Slashdot Mirror
Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
We're teaming up with the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate to ask the two major party candidates "the 12 previously unasked questions that most concern young Americans." This is different from the usual Slashdot interview because we're asking you to submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post. Next week you'll have a chance to help select questions for the candidates from among the top 50 asked by everyone -- not just Slashdot readers -- by first winnowing those down to 20 through the Slashdot moderation system, then by voting on the "final 12" displayed on the New Voters Project site. On October 12 we'll post the answers, and on October 19 we'll post candidate-supplied rebuttals.
Note that the idea here is to solicit questions specifically from voters 18 - 35, because this age group tends to vote less than older Americans, plus questions from people 13 - 17 who will be voters before long. But the question selection process is not age-restricted, and it's where your comments and moderation become most important, because one great hope here is to avoid asking questions the candidates have heard (and answered) over and over.
The other question-selecting moderators are groups like Youth Vote Coalition, Earth Day Network, Rock The Vote, Declare Yourself, and 18to35.org, plus lead moderator Farai Chideya.
Anthony Tedesco, founder of the Presidential Youth Debates, has been doing this since 1996. 2004 is the first time an entire online community has participated in the moderation process. It's a logical evolution of the group-questions idea, and Slashdot is the obvious community to choose not only because of the wide range of political views held by Slashdot readers but also because the primary Presidential Youth Debates tech guy, Dan Collis Puro (AKA Hero Zzyzzx), is a Slashdot member himself (and would be happy if you volunteer to help work on their all-FOSS Web site).
Anyway, this is an interesting experiment. Ask your questions, prepare to moderate and comment next week, and to read the candidates' answers and rebuttals when we post them next month.
The other question-selecting moderators are groups like Youth Vote Coalition, Earth Day Network, Rock The Vote, Declare Yourself, and 18to35.org, plus lead moderator Farai Chideya.
Anthony Tedesco, founder of the Presidential Youth Debates, has been doing this since 1996. 2004 is the first time an entire online community has participated in the moderation process. It's a logical evolution of the group-questions idea, and Slashdot is the obvious community to choose not only because of the wide range of political views held by Slashdot readers but also because the primary Presidential Youth Debates tech guy, Dan Collis Puro (AKA Hero Zzyzzx), is a Slashdot member himself (and would be happy if you volunteer to help work on their all-FOSS Web site).
Anyway, this is an interesting experiment. Ask your questions, prepare to moderate and comment next week, and to read the candidates' answers and rebuttals when we post them next month.
Mr. President, Do you believe the government should decide who should marry who?
Still trying to marry your sister, eh?
When do you think is the appropriate time for the patriot act to expire? What action would be required to remove this "temporary" anti-terrorist legislation?
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
What 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.
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?
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Mr. President, do you think the word 'whom' has all but died completely? Should it die? Would you pardon it?
The USA incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other nation, due to an out of control War on Drug Users. What will you do to keep me, successful student, productive citizen, and pot smoker, out of jail?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Mr. Bush, I supported your decision to replace Saddam Hussein, and I'm not embarrassed to say that I don't care whether WMDs were found or not.
That being said, why does it seem that no one had a clue about what to do with Iraq once the war was over? With our proven experience in successfully occupying other countries (Germany, Japan), why did we stumble so badly in Iraq?
Follow up: Is it too late to get rid of John Ashcroft? He makes me ashamed to be "conservative"
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
The ultimate tax cut will be when there is no further servicing, paying interest on, the national debt. US tax payers would need only pay about 50% of what they currently do for approximately the same level of service from the federal government. Further, the extra money left to taxpayers would amount to considerable investment and consumer spending. The federal government has cut tax revenue and returned to deficit spending rather than hold spending below revenue and retire the debt. How would you address balancing the federal budget and paying down the debt, so americans will pay far less in taxes?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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?
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?
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Do you feel it is important to reduce the deficit? If so, what are your plans to do so? If not, why?
What is the biggest mistake you made in the last four years? What were the negative repercussions of that mistake and what have you done to fix it?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
In Soviet Russia, the government questions YOU!!!
Why are you so much alike, yet you campaign in a way that makes the American public think that there is a significant difference. I can think of several important areas where you are virtually indistiguishable:
1) Use of Military Power: Both approve of foreign intervention, but one party prefers to get the tacit approval of the international community before invading.
2) Tax Policy: Moving the marginal rates around only makes a difference of a few bucks to the average tax payer. The user fees are almost exclusively a middle-class burden, and neither party looks to decrease any of them.
3) Intellectual Property: Both parties are rushing to become the poster child for media conglomerates. They constantly chastize the 'media', but can't wait to lick their boots when it comes time to pass legislation regarding extending copyright protection (as one sleazy congressperson said: "Forever minus one year").
4) Drug policy: Neither party can put a stop to the madness that the drug war has brought us. Nothing useful has been accomplished in 30 years of police-state enforcement of drug laws. That is, unless you consider the fact that the US leads in per-capita encarceration as a 'positive' social gain.
These are just a few. Why shouldn't we view the Demopublican or Republicratic Parties as two sides of the same bad penny?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Both of my wives agree that the government shouldn't decide!
Do you think that the two-party system is a good thing for America? Would you support voting reforms (instant-runoff, approval voting, etc.) that would make third-party candidates more viable?
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
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.
Let's look ten years out. Since we have a wave of baby boomers planning on retirement, what effect will their retirement have on me, my family, and the nation as a whole.
How will we pay for the trillions that Social Security, Medicaid, and all of the other entitlement programs be handled?
How does having countries like Japan, China, and India who are buying our debt (thus allowing us to spend more money than we have), change the equation? How does the fact that Japan is heading for their baby boom retirement in 4 years change our equation?
Please answer in a fashion which is not compatiable to a 10 sound bite.
Thanks
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
I do. Marriage is what society holds up to be the ideal. If you disagree, then you must also logically hold polygamy to be a valid form of marriage. Who are we to say that fifteen consenting adults cannot express their love through a committed set of relationships?
Should we stop what private idividuals do behind closed doors? No. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional in my mind. But marriage is a separate issue.
Mr. President, Senator Kerry, why should Michael Badnarik, David Cobb, Michael Peroutka and Ralph Nader be excluded from the Presidential debates? After all, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, John Edwards, etc. were all included in the primary debates.
-moitz-
Screw 'em...who cares what anyone thinks.
Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? What did you think of it?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The questions will not be answered by the two key-people. They will be answered by PR departments.
The key-people will not answer questions straight and honestly, but will waffle around them or lie through their teeth.
The key-people won't even think about holding any words, promises or whatever once they're [still] in office.
So... who cares?
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
For me it was when he said that non Christians shouldn't be considered citizens, much less patriots. So if in his eyes I'm not a citizen, I guess there's no way for me to vote for him.
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.
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?
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
...what business does government have in framing public policy around a religious institution?
The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members. Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Sir, you will probably be moderated down, as Edwin Starr has sufficiently dealt with this question.
To Bush: As part of your Vision for Space Exploration that you laid out earlier this year, do you intend to direct NASA in the direction of human settlement of space, or just scientific research.
To Kerry: As president, would you direct NASA to continue with human space exploration of planetary bodies or would you contract it's focus to Earth and near-Earth subjects? (Please provide specifics as previous answers to this have been very vague.)
Blaze a trail to the New World
I think that was the first president Bush http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
The Internet couldn't tell a good bit from a bad bit if it bit it on its naughty bits.
I'd like to ask both candidates: 1. Do you think it's right for China to have the "Most Favored Nation" status in foreign trade, even though they continually violate people's human rights. and 2. Do you fair trade is fair to the American worker when people overseas can live on less than half the money Americans need to survive here, and companies overseas have no labor laws. Isn't "Fair Trade" as it is championed today just an excuse for US businesses to get cheap, powerless labor?
But what is the difference between a man marrying a woman, a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman? What real difference is there?
We're not talking about polygamy here, or animal husbandry - just the union of two people in love. Where does the government get off trying to interfere with that?
seriouslyexcited.net
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.
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)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
er. the law, which is what we're discussing here, only applies to people. can a horse be charged with murder? does it need to submit income tax returns? no. and it can marry or be banned from marrying either. your point is moot.
if you're going to argue against gay marriage then i would request that you stay away from over-dramatic implementations of the slippery slope fallacy.
2 1337 4 u!
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.
Paizurishitetai desu ka?
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.
I have a whole bag...
Hey, are you my wife?
One of the things I have found particularly alarming about the Bush Administration has been the assault on basic and fundamental consitutional protections. These include statements by Ashcroft that they would ignore judicial orders to release detainees after Sept. 11th, and comments by Rumsfeld that the right to habeus corpus, trial, etc. should be waived if the administration feels that this is in the public interest (i.e. that we don't want Jose Padilla to be, in his words, "lawyered up").
Bush: How do you respond to people who are very much concerned that your administration does not want basic to protect the basic checks and balances of our system?
Kerry: What are your thoughts on these issues? Why should I conclude that your administration will not continue these policies?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
First of all, the government doesn't "prevent" marriage. People have marriage ceremonies without the government's consent, and it doesn't matter. The question is (a) should government recognize marriage, and (b) in what cases should government recognize marriage.
If marriage is viewed as an act of love, then government has not reason for involvement whatsoever. However, if you view marriage as the foundation platform for a family, then that view changes, for several reasons:
1) Stronger families mean that there is less need of government intervention in the general case. Strong families have less need of governance.
2) When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.
When marriage is viewed as a foundation for a family, then there are legal reasons for the government to recognize or not recognize certain marriages (but again, legal recognition of marriage is not equivalent with marriage).
On a different topic, one could also point out the absurdity of calling anything between same-sex partners "marriage". Even in the past when same-sex relationships were viewed as being better than man-woman relationships, same-sex relationships were not considered, even for a second, marriage. Why? Because marriage is more about family than it is about affections.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Dear President Bush and Senator Kerry,
For the first time in history, this presidential election will make use of electronic voting machines to track more than half of all votes cast nationwide. Diebold is the largest manufacturer of these machines.
The Diebold machines have been proven insecure by numerous security analysts, and contain numerous security flaws. For example, it has been shown that anyone can change the electronic vote tallies by simply writing and executing a five-line computer script.
William W. O'Dell, CEO of Diebold and one of the largest Republican campaign contributors in the state of Ohio, has stated publicly that he will do "everything he can" to get George W. Bush re-elected.
My question is this: While there are clearly several advantages to electronic voting, do you believe that these problems could compromise the integrity of the 2004 election?
Free, Anonymous surfing: Pagewash.com.
Mr Bush,
when interviewed during the last presidential campaign, you were asked by an interviewer if you had a role model. To this you replied that Jesus was the closest that you had to one.
During your tenure as Governor of Texas, more people were killed in Texas prisons, enacting the death penalty, than during the tenure of any previous Governor in modern times. You presided over an execution nearly every two weeks from the moment you took office.
Considering the commandment of 'Thou shalt not kill' directly from God, and considering Jesus' stance on killing, how do you explain this glaring discrepancy between 'do as I say, not as I do'?
Thank you for your answer.
Yes, 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....
You don't have to be the person you've become.
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?
Do you feel that all electronic voting machines in use in the United States should produce a verifiable paper record?
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Some may say that same sex relationships are "ungodly" because they don't produce children,
What does god have to do with this? The primary reason for goverment recognition of family to to encourage children and a stable social environment for future citizens. If you're not encouraging "family", then there is no point in government recognized union. This has nothig to do with "god", just common sense.
Revenge on Saddam for murdering innocents, simply does not justify our own murder of innocents. Perhaps, if the fantasies of Iraq as a shining bulwark of freedom and democracy were to be realized it would be worthwhile. But the reality is that we are looking at ongoing bloodshed, and a pending civil war bloodbath worse than the inhumane and barbaric regime we cast down.
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.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I don't recall having run into one blinking person who's said that she thinks Bush and his cronies are secretly plotting to reinstate the draft. Heck, Rumsfeld went out of his way to dismiss the military significance of draftees in previous wars, in a move I remember particularly well because it so upset my Uncles down in Oklahoma who served. Your entire premise is a misstatement of the objections to Bush's policy.
What is said is that Bush's policies have made the reinstatement of a draft more likely, and that the specific changes made to terms of military service -- not allowing scheduled retirements, dramatic changes to the terms of service of the national guard -- amount to a "back-door" draft right now.
It's funny how your "who's who" of the left in congress didn't include Teddy Kennedy or Mark Dayton. Those were the first names on my lips. Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.
There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.
You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points. Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Contextually, you'd be hard pressed to argue that the founding documents' primary impetus and foundation was not driven by the Enlightenment and the entire concept of the "Rights of Man". If it were a Christian document at heart, you'd see more than passing references to God.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
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.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Personally I feel that the government should pay for child care until your children go to school.
Oh, you FEEL that way, huh? And how can you possibly justify that? Why should I be burdened because YOU decide to have a child? You make a decision to procreate, you'd better understand the consequences of your actions. I have two children and never asked anybody for a dime, and NO, I'm not an evil rich republican greedy bastard, thankyouverymuch.
Business's should be able to afford it or people won't work for them.
Now I know you're smoking crack... you realize the majority of people employed in the U.S. are employed by SMALL businesses?
So let's say you start a small house cleaning company. People like your business and soon you have a full schedule, so you hire someone to help you to expand your business. First it's part time, but business keeps expanding so you hire her full time. Now you and her are making a living. You make a little more, say 25 to 50% because it is, after all, your business. Then she gets pregnant and has a baby. Now you need to hire another person FULL TIME to take her place AND pay her?
Your mistake in logic is that all businesses must be run by greedy republicans who can afford to pay people for not working.
This is one of those "sounds good when I wrote it" things, I hope... because what you'd be doing is encouraging employers to avoid hiring women at all.
When you take a job it's a private contract between you and your employer, and if you don't like the terms you can leave it to someone else. Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out while they're laughing at you for saying "but you run a business, you should be able to afford to pay me for not working!"
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Actually, your 'predictable copout,' is exactly WHY liberals have introduced the Draft. Today's all volunteer army is disporportionately made up of the lower income classes. The idea was to get a draft with fewer loopholes, so that *everyone's* kids would be at risk. It really has little to do with chilren of liberals vs children of conservatives. It has to do with putting some risk in it for the higher-income classes, when they start beating the War Drums. In that light, you can see why the Black caucus is behind the bill. Others get the idea to go to war, but a disporportionate number of Blacks pay the ultimate price.
OTOH, military service is certainly a way for lower income people to bootstrap their way into a better economic class.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Come play Moral Decay!
Come play Moral Decay!
In addition to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are engaged in a "War on Terror." It would seem that the wars are being extended, and in the case of the War on Terror, there is no end is sight. How do you plan to keep the military strong enough to wage these wars, and any future wars ? Will you bring back the draft ?
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
I'm currently enrolled in College, and I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by John F. Kennedy Jr, nephew of President Kennedy. Most of what he said was that President Bush is the worst president the United States have ever had for the environment. He also said that in a real free market companies do NOT pollute, and cited the case of 1100 coal burning plants to produce electricity which produce about 60% of the mercury contaminating the US's waterways today.
Mr. President, you say you share family values. In my family, one of the aspects my parents taught me was to not leave a mess behind me, and also how to take care of the environment. Shouldn't that be part of your plans too? Or do you favor the coal plants more because they donated over $100 million to your campaign? Also, according to Mr. Kennedy's lecture, the mercury contamination in water will be responsible for up to 30,000 deaths a year. That's more deaths than the ones that happened in the Twin Towers on sept. 11th! WHY are you letting American citizens die? And why do you appoint people that fake the numbers when it comes to science? Wouldn't the space shuttle Columbia disaster be related to your negligence in appointing people knowledgeable in critical positions?
Mr. Kerry, what will you do to support the environment? Will you re-open the lawsuits that our President has closed against the coal burning plants? Will you listen to the scientific community in general instead of a selected few that tell you what you want to hear instead of the truth?
Yes, I am a supporter of John Kerry in this campaign, but to be frank it is more because I fear President Bush more than Senator Kerry.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
There are TONS of websites, blogs, and emails circulating which either imply or directly state that "the administration" is trying to "quietly" bring back the draft. Some even reference the actual bills, but of course don't link to them. Most people just assume what's said is true on its face.
What is said is that Bush's policies have made the reinstatement of a draft more likely, and that the specific changes made to terms of military service -- not allowing scheduled retirements, dramatic changes to the terms of service of the national guard -- amount to a "back-door" draft right now.
That I will agree with. The Guard is being used for tasks for which it was never intended, quite inappropriately in my personal opinion. However, consider that the forces are there, and the current administration, frankly, doesn't want a draft. It was either that, or cripple active forces - or find more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines elsewhere. I don't agree with it, but since I agree that the radical elements in the mideast as a whole MUST be dealt with, up to and including with force, I agree with the general strategy.
It's funny how your "who's who" of the left in congress didn't include Teddy Kennedy or Mark Dayton. Those were the first names on my lips.
It's not really "funny", and "who's who" was a little tongue-in-cheek, but some of those representatives are pretty darned liberal.
Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.
How is that funny? I even noted that. I'm glad that sensible people on both sides of the aisle might be able to collaborate on a bill. What's "funny" is that there's not a SINGLE Republican on the former set of bills.
There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.
Sure, but I think that's a different discussion. Heck, I think if framed properly, a lot of people would support some kind of "service" (not necessarily military). But I don't think that's what people are talking about when they speak of the "draft".
You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points.
On the contrary: I simply don't have time to write a novel on the subject on slashdot. I realize it is insanely more complex than what will be discussed here.
This whole issue is ridiculously more complex than what people want to make it out to be. Sometimes I wonder how the United States ever had the will to fight and win the great battles of this century. Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...
Oh? Please, do tell. Because I really don't particularly like Bush. Or Kerry.
Kerry's detailed policy speech today was fantastic, in my opinion. (I'm glad he's stopped talking about something that happened over three decades ago.) He talks about Al Qaeda being the real enemy. He talks about holding Saudi Arabia accountable and responsible. He talks about becoming independent of mideast oil. He talked about radical Panislamism wanting to use hatred of the West to topple governments in the mideast to develop a new unified empire in the region, to fight the US and the West. He made some really firm statements about the things we should be doing. It all is really, really great rhetoric - and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.
But how do we do these things?
Al Qaeda *is* the real enemy. And "Al Qaeda" is rooted in the mideast. NOT in Iraq, but in the region. And much of the Arab/Muslim world s
Can you please explain the difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror?