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.

Comments

should the gov decide who has the right to marry?

[slashcop]

Mr. President, Do you believe the government should decide who should marry who?

Just my luck...

[FalconZero]

... I got my mod points *this* week. Unless they're giving mod points to all (for fairness) ;)
Either way, I bet a lot of people will metamoderate that week.

Re:Just my luck...

[ackthpt]

. I got my mod points *this* week. Unless they're giving mod points to all (for fairness) ;) Either way, I bet a lot of people will metamoderate that week.

Mr. President,

Should citizens be able to moderate and metamoderate presidential orders?

Killed auto emissions bill (-1 Troll)

Proposed flag burning amendment (-1 Flamebait)

9/11 speech (4 insightful)

Tax cuts (3 Interesting)

Tell everyone to go out and spend that $300 right away (5 Funny)

Record deficit spending (-1 Troll)

Invade Afghanistan in pursuit of al qaeda (5 Interesting)

Invade Iraq (-1 Flamebait)

Gay marriage ban amendment (-1 Flamebait)

regulation

[GoNINzo]

(I know, RTFA, submit to the article...)

Should the internet be regulated, and if so, in what way?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[Anonymous Coward]

Still trying to marry your sister, eh?

Patriot Act

[Penguinoflight]

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?

Re:Patriot Act

[einhverfr]

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)?

Re:Patriot Act

[johnnyb]

Actually, what would be more interesting is to see when/if we are ever going to have a time that is not a national emergency. We have a lot of laws that have special exceptions for times of emergencies. The interesting detail that most people leave out is that the United States has been in a constant state of emergency since 1933. For different reasons, of course, it just so happens that EVERY YEAR there is something that warrants a national emergency. We don't think about it, so we allow all sorts of legislation to pass with exceptions for national emergencies, not even thinking about the fact that we are always in one.

Re:Patriot Act

[Dasein]

Pull your head out before you suffocate. The "War on Terror" has been subverted from a necessary and correct response and turned into a blank check for bankrupting the US, pursuing any war the administration pleases, alienating former allies, and generally living up to tobacco-chewing, SUV-driving, fake tit grabbing, neo-neanderthal image in the world. (BTW, a lot of people would have thrown in "gun-toting", but I like that part of our image.)

I'm all for having the balls to do something about terrorism but I'm not fond of a president that thinks and urinates with the same body part.

The draft

[Nick Fury]

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.

Re:The draft

[Mz6]

Here you go. These are the drafts that are sitting in the House. And I bet you couldn't guess who they are sponsored by? I'll give you a hint, it's not the Reoublicans and Bush.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R .163:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.8 9:

Re:The draft

[provolt]

The draft is a non-issue. The people being drafted don't want to go. The politicians don't want to be the one sponsoring a draft.

Most importantly, the miliary leaders do not want draftees.

Talk of starting a draft, it basically scare tactics from people who don't like President Bush. There is no realy support for it on either side of the aisle.

The only reason it is being talk about is that it helps to bring back the Vietnam era. Appearently the Democrats think that this is an effective strategy. We'll know in two months.

Re:The draft

[Skjellifetti]

The purpose of these bills is to call attention to the fact that Bush is unwilling to share the burdens of the war in Iraq among all Americans. The wealthy get tax cuts, the middle class (their children actually) get the bill, and the poor, without jobs or access to job training, have few alternatives except to do the fighting. A draft without any exemptions would even the burden somewhat.

Some facts:

• George Bush miraculously jumped to the top of a 500+ person waiting list to get his berth in the Nat'l Guard and then failed to show up for a flight physical after the US spent approx $1M to train him as a pilot.
• Dick Cheny got five deferments because he had other priorities in the '60s than military service.
• John Ashcroft received several deferments during Vietnam. One was a critical occupation deferment for teaching business law at a Missouri college.
• Trent Lott (R, MS) avoided the Vietnam draft and lies about it.
• Out of the top three Republicans in the House and the top three Republicans in the Senate, none served in the military.

It seems only fair that the children or grandchildren of these fine folks should be given a chance to die for their country just like the rest of us. Maybe it would make their parents think a little longer about the need to go to war and then do a better job of planning for the occupation afterword.

Re:The draft

[kleinux]

The purpose of these bills is to call attention to the fact that Bush is unwilling to share the burdens of the war in Iraq among all Americans.

No, the purpose of the bills is to scare the soccer moms into voting for Kerry.

Re:The draft

[Keebler71]

So you think it would be more fair to have a draft, forcing people to join the military who don't want to, than to maintain a volunteer only force. [scratches head]
As for your "facts"...
George Bush miraculously jumped to the top of a 500+ person waiting list to get his berth in the Nat'l Guard
I have heard this one a lot... altough usually in the 200-300 person range. The media seems to think that Ben Barnes has publicly said that he helped Bush jump ahead of the waiting list... but then again, his own daughter says that he is lieing to promote his own book and his political agenda. In fact his own words are that he was simply asked to recommend Bush for guard duty. He says he can't recall if he wrote a letter or made a phone call. Either way, since when is writing a recommendation letter for someone "inappropriate". Simply making a call to recommend someone is a very different thing than to move someone to the front of a waiting list (if it existed).

I say that because I have also heard the argument that there was no waiting list at all, but instead as few as 10 other applicants. I guess my question is, how do we know the status of the "waiting list" for the TANG in 1968? How do we know which people on it were even medically qualified? Since you have said this was a fact I was curious if you could help clear up the matter and cite a source.

and then failed to show up for a flight physical after the US spent approx $1M to train him as a pilot.

Was Bush obligated to obtain his flight physical? I ask this because I am a military aviator and know that I am required to make sure I get my annual physical. I have never heard of anyone missing a physical, but then again Bush was in the last year of his obligation, and temporarily assigned to a non-flying squadron while his permanent squadron was phasing out his aircraft. If I knew that I wasn't going to fly an aircraft for my remaining time in the military and was just closing a deal to go back to college, I wouldn't go out of my way to obtain a flight physical either. Oh, and this was all after something like 4-5 years as a guard pilot... it is not like he got his initial training and vanished.

Womens rights

[Feminist-Mom]

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.

Re:Womens rights

[Nos.]

Note that in Canada, the employer does not pay the woman's wages while she is on maternity leave. The Government does through employment insurance. Also note that its not just maternity leave any more. Its also paternity leave. If the couple has a baby, combined they can take 12 months off. So, for the first month, they could take off together (counts as 2 months) and the woman could stay home for another 10.

Re:Womens rights

[Dr. Evil]

It's called parental leave, it's provincial, in Ontario it's not a year, it is not full paid time off and fathers can take it too.

http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/english/es/factsheets/fs_ preg.html

Re:Womens rights

[c1pher]

just to add to that, don't get me wrong, i'm all about women's rights, it was properly taught to me in upbringing by a strong role model (single mother in the US Army.)

My point was that you just have a slightly naive point of view based on entitlement from a phantom unlimited financial source, which is not realistic or economically feasible.

Re:Womens rights

[Greg@RageNet]

Is this a troll? WTF? Why should I pay for your lifestyle choices (having childeren)?

Are you going to pay for my sportscar habit? I think you should send me checks every month so I can race sportscars all day instead of work.

I am sick of you marginalizing and denying me my sportscar rights!!! sportscar entitlements now!!!!!!!!

If canada is so friggin great why don't you go there. I hope you like hockey, and being part of the largest un-noteworthy country in the world.
Who'd wanna live in a country where the tracks are iced in 10 months a year anyway.

-- Greg

Re:Womens rights

[gfxguy]

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!"

Re:Womens rights

[Lumpy]

Here in the states someone called to duty that is in the reserves or was recently EX-militart are also "Guarenteed" their job back.

I saw 3 leave for a year and 3 come back, all 3 of them had a "job" but it was converted and changed to the point they were encouraged to find employment elsewhere... Best example of a salesperson that was top in sales that they refused to give him his accounts back. "here you go, you're back at rookie status."

When they make a LAW that actually enforces it and eliminates all loopholes, then I will love to see the same for women, but if they can intimidate a military man, a new mother will not stand a chance against such tactics.

Re:Womens rights

[admiralh]

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.

So instead of addressing her belief logically you go on this holier-than-thou tirade. How civilized of you.

This is her point. Raising children properly is in the national (common) interest. Since we all (you included) have a stake in the positive outcome (the child becoming a productive member of society), this is something the government should support. We already do to a certain degree (child tax credits and such), but she would like to see even a higher level of support.

Now you, mister "never asked anybody for a dime", have a different opinion about how much the government should spend. So, did you accept the handouts that you didn't "ask for"? Did you "Just Say No" to that tax credit when you filled out your 1040? Did you write to you congressman and ask for that credit to be repealed?

And it's also possible that you have a nice, well-paying job, who can afford child care and such a lot better than the checkout clerk at Wal-Mart, and so your children have a much higher probablility of success than the children of the Wal-Mart clerk. But that doesn't affect you in your gated community, right?

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?

And the small businesses can't afford it, because they don't have the resources. Very true.

But, that's even more reason why the government should be more involved. Why should large companies have that kind of advantage, when small business is so important? If the government were to do the things that are currently the domain of "employee benefits" you would see a much more level playing field between small and big business. But the business community is always railing against "big government."

The irony here is that big business has gamed the system, making it more difficult for small business to succeed, and it has also convinced small business that the government can't help them.

Machiavelli would be proud.

Re:Womens rights

[crimethinker]

Now I know you're smoking crack... you realize the majority of people employed in the U.S. are employed by SMALL businesses?

And the small businesses can't afford it, because they don't have the resources. Very true.

But, that's even more reason why the government should be more involved.

Umm, where do you think the federal government is going to get all that money to fund it? Government does not actually produce anything (other than fiscal disasters), so the money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is taxes. Taxes on the big corporations, the small companies, and the individuals. So, we will all pay for it one way or another.

Someone once expressed an idea similar to yours. He said, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Sounds nice, huh? It was Karl Marx.

Oh, he had one other thing to say: "Wir sind ruecksichtloss, wir verlangen keinen Ruecksicht von euch. Wenn die Reihe an uns koemmt, wir werden den Terrorismus nicht beschoenigen."

Translated, that is, "We are without mercy, and we seek no mercy from you. When our turn comes, we will not make apologies for the terror."

-paul

Han or Greedo

[The Ape With No Name]

Who fired first? What is your opinion on Han firing first? Was it justified? Is he a murderer or a hero? What about revisionist editing by Lucas? Should all /.'ers who get bent out of shape over such matters be detained at Guantanamo Bay? Or just CmdrTaco?

Re:Han or Greedo

[EpsCylonB]

Did you think it was strange that bert and ernie used to live together ?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[AyeRoxor!]

Mr. President, do you think the word 'whom' has all but died completely? Should it die? Would you pardon it?

My Question:

[Hatta]

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?

Re:My Question:

[DogDude]

What will you do to keep me, successful student, productive citizen, and pot smoker, out of jail?

Dude, it's called "Canada". Myself and 2 other friends will be moving there shortly for this reason. This nation's drug laws are embarassing and puritanical. Unfortunately, John Kerry is also a big supporter of the "Drug War".

- A business owner shopping for real estate in BC.

Re:My Question:

[Scrameustache]

What will you do to keep me, successful student, productive citizen, and pot smoker, out of jail?

He (either of them, Bush with more enthusiasm) will throw you in jail, and then point to you as an example of a productive student with a bright future who's life was destroyed by the evil marijuana.

He will not call it pot, and he will not admit that he destroyed your life, not your recreational substance of choice.
What? Me, cynical? Nooooo...

Re:My Question:

[DogDude]

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.

Re:My Question:

[nanojath]

Yeah, that's what I said about those dirty bastards that ran the underground railroad.

You may now go off about my comparing slavery to incarcerating people for their choice of intoxicant.

Never drank underage I presume. I want to see THOSE little punks tried as adults and carted off to jail. They certainly kill more people.

Re:My Question:

[senor_burt]

I've always liked the "One Simple Question".

"How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?"

There are plenty of other good ones to ask, but this one has a $2,300 bounty on it. If my question is moderated up, to I get to share the bounty?

[bribe mode] If so, I'll split it with those who mod me. [/bribe mode]

From a conservative

[jaymzter]

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"

Re:From a conservative

[ratamacue]

I don't care whether WMDs were found or not.

Do you care that over 10,000 Iraqi citizens have been slaughtered in the name of US foreign policy?

Re:From a conservative

[TopShelf]

A lot more than that were slaughtered in the name of Saddam Hussein's authority...

Re:From a conservative

[Rayonic]

With our proven experience in successfully occupying other countries (Germany, Japan), why did we stumble so badly in Iraq?

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.

1. With Germany and Japan, the populace largely supported their side of the war. In Iraq, most everyone had hated their government for decades, and wished it gone.
2. The people of Japan and Germany were completely and totally bombed into submission, their will broken and their outlook irrevocably changed. But in Iraq that wasn't necessary, because of modern technology and because my my point #1.
   
   
3. Thus the pride-based culture in Iraq is largely intact. Having to be saved by outsiders, from a man we eventually dragged from a hole, can make some feel "humiliated."
4. Iraqis have been exposed to decades of anti-American propoganda -- both from Saddam's dictatorship and from the outside world. The Japanese and Germans were indoctrinated too, but point #2 illustrates that it was beaten out of them.
5. And finally, in post-war Germany and Japan, there weren't terrorist groups sneaking in to cause trouble, try to tear the country apart, and attempt to install a new fascist regime. I'm looking at you, Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda, and pals.

Re:From a conservative

[Speare]

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."

Re:From a conservative

[mad.frog]

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.

Re:From a conservative

[American AC in Paris]

...because, y'know, it says such wonderful things about American values when we calibrate our moral compass based on the actions of Saddam Hussein.

That's something to take pride in, all right. America: We're Not As Bad As Saddam, Dammit!

Re:From a conservative

[Jeremi]

No, I don't. If it saves the life of one American then it's worth it.

Interesting ... so just how many Iraqis lives IS an American life worth to you, then? 5,000? 50,000? Would you kill every single Iraqi in the world if it would save one American life?

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.

Re:From a conservative

[HungWeiLo]

We could have _bought_ the whole country, with complete oil rights, for probably less than 1/4 of what we've already spent. And have enough to give $300US to every Iraqi (that would buy some hearts and minds, eh?)

Re:From a conservative

[bckrispi]

And finally, in post-war Germany and Japan, there weren't terrorist groups sneaking in to cause trouble, try to tear the country apart, and attempt to install a new fascist regime.

Actually, there was a significant resistance in Germany from the Werewolfs, resistance still loyal to the Nazi party. They engaged in similar acts as the Iraqi resistance: intimidation and assasination of leaders who supported the Allied occupation, bombings, etc. Several factors led to the breaking of this resistance. Your point #2 is a good example. Another thing that must be remembered is that we weren't the only ones in Germany during its reconstruction. The American approach to the resistance was a faaar cry from how the Soviets dealt with it. The Russians were absolutely ruthless when it came to wiping out Nazi sympathizers (or those suspected of being Nazi sympathizers). I'm sure this had quite an effect as well.

I do honor America's intentions in Iraq. For all the sobbing people make about the "thousands of poor iraqis" killed in the conflict, there is a certain truth that is eluding them: It's a fucking war. And in war, innocent people will die. In the end of WWII, it was not uncommon for 100,000 innocent Japanese civilians to die in a single bombing campaign. I believe the US is acting nobly in trying to minimize the civilian casualties during this conflict through the use of precision munitions. But when your enemy is purposly embedding their positions within major population centers, what are ya gonna do?? The terrorists fire a mortar into a busy marketplace, intentionally killing civilians. The US responds by firing back on the attackers, who conveniently happen to be surrounded by civilians themselves. It's all a propaganda ploy. It's the insurgents who are the true monsters, intentionally using the Iraqi people as shields and political collateral.

I've heard some rather hawkish folks say that we should employ the same tactics as the terrorists - kidnap their families and loved ones and decapitate them on national TV, following in a similar vein to how Russia dealt with suspected Nazi insurgants - mass and indescriminate executions. Part of me feels that this might be effective: find the one thing the bastards care about and destroy it in the most violent and humiliating way possible, break their spirit and their will to fight. Make their followers think twice before they kidnap some innocent charity worker. But then I have to remember that we are obligated to take the "moral high ground" in this war, as difficult as that will be. As Americans, we have our honor in how we fight our battles, and we simply do not do business like that.

Taxes and Spending

[ackthpt]

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?

Re:Taxes and Spending

[arudloff]

Make sure you get rid of the floating currency exchange system first, or else you'd bankrupt all of our trading partners.. We *need* a national debt post economic changes made in the 70s. It's a question of determining and reaching equalibrium of that debt.

promises, promises

[Doc Ruby]

Politicians promise a lot, and then something different happens. People are always saying that presidents "said one thing, and did something else", but no one ever seems to get in trouble for it. How can we know that you'll keep your promises once you've got the job?

Question for President Bush

[kenjib]

President Bush,

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?

Re:Question for President Bush

[michaelepley]

As a corollary, the CIA is formulated to be the country's foremost expert on many of these issues. If we choose to ignore this expert opinion, is it because the CIA is a failed agency? If it is failing, why do you and the rest of the nation nevertheless continue rely on the CIA for many other opinions, many of which affect our safety and security against terrorism, the foremost threat of our time? Why should we continue to maintain and fund the agency? If it is not a failure of an agency, would not the logical course of action at a minimum be to update our beliefs in the face of its evidence?

2 questions

[painehope]

1) Mr. Bush, exactly how fucking high were you when your handlers somehow let you say "there are OBGYNs that are unable to practice their love on the women of America"?

2) Mr. Kerry, while I, like many Americans, approve wholeheartedly of your 1-point "Get Bush the Fuck Out of Office" plan to getting America back on track, do you have an actual agenda to win over those of us who wouldn't vote for a stuffed deer head before Bush?

The deficit

[PIPBoy3000]

Do you feel it is important to reduce the deficit? If so, what are your plans to do so? If not, why?

Biggest mistake?

[theghost]

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?

What's the difference?

[Paulrothrock]

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?

In Soviet Russia...

[the MaD HuNGaRIaN]

In Soviet Russia, the government questions YOU!!!

Will I be drafted to fight the war on terror?

[rwbaskette]

How likely is it that a draft will be required to keep up our efforts around the globe?

Convoluted...

[kafka93]

With all of the complexities involved in determining what the top questions are, the obvious issue is: who will be counting up the votes as to the top question?

And who will be disenfranchised?

Let's just hope that some competent, open, responsible and honest system is in place to tally everything up. Has anyone considered Diebold?

For Both Parties

[geomon]

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?

Re:For Both Parties

[stratjakt]

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!"

Re:For Both Parties

[tx_kanuck]

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.

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.

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Mr. President, do you believe that the government should decide whether I can marry 3 people simultaneously, or whether one of these "people" can't be a horse or other arbitrary livestock?

Mod parent up

[philbert26]

Mr. President, Do you believe the government should decide who should marry who?

Both of my wives agree that the government shouldn't decide!

Re:Mod parent up

[twbecker]

The problem with this "who cares" attitude is that marriage today has more legal and social reprecussions than religous ones. How should someone with 3 wives, or who's wife is a parakeet say, file their taxes? Who's covered by his health insurance? The bottom line is our society, like it or not, is based around monogomous marriage. You can be married to whomever or whatever you want to in the eyes of your God, but in the eyes of Uncle Sam, there are rules to be followed. And frankly, this nation has bigger problems to deal with than marriage reform.

Re:Mod parent up

[osobear]

I was going to mod the hell out of this story but instead I'll post.

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.

Re:Mod parent up

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[Ctrl-Z]

And what are your views on the subjunctive?

Two-Party System

[damiam]

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?

Re:Two-Party System

[ImpTech]

Great question, but rephrase it. Otherwise they'll just talk about how two parties is better than one, therefore the system is great. Maybe "Do you think that the electoral system should be more supportive of third parties?". Or how about "Would you be willing to include the Libertarian and Green Party candidates in your debates, and if not, why?"

Stop Posting Questions!!

[Roofus]

Christ, don't you people even read the damn blurb?

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.

Re:Stop Posting Questions!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr Kerry and Mr President, should we RTFA?

Re:Stop Posting Questions!!

[mopslik]

Christ, don't you people even read the damn blurb?

Your ID# is 15591. You should know the answer to that by now.

My Question

[hrieke]

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

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Presidential debates

[moitz]

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-

Re:Presidential debates

[Bedevere]

Whether or not it's "just" to leave them out, I do agree with the practical result. In the last New York Governor's election, every candidate was allowed into the debate. That meant about 10 people got to answer ever question, even though everybody knew only two of them had a prayer of winning.

So I was treated to canned 30 second sound bytes from everybody who managed to get his name on the ballot, instead of longer, more thoughtful responses from the people who I really wanted to hear from. That debate didn't do a thing to help me decide who to vote for and was, in my opinion, a complete waste of time.

To both candidates...

[gosand]

Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? What did you think of it?

And on related links...

[HedonismBot]

Best deals: Democrats
Best deals: Republicans

Hmm, maybe I can buy a couple congressmen to make the it.slashdot.org "theme" illegal...

And you believe them?

[KlausBreuer]

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?

What is the role of war?

[RyanFenton]

Simple question: What is the role of war?

Ryan Fenton

Re:What is the role of war?

[AvantLegion]

>> Simple question: What is the role of war?

Sir, you will probably be moderated down, as Edwin Starr has sufficiently dealt with this question.

Re:Question for Mr. Bush

[Kenja]

"Mr. President, why do you think the Democrats think you're such a bad leader? I think you've done an admirable job, and I can't for the life of me understand why so many people hate you."

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.

How will you fix Social Security?

[Entropy Unleashed]

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 HAVE A QUESTION FOR TEH PRESIDENT

[Anonymous Coward]

ME: OMFG have you seen the Halo 2 trailer?!?>11`

PRESIDENCE BUSH: YA!!~ it's like slow and it's telling you all the stuff you did in the first one then the music kicks in and and the chief comes out and gets a gun the earf is on fire and chief is like fuck this im jumping and HE JUMPS PUT OF TEH SPACESHIP with angels singing and he lands on the bad guys and that annoying ai lady is like GO GET EM TIGER! WILDCAT IS ON TEH SPOKE!!!~`1 and theres less polys but rawkin bumb mappings you can view this on a special MICROSOFT xbox disk that comes with EB games store.

Double std in drug enforcemt for african americans

[kenjib]

African americans are convicted for drug related crimes in great disproportion to the frequency with which they commit these crimes relative to other ethnic groups. Further, they are sentenced more harshly relative to other ethnic groups. What do you think is the cause of this severe imbalance in law enforcement and the judicial process, and what can be done to correct the problem?

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?

More to the point...

[goldspider]

...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.

Re:More to the point...

[jellomizer]

My views exactly. This is one area which the separation of church and state should be really enforced. Other Issues like every time a public person who uses the word g/God shouldn't really matter, because they are not really pushing any particular religion. But in the term of Homosexual marage the "Morality" of this is based on many different religons and they all have different views on this.

Re:More to the point...

[einhverfr]

Do you believe that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Mormons should be allowed to practice polygamy?

I actually think that marriage laws have important public policy implications, and I think that there are some issues with either side of this discussion.

What might be a more interesting question is:

What do you think of Canada's policies on marijuana, gay marriage, and the international criminal court? How do you intend to deal with public policy disagreements when these have substantial ramifications for the US?

Re:More to the point...

[jfengel]

Secular and religious marriage have been intertwined for thousands of years. I very much concur that it's time to disentangle the two, but it won't be easy. The people who are fighting to "preserve" marriage as one man and one woman will fight even harder to preserve what the would see as an attack on the institution itself. If you tell people that you want goverment to have "zero involvement in defining marriage" they'll take that as "the government wants to abolish marriage". Especially if what you replace it with offends them.

They're wrong, but in a democracy when 51% of the people are wrong they're suddenly right. It's unhappy but true.

Which means that the fight has to move to different grounds. You're probably a programmer, and programmers hate hacking solutions to things; it feels bad and wrong. But in government it's not about what's right, it's about what can be accomplished. "Politics is the art of the possible," said Otto von Bismarck.

Why am I telling you this? Because I think that if you want to see us get to the right place (the one you propose), you'll never get there by the direct route (convincing people that you're right). A better strategy, I think, is to fight to keep the situation from getting worse (preventing a constitutional amendment, which is easy, because it's pretty much self-preventing).

But what you really have to do is to do exactly the wrong thing: get various local adminstrations to change their idea of marriage. That strengthens the bond between civil and religious marriage, because you've just increased the set of people with an interest in the entanglement. But it does gradually force people (over decades) to expand their idea of marriage. If they see that Massachusetts hasn't collapsed into moral ruin, then they'll accept it in New York, then Maryland, then... maybe Virginia? Wouldn't that be something?

It sucks, it really does. I want things to be right. I want laws to be like computer programs: a minimal set of exactly the right code. But politics, unlike software, is a compromise.

Re:More to the point...

[jedidiah]

This nation is a constitutional republic.

That does not equal mob rule. It never has.

The last presidential election should have at least taught you THAT much.

Re:More to the point...

[Sri Ramkrishna]

One point. Modern Hindus typically do not have multiple wives. While religious epics like Mahabharata have show kings with multiple wives, it's generally not followed by the local populous.

As to why kings have multiple wives.

"It's good to be the king" :-)

sri

Human Space Exploration

[kippy]

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.)

The Best Question (Hands Down)

[scubacuda]

Just One Question...

"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!

Re:The Best Question (Hands Down)

[ptbarnett]

I think that's a fair question. But, a similar question should be posted to Senator Kerry.

In particular, someone should ask this question:

Senator Kerry, several witnesses place you at a VVAW meeting in Kansas City in 1971, where you reportedly voted against a plan to assassinate US Senators. To your credit, you reportedly resigned immediately thereafter. Did you report the plot to the appropriate law enforcement authorities? If not, why not?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Civil Rights

[ackthpt]

Mr. President, Do you believe the government should decide who should marry who?

Let me begin by saying that prior to moving to California I was considerably less sympathetic to gays and lesbians. Having worked side-by-side with many with alternative lifestyles, I've come to appreciate they are no less human and no less entitled to all rights and privileges because of their choice of partners. Some I even consider good friends. How could I suggest withholding certain liberties to friends?

I associate this issue strongly with the civil rights struggles of african americans, who even had caucasians telling them who they could and could not marry, lest some harm come to them. The issue is effectively the same, a fundamental civil right of people who marry who they choose, without threat of physical harm or legal injunction.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not for the chosen or political elite, but everyone.

Q:

[robpoe]

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)

Are you all daft?

[CrashMan79]

Nevermind not reading the article, you guys haven't read the post it seems.
I quote from above:
"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."

I reiterate: "... submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post."

Reduce the national debt

[lothar97]

When I was taking intro to macroeconomics in college in 1994, our professor noted that 1 of every 7 dollars the federal government spends is to pay interest on the federal debt (I imagine it's closer to 1:6 or 1:5 now). Of that interest, 2/3 was paid to entities outside of our country. Our national debt thus earns money for the rest of the world.

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.

Re:Question for Mr. Bush

[ejort79]

I think that was the first president Bush http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

Are You Now...

[Ranger]

Here are a few questions I'd like to ask Mr. John Kerry-Heinz 57 and El Presidente George Dubya Bush:

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Do you still beat your wife?

Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

What is the meaning of the word 'is'?

If an orange is called an orange because of it's colour, why isn't a banana called a yellow?

What did you know and when did you know it?

And finally ...


Why do dogs have wet noses?

Globalization

[JavaLord]

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?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[galaxy300]

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?

Re:Question for Mr. Bush

[Kenja]

"I think that was the first president Bush"

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.

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[stinkyfingers]

AyeRoxor!: Mr. President, do you think the word 'whom' has all but died completely? Should it die? Would you pardon it?

Bush: Son, there's no such word as hoom.

Question for Kerry

[MHerzog]

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."

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[Frymaster]

marry 3 people simultaneously, or whether one of these "people" can't be a horse or other arbitrary livestock?

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.

Mr Bush:

[destiney]

What are your plans to make sure I still have a technical related job in the future?

How many Iraqis should die?

[sch7572]

By some latest counts, already 37,000 Iraqis have been killed since invasion of Iraq -- majority of them, admittedly, are not insurgents. That's 37 Iraqis for every American soldier killed. Q-1 : How many Iraqis is it "all right" to kill before it becomes worthwhile to have toppled one Saddam Hussein -- All for the sake of some non-existent WMDs? Q-2 : Why doesn't the US keep an official count of the number of Iraqis killed? What's the justification behind the "we don't keep body count" policy?

For President Bush

[cortez]

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)?
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Re:For President Bush

[cortez]

I understand that, and you're right. But it's still there, and Bush, Ashcroft et al. are using it as the word of God. (Which it is, even if it doesn't apply anymore.) Apparently they didn't get the memo that the only two commandments necessitated by Jesus (God) are to Love God, and Love your neighbor. Which I was trying to get at by posting all those rules from Leviticus. If Jesus were president, would he ban homosexual marriage?

WWJDD (What would Johnny Damon do?)

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[Mateito]

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?

Penis count.

Some may say that same sex relationships are "ungodly" because they don't produce children, but given that something like 80% of parents shouldn't have been allowed to breed, I don't see a problem with it.

What's up with the whole "We're pregnant, aren't we clever?" attitude. Its not like getting up the duff is particularly difficult. Hell... every species from sandflies up do it. The hardpart is bringing up baby, but it seems that once they've popped it out, it becomes SEP (somebody else's problem).. usually their teachers', the government's, etc etc.

Anyway, if non-vanilla sex between consenting adults was wrong, they wouldn't enjoy it so much.

Funding Higher Education

[midimastah]

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.

Re:Question for Mr. Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly has Bush done that you approve of?

*) 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 .jsp?story=399573

*) 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

Secrecy in Gov't

[sakusha]

This is a question for both candidates:

The Bush administration is the most secretive government in American history, retroactively classifying public data, holding secret meetings to decide public policy, and refusing to hold regular press conferences.

Mr. Candidate, will you acknowledge the public's right to participatory government and oversight, and open the process of government to public inspection? Will you commit to monthly press conferences, truly OPEN press conferences where the questions are not picked in advance?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[stinerman]

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.

Would you like a pretzel?

[NialScorva]

I have a whole bag...

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[lucabrasi999]

Cause the penis goes in the vagina, not the butt.

Hey, are you my wife?

Just one question...

[stu_coates]

vi || emacs?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[JDevers]

I think you mean bestiality...animal husbandry has been an acceptable practice for a few thousand years now...

Another question for the candidates

[einhverfr]

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?

Re:Question for Mr. Bush

[wagonlips]

I'm always puzzled to hear comments such as this. Here's a short list of things I think the Bush Administration has screwed up: Health care, the National Debt, the separation of church and state, the illegal and unjustified invasion and occupation of a soveriegn nation (Iraq), the environment, jobs for the working class, oh yeah, and the single largest failure on the part of the administration to protect the American People from outside attack in peacetime ever in the history of the United States. And the "War on Terror" is a huge embarrassment. It is already proving to be just as inneffective as the "War on Drugs."

On a more personal level, while I don't expect the president to be superman, I do expect that he be able to speak reasonably well and form coherent sentences in English, sometimes using big words such as "nuclear" and "subliminal." I also want to see that he can think on his feet and make decisions on his own. Furthermore I want to know for certain that he does not have a history of walking out on major commitments.

That's the short list. And for the record, Democrat or Republican makes no difference to me. I just want to see the United States lead by someone worthy of the honor.

Re:Mr Kerry, why do you flipflop?

[MrAndrews]

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.

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[American AC in Paris]

Yes, yes, but don't you see? Gay marriage is simply the first step down a slippery slope! What they really want is for all decent, God-fearing Americans being forced to marry autographed copies of Atlas Shrugged and have aural sex with box turtles!

Can't you see the madness of it all? Dammit, man! Open your eyes! They won't be satisfied until they've destroyed the very fabric of the universe!

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[YrWrstNtmr]

We're not talking about polygamy here,

Just playing DA here:
If the definition of marriage is to move away from the union of a man and a woman, and instead be two consenting people, then why not three?

What is the real difference?

What, you don't want to be living in sin?

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:What, you don't want to be living in sin?

[GooberToo]

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.

Re:What, you don't want to be living in sin?

[Knuckles]

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.

Most gay couples I know just want the same legal guarantees as different-sex couples. Such as, if you have lived with your partner in a flat for 20 years and he dies, you don't want to get kicked out of the appartment overnight.

Or, if your partner had an accident and is in intensive care, you don't want to be told by hospital personnel that you can't see him because you are "not family". And that you can't make any decisions on his behalf when he's unconscious, and instead his parents get to make decisions (who maybe have deserted him 20 years ago because he found out he's gay).

Etc, etc.

Re:What, you don't want to be living in sin?

[Atryn]

Civil unions will give you all the tax breaks you want.

Exactly. And the same applies for heterosexual couples. So, get the government out of marriage altogether!! The Government should perform Civil Unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples alike. Marriage should be left to the couple's religious institution of choice.

Re:What, you don't want to be living in sin?

[slipstick]

If indeed there are advantages to marriage that "civil unions" don't get than why is it wrong to lump those advantages under the word "marriage" and allow all couples to have the benefits of them?

It is not a question of forcing all religions to offer marriage to anyone, that would be "wrong". Rather it is allowing all couples to have the benefit and responsbilities inherent in the word "marriage".

In other words, what's the point of trying to define a "civil union" to match the same benefits of "marriage" if we already have a perfectly good working definition in the word "marriage"?

If the only point is to not offend the sensibilites of your christian majority that's simply not a good enough reason.

I'm going for the money...

[foistboinder]

"How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?"

From The World's Shortest Blog.

The truth about "the draft"

[daveschroeder]

Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.

In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:

D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

The details of these bills are here:

H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors

S.89 | Text

By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.

Details:

H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors

D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]

I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.

This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...

I hope this information is found useful.

PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[johnnyb]

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.

Question for both candidates

[bort27]

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?

Death Penalty and Religion

[at-b]

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.

Re:The real question

[Drakonian]

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?

Best deals! Triple coupon discounts! Expires soon

[Tired_Blood]

Check out some of the related links above:

Best deals: Democrats
Best deals: Republicans
Best deals: United States

Who thought buying into the system could be so transparent? :)
I'll take 200 shares of the junior senator from my state and 100 of the representative from my neighboring district.

National Review agrees

[Brian Stretch]

See here for an example. People can and do oppose drug criminalization on conservative principles. I'd vote for decriminalizing marijuana, I'm less certain about the harder drugs. (No, I don't smoke. Or drink. Boring as hell am I...)

What will you do about the H1-B program?

[C3ntaur]

(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

Re:Question for Mr. Bush

[g33kgirl]

Yes, that's incredibly disturbing. But let's clarify - it was Bush senior that was involved in that encounter, not Dubya.

Of course, the apple usually don't fall far from the tree....

Where does the buck stop?

[copponex]

Mr Bush,

You are the Commander in Chief. You are ultimately responsible for all of the actions of every branch of government and military that you oversee.

You were wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Your administration was wrong about believing in a tie between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, ignoring national sovereignty solely to end dictatorships is plainly illegal under international law.

Why won't you admit that you were wrong?

Changing the subject to "expanding freedom" does not count as an answer. Changing the subject to "Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator" doesn't count either.

Re:A better question,

[ghereheade]

It is not a war on terror. Terror is a tactic used by some groups. Having a war on terror is like having a "war on flanking movements" or a "war on frontal assaults".

What we have today should be referred to as a war on certain religous zealots that do not like the U.S.A. The war should not be limited to military operations against the group (and some countries that may or may not support the group) but should include actions to stem the anti-american sentiment.

So a much better set of questions related to the misnamed "war on terror" might be along the lines of:
What will you do do improve the perception of the U.S.A. abroad?
How do you plan on removing the financial backing of the anti-U.S. groups?
Do you have a plan for reducing the anti-american feelings in the arab world?

and on the military side of the "war", How has the invasion of Iraq detracted from the pursuit of OBL and al Quida as well as other anti-U.S. groups? What are you planning to do to recify the situation?

my question

[fulana_lover]

Mr. Bush: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[johnnyb]

Are you sure? John Kerry has actually come out against gay marriage. The candidates only disagree as to whether or not the issue is deserving of an amendment, not as to whether or not the government should decide.

Growth of Government Spending

[narcolepticjim]

Dick Cheney has said Ronald Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter, and during the president's first term deficits have reappeared and bloomed.

Democrats are historically tagged, right or wrong, as "tax and spend." With the Baby Boom aging, a shrinking tax base will have to pay more, proportionally, to maintain the same size government spending.

I am part of the generation that will have to confront the consequences of economic choices made today and the realities of an aging population, and I would like to know how are you looking out for us. What steps are you planning today that will ensure that America is solvent 15 or 30 years from now?

Re:Breaking gun control laws

[rhaig]

oddly enough (though I can't speak directly about DC's laws) many gun control laws have specific exclusions for collectors pieces. (which the revolver in question could certainly be classified as.

Even stranger to some is that gun control doesn't reduce crime like some think it will. Compare violent crime rates in DC (which has very strict gun control as noted above) with those in any state with a concealed handgun law. I'd actually be willing to bet that DC has more violent crime than any state without such strict gun control.

And no, I don't have any references. sorry.

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[E_elven]

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.

Genocide in the Sudan

[nis]

Both houses of congress have agreed that genocide is occurring in the western part of the Sudan. 50,000 to 100,000 people have already been killed and over 1 million people have been displaced from their homes by force. How will USA help the rest of the world to put a stop to these crimes against humanity?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[slavetrade55]

By any scientific standard, if homosexuality is genetic like almost everyone claims, then it is a genetic defect. We should not have laws on the books that say this is fine.

Yeah, defect, okay. So I suppose then that anyone with a gene that sends their phenotype straying too far from the norm should called defective and not be given the protection of laws? Was that your point?

Kyoto

[caseydk]

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?

Re:Kyoto

[mre5565]

> Senator Kerry [...] Kyoto Protocols -
> which you have spoken in favor of [...]

You mean voted against as part of the 95-0
vote against it.

Your position on scientific exploration:

[Upaut]

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."

Question:

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

Do you feel that all electronic voting machines in use in the United States should produce a verifiable paper record?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[GooberToo]

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.

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[Morpeth]

"Because marriage is more about family than it is about affections."

That's YOUR opinion. So does that mean heteros who choose not to, or are not able to have children, are "less" married than a family with 10 kids?

That's an extremely narrow-minded view of marriage, hell, it's a load of sh*t. And if 2 straight people marry because of 'affections', so be it, it isn't any of your or my freakin business. I don't care why they marry.

The implication that 'strong families' only come from straight unions is also crap. Gay or Straight, some couples are healthy and strong, some aren't. I know gay couples who've been together for years, and straight people who are on their 3rd marriage - does that mean anything? No, you just can't judge all relationship with sweeping remarks. You make broad generalizations with nothing to back it up whatsoever.

So what?

[WotanKhan]

I question why you think that justifies the blood of 10,000 innocent people on our hands. Is it your argument that Saddam Hussein would have slain 10,000 more people in this time period? The only likely target for such activity, the Kurds, were being protected from such by our no-fly zone.

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.

Re:So what?

[moonsammy]

Yes, we should have left Saddam in power. I don't like him, in fact I loathe him. He's much closer in metaphorical terms to a demon than a saint. However, Iraq was a *sovereign nation* that we had no legitimate reason to invade. Doing so is imperialism, plain and simple (per m-w.com: Imperialism: 2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence). Explain to me how it isn't. Explain to me how you can justify our invading a country and removing its *legal* ruling power from office when that country was not a direct threat to us.

Thus far our track record in wars that don't directly involve American safety (ie WWII) is pretty poor, particularly in cases where we replaced a sitting, legal government. I can't personally think of any examples where that sort of conflict worked out well for the citizens of the country where the war actually happened (feel free to correct me on this, my knowledge of American military history is far from complete).

I feel sorry for the people of Iraq. They've gone from a brutal dictorship to a brutal power vaccuum, and will most likely end up with another brutal dictatorship within a decade (I'm sorry, but all signs currently point to democracy not working out). They probably would have been better off having a civil war and being done with it - at least that way the new goverment would have some legitimacy.

They already can for the most part.

[Brian_Ellenberger]

Do you believe that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Mormons should be allowed to practice polygamy?

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

Question

[ColonPOWL]

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?

Here's your answer

[nanojath]

George W. Bush: Drugs are terrorists. We have to fight these terrorists, to keep our families safe, like the thousands who lost loved ones in the vicious, terrorist attacks of 9-11. That's why we're winning the war for freedom for the people of Iraq.

Laura Bush: Just say no, dear (thanks again for lending me your play book, Nancy!).

Kerry: My party enjoys the benefits of getting voters like you on our side because we're the "liberal" party - but when it comes down to it we also like the benefits of being able to rush some more insane mandatory minimum sentencing and revisions to the bill of rights through congress any time we feel we need to have a "we're tough on crime" pissing contest with the GOP. So I'm just going to keep treating that issue like Kryptonite so I can play both sides.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry: Oh god, we all smoked dope like it was going out of style back in the day! I never said that... you're twisting my words... stuff it! You can just stuff it!

John Edwards - uh, what Kerry said, but with my own little rhetorical spin so you know that I'm not just the man's little sidekick, in case we somehow get the next 8 years outta this, or if he tanks it and I get to go for the gold in four.

Dick Cheney: Go fuck yourself.

Child care vs stay-at-home parenting

[UpnAtom]

Why should we pay for someone else to look after YOUR children?

Personally, I think we should be encouraging potential parents who can't afford it to NOT have children.

This means free contraception/sterilisation. Maybe even means-tested payments to childless couples.

My questions

[f00zbll]

to both candidates. What are the most important issues with regards to improving the economy for both short term and long term? specifically, how would tax cuts and reduced government be balanced to achieve a solid solution. cutting taxes without reducing government is not a viable solution. Please provide a clear plan for improving the current education system. by that I mean, how should education administration should be reduced and scaled back so that more money goes towards classes, books, tutoring and after school programs. with regard to national and international security, it's obvious to voters there's no quick and easy solution to Iraq and terrorism. How do you see education and communication in the role of disarming militants. Using a narrow minded "guns" approach is not a long term solution. both sides have to reach a deep understanding of each other before real progress can be made.

Ridiculous (Reductionist) Arguments?

[ianscot]

Physician, heal thyself. You're arguing against a series of straw men.

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...

Rescheduling of Medical Marijuana

[myke113]

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?

Question about offshoring

[AaronW]

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?

Re:Hmmm...

[American AC in Paris]

Seeing as these men were responsible for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they would probably tend towards your third example, where freedom is "do what you like, according to certain rules and regulations". The founding fathers took great pains to emphasize the rights of the individual, though, and not the majority; in fact, they even went so far as to pontificate explicitly on the concept of "minority rights" and the "tyrrany of the majority".

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.

check this out.

[geekoid]

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.

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[DavidBrown]

Throwing polygamy into the mix isn't different and it's "friggin retarded". Your argument that any religious based arguments are null justifies polygamy to the same extent as gay marriage. Why shouldn't three or four people, of whatever gender, have the ability to enter into a binding marriage if they want to? What is the big deal about limiting marriage to two people? By allowing gay marriage, what you are doing is throwing morality, religion, and tradition out of marriage, and those are the only things preventing polygamy from being recognized as legal.

And, polygamy is perfectly consistant with Islam and the Mormon faith (before they were forced to change it). So forget the religion argument - polygamy is illegal only because of tradition and the moral positions of the religious philosophies of those in power.

So, my question to you is this: If two same sex people can be married, then they shouldn't three same sex people be married?

no new...

[glsunder]

can you state: "Read my lips, No new wars!"

the predictable copout

[dpilot]

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.

Why is money allowed to sway votes?

[Mr. Cancelled]

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?

Does anyone here trust politicians?

[dougnaka]

I think it's worth noting that NOBODY I know under 35 trusts politicians in any way shape or form.

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?

Terrorism

[AaronW]

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?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[Atryn]

Just playing DA here: If the definition of marriage is to move away from the union of a man and a woman, and instead be two consenting people, then why not three?

What is the real difference?

One.

The Draft ?

[Dave21212]

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 ?

Environment & Corporatism

[Goeland86]

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.

A Real Space Policy?

[Mean_Nishka]

I fear that the United States risks losing its potential economic dominance in space if we don't act soon. President Bush's space proposal is a good start, but I don't see it being a priority for him or the Congress, which means it's just another 'wishlist' as opposed to real policy.

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?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[gowen]

By allowing gay marriage, what you are doing is throwing morality...

No. No. No. No. Not morality. Judeo Christian teaching, sure, but not morality. Morality is not so clearly pinned down. Until you can tell me, without reference to religion, why polygamy is immoral and monogamy moral, this is utterly spurious.

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.)

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[Frizzle Fry]

Some may say that same sex relationships are "ungodly" because they don't produce children

And if these people aren't willing to say that we also need a Constitutional ammendment to stop impotent men, post-menopausal women and people who just don't want to have children from marrying, then I will just ignore them.

Answers

[daveschroeder]

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.

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

Re:Answers

[killjoe]

"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

Re:Answers

[ImpTech]

> This, of course, requires you to subscribe to the notion that our style of "freedom", i.e., free markets, free press, free flow of information, rule of law, some form of representative government, is inherently "good".

It also requires one to subscribe to the notion that our style of "freedom" can and should be forced upon a population that doesn't necessarily want it. Personally, I can't support imposing a government on the unconsenting.

A few simple questions

[Cyphertube]

First, can either candidate please show me in what way they are fiscally responsible?

Second, how will tort reform lower the costs of my health insurance when we barely do anything to keep out illegal aliens? When we combine their emergency room coverage with the ever-growing numbers of uninsured Americans, those costs have to be paid by someone, and that someone will either be the government, which uses my tax dollars, or my insurance company, which will charge me higher premiums. Please explain this logic.

Third, what is a service economy really? If we keep shipping manufacturing overseas, then those who produce will have control over the products we receive and control the price charged. So, should we start language education so that we can handle the future call center jobs here that will support China and India?

Fourth, what good is No Child Left Behind if all it does is bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator? As everyone must agree, the job of President is a demanding position requiring a person of exceptional skill and intelligence. That being the case, why do so many politicians try to act like dumb everyday people?

Fifth, let's assume terrorists are like fire ants. Nasty little creatures! In numbers, fire ants can take out a person, as terrorists can take down a nation. Do you think big-stick politics (invasions and warfare) are a real solution? I know fire ants are a problem in Texas. Has the President ever dealt with them directly?

Oh well, some questions. I just which they'd allow charts and pictures at the debates. I'd love to have an impromptu section where the candidates are asked to point out countries on a map, name capitals, name current world leaders, name the basic price for common goods, answer questions about common costs, etc.

Follow up to above question

[commodoresloat]

Can you please explain the difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror?

Please explain, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry.

[zymurgy_cat]

Please explain why I am a "young" voter because I'm 33. I have two kids, a wife, a house and mortgage, a job, a lawn that needs mowed, aches and pains in joints I never knew I had, a dog and a cat.

Why do voter advocacy groups put me in this youth group and associate me with others as young as 13-17? I don't get jiggy wit it cause P Diddy says voting is phat. I don't spread the bling-bling to my senate homies cause a certain bill is whack. I don't look to MTV to motivate me to vote and get involved.

10-15 years makes a lot of difference in one's life. Please explain why these groups assume that "youth" campaigns appeal to adults.

"Threat Level" to Low? When?

[Sans_A_Cause]

Dear Mr. President and Sen. Kerry:

Do you think that in your lifetime, the Dept. of Homeland Security will reduce the threat level to "Low"?

How about even "Guarded"?

How about ever?

Digital Rights and personal privacy.

[djtripp]

What are your plans or thoughts about protecting personal privacy and rights for digital media usage in this increasing digital age.

Iran: Nuclear Weapons

[Sangloth]

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.

Re:Double std in drug enforcemt for african americ

[Zebbers]

statistics please

Well, well, well...

[jav1231]

Most of what has been posted is directed at Bush (overwhelmingly negative, but...). I guess it goes to show that very few are pro-Kerry and rather (Rather? heh heh) are anti-Bush. So much for staying OT. Uh...ahemmm...

Re:Social Security.

[TheSync]

[THIS IS NOT A QUESTION]

While stocks are risky in the short term, their risk over time is much less. Examine the Historical Behavior of Asset Returns.

I much rather invest $10,000 in an diversified stock index fund today than in bonds if I want to take that money out in 40 years. If I want to take it out in 1 year, I would put it in bonds.

Another issue: if a stock index fund does not have a strong return over 40 years, the economy, as a result, will be so screwed up that the government won't be able to tax people to come up with the money anyway...

Re:Breaking gun control laws

[Yonder Way]

Actually no I didn't. I think that both candidates have forgotten this. Please don't mistake my questions for support of gun control. On the contrary, the questions are for the purpose of asking both candidate to explain their appearance of hypocrisy on the issue.

As an active member of a volunteer homeland defense force (militia), I'm the last person who wants to see erosion of the second amendment.

Mr Bush... Where is Osama bin Laden?

[payndz]

The simplest question, about the most wanted man in the world, who requires regular kidney dialysis and is therefore unlikely to be scooting about the Middle East from hidey-hole to hidey-hole on a daily basis.

The most powerful nation in the history of the planet supposedly has every resource, from human intelligence to the most sophisticated spy satellites, hunting for him.

So, Mr Bush, three years on, where is he?

Is there *any* chance at all that this mass-murderer, who killed not only thousands of US but also hundreds of allied citizens at the WTC, has not been found is because he is hiding in Saudi Arabia, a country which your administration refuses to antagonise in even the slightest way?

Yes or no, Mr Bush. Is there a chance that he is in Saudi Arabia? And if the answer is yes, why aren't you looking there?

What would you do for open and fair elections?

[scoobrs]

Here's the question I posted:

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?

My question (both versions)

[lar]

This is the question I wanted to ask:

In 1962, Pres. Kennedy delivered a famous speech at Rice Univ. where he said "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." And, as history shows, he was not wrong.

It is my opinion that if we as a nation were to put this same kind of effort, resolve and money into alternative fuels, we would be able to remove ourselves from a dependency on foreign and domestic oil. This would help conserve our environment for future generations, provide new science that could benefit countless other disciplines, and lower our level of involvement in contentious and controversial issues regarding the Middle East and other oil producing countries.

My question for you, sir, is: is this opinion right? And, if it is, would you be willing to focus our nation on such a positive issue for your term of office, especially considering the potential benefits; or, if it is not, why not? Is the goal of alternative fuels so difficult to attain that a concerted effort by American scientists and businesses would not be able to substantially advance the field, or are the benefits of an independence from foreign oil not quite what I imagine?

This is a very important issue to me and many others, as it could effect the health and security of our nation for decades to come. Thank you for taking the time to consider it.

However, due to the 500 char limit imposed (but not expressed on the page), this is the question I asked:

In the 1960s, a concerted effort was made, at the behest of Pres. Kennedy, to reach the moon within 10 years, a very ambitious goal that was ultimately achieved. Do you think that, if a similar effort were made to develop alternative fuels, we would be similarly successful and would you be willing to make this effort? Also, what benefits do you see alternative fuels bringing our nation, with respect to education, environment, security, and foreign policy?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[tsm_sf]

$2000s = $1950s;
$2000s =~ s/nigger/faggot/g;
print "vote Bush";

That's an easy one

[Killswitch1968]

There are a statistically higher proportion of black people that deal drugs than white people. So naturally, they get busted more often than white people. Furthermore, they are more likely to be repeat offenders, and repeat offenders get tougher sentences.

How Will You Put Americans Back to Work?

[VB]

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?"

Re:Kerry and WMDs (more quotes w/sources)

[eventhorizon5]

Here's some more interesting quotes:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons

Huh??

[commodoresloat]

So what about non-Christian or non-patriarchal heterosexual marriage? According to your definition, there should be no reason for a man and a woman who don't believe in or want to further "patriarchy" to want to marry either. It's a bizarre argument, especially given that even most Christians have rejected this archaic notion of "patriarchy" as the dominant form of social relations. The modern nuclear family is not patriarchal in this sense at all. This is more akin to a bizarre form of feudalism, in which the woman is the property of the man. I'm certain there are many heterosexual couples who would be rightfully insulted by the notion that this is the meaning of "marriage."

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[mdwh2]

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.

Fine, keep it to an individual thing. So why should people who are single, in a same sex or polyamorous relationship, support the costs or monogamous opposite-sex couples getting married? I don't see why I should have to.

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.

That's irrelevant - it's still a slippery slope argument. If judges allow polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, it's because they consider good reasons for doing so, and it's hardly a problem to allow such marriages. But if you think there are reasons why a particular type of marriage (eg, marriage with children) is wrong, then arguing for same sex marriage doesn't imply that marriage with [something-bad] should be allowed.

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[Colazar]

You misunderstand. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. It does, on the other hand, have everything to do with good citizenship. Doubt me? Look at the statistics for successful people that come from a stable, healthy family structure versus a broken home and/or unmarried women. The statistics speak for themselves. Bluntly, a healthy family makes tomorrows healthy society. Period.

Hard to look at the statistics without knowing how you define "healthy family structure". My definition would be looking at eliminating violence, abuse, and neglect from the mix long before I looked at the gender of the parents, but maybe that's just me. (Heck, for that matter, I don't know how you are defining "success," either, but that's probably much less problematic.).

Mr Kerry, Why Are You AWOL?

[thelizman]

You and your surrogates at MoveOn.org, CBS News, and Texans for Truth have attacked President Bush's service in the Alabama Air National Guard, claiming without any evidence what-so-ever that he was AWOL from service, and even going so far as to manufacture falsified memos (which may prove to be a felony violation of Federal Election Law and Federal Wire Fraud Laws). You have demanded that Bush release his records, which he has complied with. However, you and your campaign have released no such records to counter the allegations that you were AWOL from your Naval Reserve obligations.

How do you account for the 17 days of active duty and 47 drills over two years you failed to attend as you had agreed to do when you were given an early release from your Naval Officers Commission? Additionally, how do you account for the fact that you have been absent from 32 Senate votes since November of 2003?

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[mre5565]

So why should people who are single, in a same sex or polyamorous relationship, support the costs or monogamous opposite-sex couples getting married?

I agree that they should not.

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.

Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr

[allism]

Speaking from experience here...

The damage to a child's psyche that happens due to growing up with gay parents is much more attributable to the bigotry and cruelty of other children rather than the role models that the parents provide. Hopefully this is easier now than it was 20 years ago (when my mother came out) since it is not as fashionable now to gay-bash - I would hope that most parents would at least not encourage their children to make fun of children with gay parents, although this may not be the case.

I learned a lot about hatred growing up with a gay parent - my mother and her partner ran the gay helpline for the city we lived in, and the phone company 'accidentally' published our home address as the address for the helpline. We finally ended up taking the house numbers down to discourage any further vandalism. Before we lived there, we were evicted from an apartment complex for not having my mother's partner on the lease - despite the fact that LOTS of people had live-in partners of the opposite sex that weren't added to leases. I was ridiculed in school to the point where I begged my mother to transfer school districts (fortunately, this was right before we were evicted, so I indirectly got my wish).

My mother's partner was, and is, my closest and most supportive parent. I feel lucky to have her as a parent and as a grandmother to my son, and I am fairly certain she is my husband's favorite (or a close second to my geek father) in-law.

That said, I don't understand gay support for the Democratic party, or for John Kerry. Clinton's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy was a load of crap - my mother's partner was in the Guard, and she wasn't directly asked about her sexual orientation, but questions like 'Who's waiting at home for you?' were frequent. Hell, Kerry and Edwards couldn't be bothered to show up to vote against the amendment banning same-sex marriage, and Kerry has spoken against gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts.

Bushy didn't make it up, Hillary told him it!

[dougnaka]

Amazing work, I'm very impressed, my favorite is we can blame Hillary Clinton for misleading the president. He isn't too bright, and really can't be expected to discern between a speech and intelligence reports. So it was Hillary's fault he thought there were WMDs in Iraq, and that there is an Al Qaeda - Iraq link, case closed!

seriously, amazing work, good job.

Different views of freedom

[vanyel]

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?