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.
because he "stole" the election from Gore, in the same manner that Democrats "steal" money from the rich to give it to the poor. He's outdone them, and they're pissed!
Dumb question. The government never tells anybody who to marry. Furthermore, every American is entitled to marry 50% of the population.
Please reword.
Successful Student
Productive Citizen
Pot Smoker
Pick ONE
Simple. We legalize drugs but control the distribution. We then poison the supply. All you drug users die. No need for prisons.
Would you have sex with an intern in the oval office ?
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
Why shouldn't two same sex people be married?
Cause the penis goes in the vagina, not the butt. If you are putting it in the butt, make a note.
"What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others."
- Confucius
I'll bite -- I never have, and I agree with BiAthlon.
"Truth is not decided by majority vote" consensus gentium -- Norman Geisler
Do you care that over 10,000 Iraqi citizens have been slaughtered in the name of US foreign policy?
No, I don't. If it saves the life of one American then it's worth it.
Should I, with the government that is supposed to represent me acting as proxy, be forced to recognize the so-called marriage of same sex couples?
Yours isn't the only POV.
We've seen treaties come internationally like the Nuclear Weapons Proliferation treaty, and the Kyoto accord. Both have been very progressive, and both are a very good thing for this world, as was shown by the amount of countries that have opted into these treaties. Yet America has shown the world they prefer to not participate.
The disrespect for international treaties was further shown with Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was defiant of the UN.
It has affected me in Canada as well. America has signed into GATT, and NAFTA, yet continues to place levies on Canadian softwood exports to America, defiant of the rulings of these international bodies, which are governed by the international treaties America has signed.
These four defiant issues show the world that America whishes not to be part of the international community, and choses to go it alone.
I'd like to know if Sen. Kerry is going to be interested in revisiting these treaties and showing the rest of the world that America is again part of the international community, or if he continues to follow in Bush's legacy, and tear up international treaties and continue to go their own direction.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
If we make you president will you show up to work?
Most folks with that sort of absenteeism would be in the unemployment line instead of seeking a promotion.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
I don't. I just say each of those things to the different groups of people that want to hear them. YOU may notice, but they don't, so we've got a couple million happy people and one astute dissident. I'll take 1,999,999 votes anytime!
Oh, you meant this to be a question to the REAL Senator Kerry? Then why did you reply in this subthread, instead of to the root post?
Does Sudan have oil?
if yes:
Claim Sudan has WMDs/links to Al Queda, invade and 'liberate'.
if no:
Open Sudanese branches of McDonalds/WalMart/Chevrolet/Home Depot/Dairy Queen and wait...
Why the fuck should I, a non-breeder, subsidise a breeder?
If they want to drop their cunt-turds, then fine. I just don't want to pay for it.
Am I relying on them? No. I have many informatino sources.
However, you obviously never read NewsMax. They have some of the best stuff. They have the best critique of Bush's National Guard records that I've seen. Does it differ from what the mainstream media is putting out? Yes. Why? Because the mainstream media is pushing out a load of crap.
I've heard a lot of people trash NewsMax, but it's usually just because it has reports that doesn't support their presuppositions, not because they have factual arguments as to why NewsMax is wrong.
Engineering and the Ultimate
"That's because they carefully sift for only the facts that support their viewpoint."
Obviously you haven't watched CBS or read the New York Times lately...
Honestly there is no more sifting than any other organization -- in fact I think there's less, and you'll find quite a lot of facts that other news organizations fail to report. I think they give a pretty good reflection of what's going on.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Actually, the poster is not far off. Already polygamists are already trying to use the same tactics homosexuals are using (and succeeding in some cases) in getting the right to marry a member of the same sex. I say that they are trying to get the right to marry a member of the same sex because they are not truly being discriminated against because they can marry someone of the opposite sex.
After polygamists, you will have either the perverts of NAMBLA, bestiality, or necrophilia trying to get exceptance. Already NAMBLA sticks its head up every few years to try and get exceptance. When the liberals can no longer use homosexual discrimination to get votes, whom will they turn to next?
Each generation has continually tried to push the boundaries of exceptance. Eventually, a new generation will try to gain exceptance for something you don't like or think is crazy to even think about trying to get exceptance.
I may get moderated down again, but atleast I have the guts to tell the truth.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Back in 2001, a guy in Maine was charged with trying to kill his son becuase he was disturbed with his son's sexual attaction to his dog "lady" (whom I think was a male dog). Eventually, you will see those who practice beastuality try to get a legal status for their "love". Homosexuality started the same way.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
> er. the law, which is what we're discussing
> here, only applies to people. can a horse be
> charged with murder?
At least one ethicsist, Peter Singer,
argues that chimpanzees of normal
intelligence ought to have more rights than
mentally retarded humans. Assuming you aren't
arguing that the retarded should be banned
from marrying other humans, it follows that
chimps and humans should be able to marry.
It would also be hard to argue why chimps and
horses couldn't marry. Therefore, by transitivity
livestock and humans should be able to marry.
That we aren't giving livestock rights or
require that they submit tax returns is
only because human society has arbitrarily
dictated that, just as it dictates that
a human in a vegatative state can have
wealth, must pay taxes, and in most states,
has the right to life.
As for charging animals with murder, we
routinely, and without due process for
wild animals, kill those who have killed
(or might kill) humans. We often have trials
to determine if killer domestic dogs should be
put to death. Many of us were appalled,
when this year, a cougar who hadn't done anything
but wander from the hills into residential
Palo Alto, was callously shot deadby the police.
Full due process for wild bears and cougars is
a matter of time. You lose the argument.
That takes are of bestiality. As for polygamy,
what if I want to marry a cojoinmed twin,
and vice versa. Isn't it ridiculous that
the other twin should remain single? There's
a much more practical argument for letting
me be married to a both conjoined twins,
since they are a single organism, despite what
the law says, then for letting gays marry.
So that takes care of that. Now the conjoined
twins take advantage of medical advances and
are separated. Is my marriage to both now void?
Of course not. But if I can be in a marriage
with two wives, who happen to be sisters, then
any sisters, conjoined or not should be able
to marry the same person. And once we've
extended that right to singlings, unrelated
people will argue for the same right.
Then what about bi-sexuals? Why should their
emotional needs be any less than those of
gays. They should be able to marry at least
one person of each gender.
Frankly, I don't care if people want to marry
their vibrators. But as another submitter said,
the costs of entering into these non-traditional
relationships should be born by the individuals,
and not society. At least, not until
socieity has a few thousand years to adjust to it.
Anyone who labels this as a false slippery slope
is betting that there are no judges that agree.
It is for certain that laws against polygamy,
polyandy, group marriage, bestiality, marriage
with underaged but mentally mature children,
etc. are all going to be overturned in the courts.
You miss how such things weaken families. It's the same way that divorce has weakened families. It's no longer viewed as something special in society that a man and a woman comes together for life to have children and raise a family. In case you didn't notice, homosexual couples are completely unable to have children of their own, even theoretically. It is my contention that we are made to have a father and mother raise us. While some people do not have a father and mother due to tragedy, it is appalling to me that people would choose to not have a father and mother for their child.
However, if homosexuality is given the "marital" status, that means that all government institutions will have to treat homosexual marriage as equivalent with heterosexual marriage, and you will have adoptions go to homosexual parents instead of giving the child both a mother and a father (in fact, this is already happening). Children spend most of their day at school, and the values taught at school are the ones they keep, just because of the schoool/home time differential. The schools will invariably start promoting the homosexual lifestyle, which, by its very nature, has less of an emphasis on families procreating children. The cause of procreation is one of the chief reasons for the institution of marriage, or at least for the valuing of the institution of marriage.
I hope that answers your questions.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Sure, Bill Clinton lied about his sex life. But Bush lies about National Policy and reasons we should go to war with people his neocon cronies wanted to go to war with when he got elected.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"I suggest that if divorce weakens families, we should make divorce illegal."
I agree that we should make it VERY difficult. Like you have to show bruises or infidelity or something. And then the offending spouse gets NOTHING.
"You haven't supported your idea that schools will start promoting homos"
a) they already have in many schools
b) once the homosexual relationship is elevated to the status of able to be married, you don't think the homosexual lobby will be writing and getting books about homosexual families in the schools? You must have missed what already happened on TV. I live in the city that has the largest per-capita homosexual population in the country (Tulsa, OK), and there's nowhere near as many homosexual people as portrayed on TV.
"Do you think homos are fags by choice?"
Interesting errr... choice of words.
I think that engaging in the act is a matter of choice. People are predisposed to do all sorts of things that are bad for them and others. Being predisposed does not make it good.
"Hell, I would be happy if there was less emphasis on families procreating children. There are too many divorced single mothers already."
The way I see it is that previously divorce was popularized and the rest of us stood silent because, well, it wasn't "our" marriage that was suffering. But we have a whole generation of suffering people who have arisen from a culture of divorce. I think if we downgrade marriage even further with homosexual "marriage" we will wind up with a new generation of people who are even more hurting than this one.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Question to Bush: Why do you keep referring to terrorists in Iraq in your speeches when there has been no proven link between al qaeda and Iraq?
Exhibit B - handbills relegated to unseen areas
Exhibit C - cavity searches for journalists on World Press Freedom Day
Exhibit D - arguments in favor of squelching 527s
Following the World Trade Center bombing you stated that these terrorists did this "because they hate our rights and freedoms", yet in the three past years all orders, decrees, and laws which limit, or abridge, these same rights and freedoms, have your signature on them, not Osama bin Laden's. Would you care to comment?
Recent polls internationally, show that the US is considered, overwhelmingly,to be the most serious threat to not only Democracy, but to the well-being of the Earth and its inhabitants.Yet,since 1945, US-backed right-wing paramilitary groups abroad, US-supported right-wing dictatorships, and illegal bombings of civilian targets contravening both US and International law, have resulted in nearly 12 million fatal civilian casualties around the World. Since these American activities are neither Constitutional, nor Christian, what moral authority is it, exactly, that gives you the right to decide who is, and who isn't, a terrorist threat?
--too old to ask, but not too old to vote