doing. It all is really, really great rhetoric - and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.
But how do we do these things?
Al Qaeda *is* the real enemy. And "Al Qaeda" is rooted in the mideast. NOT in Iraq, but in the region. And much of the Arab/Muslim world s
Can you please explain the difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror?
Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, I'm sure you both have plans to influence Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons... but that is not what I'm asking. I want to know what the US's reaction will be under your administration if Iran ignores outside pressure and continues to pursue nuclear weapons anyway.
(If this is actually submitted, please knock off the sig...)
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis... it doesn't even have to agree with me.
The greatest issue to me this campaign is probably the most oft-ignored one. Only three democracies in the world don't have runoff elections. This has limited the political debate to what only two elites want us to hear. Third party voices have been willfully silenced. Many feel their voices on critical issues extinguished. Minnesota, however, has the highest voter turnout due to its election reform. If elected, what would you do to promote open and fair elections and debates in America?
-Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
However, due to the 500 char limit imposed (but not expressed on the page), this is the question I asked:
==
I don't know exactly what that means, but I'm sure it means something....
Simple question and I believe the most important. If Americans aren't working, they aren't paying taxes. If they're not paying taxes, there are less funds to support the military budget, education, and health care.
Why is outsourcing not being discussed in the current election rhetoric? Is it because neither candidate has any specialized education on economics? Remember that IT workers require many years of specialized education, which they paid for and are no longer able to find compensation in these fields. They give up and go after jobs others with less skills historically have occupied. You've given educated people a lower-skilled job and put less educated people in a position where there's nowhere else to turn, but perhaps crime?
I'm confused this issue hasn't received more attention during "Decision 2004." Paying bills is the most basic human task; having a job is the most obvious means of doing so. Middle-class America pays the bills. The upper-class in America needs the middle-class if they wish to continue evading contributions to social programs and financing America's wars.
Why aren't the candidates working harder to stop the outsourcing of our jobs and get Americans back to work? Where will they work once America has no one left to "represent?"
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
However, getting the government out the business of subsidizing traditional marriage is something that is not going to happen anytime soon. Be practical, and don't use the "two wrongs make a right" argument to extend this to subsidizing non-traditional marriages.