Slashdot Mirror
Help Select Questions for Bush and Kerry
This is a strange post in that it has 50 comments attached to it already. These are 50 questions for Bush and Kerry selected by non-Slashdot moderators, as explained in our original call for help with the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate. At this point, where you come in is not only with extra-insightful moderation of these 50 questions, but with your "many eyes" trying to spot questions these two candidates have answered elsewhere so that the final questions presented to them are not repeats. The first 40 questions are from potential voters aged 18 - 35. The last 10 are from future voters 13 - 17. And that's enough explanation. From here we might as well jump right into the questions...
President Bush and Senator Kerry, both of you talk a lot about the importance of promoting democracy in other countries. However, I have never heard either of you take on the issue of election reform in our own country. The current presidential system seems to have several shortcomings, including two-party duopoly and the ability to win the Election even after losing the popular vote. This hardly seems democratic. What are your positions on instant-runoff voting and proportional representation? Do you currently, and would you in the future, support any reforms to encourage a greater diversity in our political system?
Since we are living in an age where technology is becoming more and more advanced and people are getting more comfortable with the existence of computers, does any political party (democrat, republican, independent, or other) have any intention of trying to expand voting online? Assuming the rights of the voters are protected, I would gladly cast my vote online.
Every day, 10,000 people die of AIDS, not only in Africa, but also in the U.S. and every country in the world. Many people say AIDS is the worst disaster the world has ever seen because it is killing millions of young people, and robbing the world of its future. While the U.S. is spending more to fight AIDS than ever before, we're still not nearing the minimal goals the UN has set for total global AIDS funding ($12 billion by 2005 and $20 billion for 2007). As President of the richest and most powerful country, what proportion of this $20 billion price tag are you prepared to meet? Also, regarding the $15 billion we've pledged to go toward HIV/AIDS programs in 15 of the world's hardest hit nations over the next 5 years, what will the U.S.'s role be in the other nations that are suffering from the AIDS crisis, and what can Americans do to ensure that the entire $15 billion of support pledged by our government goes towards fighting HIV/AIDS worldwide, regardless of who wins this Election?
In the next four years we will see the appointment of possibly (2) new Supreme Court justices. My question to the candidates is this: I understand that your decision could justifiably change tomorrow, but, if you had to appoint someone to the Supreme Court today - on this very day - who, specifically, would that person be and why?
There are thousands of deaths annually in the U.S. that are attributable to alcohol overdose. In addition, alcohol intoxication is associated with violent behavior. Yet alcohol remains widely available. Another common drug, marijuana, cannot kill by overdose, and does not cause violent behavior. In light of these facts, how will your administration rationalize the continued prohibition of marijuana, which is a less harmful drug?
In the name of America's youth, billions of dollars have been spent on the War on Drugs. While we have seen our economy dwindle, and educational and social spending on the chopping block, our prison population continues to grow, mostly for nonviolent drug offenses. As a member of the so-called "DARE generation", my question is simply, do you find our current drug strategy effective, or is it time to look to alternatives for reform?
With 80 percent of U.S. citizens agreeing that it should be provided, nine - and soon to be more - states accepting it, several organizations including American Nurse's Assn. and Texas Medical Association have resolutions supporting it, and even the current President himself once stated, "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose," why is it that medical marijuana is still illegal by federal standards and not the decision of the states or the individuals it affects?
I have a question about the HEA drug provision. This provision disqualifies students with drug convictions from receiving financial aid. Black students and lower to middle class students are unfairly targeted, as wealthier students can afford tuition and need not apply for financial aid. Do you feel it is necessary to deny financial aid to a student who already paid for their crime? Are you aware that students with a rape or murder conviction are not exempt from receiving financial aid?
Democratic Congressmen Charles Rangel and Ernest Hollings have been pushing to reinstate and change the draft, Senate 89 and House 163. The two bills call for the drafting of women, and don't allow exemptions for college or only children. The Congressmen are pushing the bill under the claim that too many minorities are fighting for our country (CNN.com, February, 2003). What are the chances of either of you supporting such a drastic change in our drafting process?
Under what circumstances would you institute a draft to fight the war on terrorism, or institute any other national service (such as the Universal National Service Act) to fight any other war?
In the 1960s, a concerted effort was made, at the behest of Pres. Kennedy, to reach the moon within 10 years, an incredibly 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?
Having gone to high school in a very conservative area, where parents refused to teach their children proper sex education, I watched 20 of my classmates leave due to teenage pregnancy. Some knew about sex while others had no idea how to get pregnant. What is your opinion on sex education in the classroom and what resources (information, condoms, etc) should be used? Do you believe that teaching abstinence alone is enough to save our children from teen pregnancy and spreading disease?
If you were reelected/elected president, what would you do to protect the rights of home-schooled in America? In what ways would you help the growing home-school community?
The U.S. has been accused of cultural and economic imperialism in the past, and now with the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, we are being accused by people around the world of imposing our will on others with force. How do you respond to that, and what would you do to restore our nation's reputation around the world?
What do you see as the biggest difference between your approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the approach of your opponent? What are some specific problems with your opponent's approach?
Presently, divorce rates and juvenile delinquency are at all time highs. Issues like these are contributing to one of the most ominous threats on the horizon of this young nation - the disintegration of the family unit. As President, what will you do to slow the steady erosion of traditional family values?
Whoever sits in the White House on January 21, 2005, will preside over an America that has seen almost 30 years since the passage of the 1975 Metric Conversion Act. In those three decades, delayed enforcement and waivers have stunted the effect of this act on adopting SI as a common standard for Americans. This negatively impacts the U.S.'s competitive stance in the global economy. As President, what would you do to achieve the goals of the 1975 Metric Conversion Act?
Why won't the candidates address the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage? Do they recognize the significance that this demarcation holds as a stand against discrimination? Do they realize how their unwillingness to address this issue impacts every aspect of GLBT's (and their families') lives? Are they aware that when political issues call civil rights into question that hate crimes raise exponentially?
My husband works for a small business, about 20 people maximum, and the insurance the company offers not only would cost over 1/3 of his monthly income, but it would not cover our son due to his 'pre existing condition' (asthma). My question to you is, do either of you plan to make the limitations for assistance higher? Eliminate 'pre-existing conditions,' such as asthma? Make it to where agencies that provide assistance not just look at a monthly income, but look at the monthly outgoing?
Our immigration policies on family unification of permanent residents are far from adequate and causing a lot of pain due to family separation. There are several bills introduced that are pending consideration in this election year. Will these bills (ex: HR 3701, HR 3918, etc) be addressed soon?
The United States, by invading Iraq, used international support and resources to lead the fight against nuclear weapons. However, no weapons were found in Iraq. How do you think this has hurt or helped our efforts against nuclear proliferation in countries such as Iran and North Korea?
I am in the military and I want to know if the war in Iraq is going to have a long-term affect on stateside military funding under your control?
Would the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make it harder to declare war on, say, Iran or North Korea if the need exists?
What is the plan for dealing with Iraq if the citizens of Iraq vote in favor of a fundamentalist Islamic form of government that resembles the one currently existing in Iran? How will your administration work to preserve the roots of democracy that have been cultivated in this middle eastern country if the citizens of Iraq vote in a theocratic form of governance?
Dear Sirs, what specifically are your plans to ensure both Iran and North Korea do not obtain nuclear missile capabilities and additionally, and what is your stance on the defense of Taiwan?
In the light of 9/11, Palestinian militant groups were designated as terrorist groups. This action has precluded communications and these groups involvement in peace negations. How do you propose to break the deadlock in this peace process, and what is your vision for how this peace will look (statehood, disarmament, settlements, etc)? Will this action be taken by individual nations (the road map which was supported by the U.S., Russia, etc) or through the UN (Security Council resolution)?
In light of a number of recent publicized legal cases, including the suing of illegal file sharers by the RIAA [Recording Industry Assoc. Amer.], it seems that our legal system is slanted to benefit those with money. Large companies and rich individuals can afford lengthy legal proceedings with multiple lawyers, while non-upper class individuals often do not have the same access. This forces many individuals to settle cases, even if they believe they have done nothing wrong. What can be done to fix this injustice?
Dear Mr. President and Senator, as a local nurse, I am interested in how you plan to help ease the stress many OB/GYN physicians and OB/GYN nurses have due to the ocean of malpractice lawsuits. How can you help us, as healthcare providers to NOT live in fear of undue lawsuits?
Nearly 100 American media resources today are owned by only 5 corporations. While the Senate's overruling of the FCC's controversial 3-to-2 decision to further deregulate media ownership rules in June of 2003 is a source of encouragement, most Americans want more variety in their sources of news and entertainment. What will you do to ensure that Americans have accurate sources of information to base their democratic decisions on?
Though the U.S. is the undisputed world leader, we fall last in line behind all other industrialized countries when it comes to post-partum maternity benefits. With all the proven advantages of a mother staying home with her child during the first year of life, what do you propose for changes in legislature to ensure a woman is not only allowed time off to stay at home, but can afford to do so by being paid for that time?
Who is doing your respective jobs while you are campaigning? And if your job allows for the additional work that is put into campaigning, then what do you believe you could have accomplished if this were not a campaign year (assuming that you put this additional campaign work into your respective jobs)?
What was 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?
When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? Both sides have been accused of flip-flopping on important issues - President Bush on establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security and steel tariffs, Senator Kerry on the Iraq war. But changing opinion due to thoughtful reconsideration ought not to be derided as flip-flopping. Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance.
What are the three written works or political thinkers that have contributed the most to your philosophy of governance, and why?
In regards to social security, as a professional 25-year-old worker I'm concerned that I'm paying into a system, which is severely over-taxed and will be non-existent when I reach retirement. I would like to know what steps will be taken to either ensure I will get the benefits I've paid for, or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security and use that extra income to invest myself for my retirement, most likely a Roth IRA.
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 need to be handled? How does having countries like Japan who are buying our debt change the equation? How does the fact that Japan is heading for their baby boom retirement in 4 years change our equation?
What is your take on so-called "intellectual property"? Would you veto any attempt to extend the duration of copyrights yet again? Would you attempt to reign in the range of software patents to prevent patents on ideas and trivialities to stifle innovation?
Considering the reality of the rise in teenage pregnancies, what is your position on the availability of contraceptives, medical care, education and coverage for these health services for teens? Does your position realistically deal with the consequences of teenage pregnancy and teen parents, the resulting poverty, and the rise in back-alley abortions and abandoned newborns? What will you do as president to address this issue, and why?
I am 15 and learning disabled because of a serious heart condition. I am having a difficult time in school. I face increased pressure with the "no child left behind" rules. I get pushed and I cannot keep up. My sister is autistic. I need to know where she will go when she is older. Her school may have to close because they are not getting funding. Why is no one stepping forward to support the growing need for special education?
Why do you say bad things about each other? When I grow up and become President I will be truthful and honest and I won't talk bad about the other guy. You both have a war against each other and you are forgetting we don't care about your war but we care about the War in Iraq. I would like for you to say one good thing about each other.
If our society were to take a dramatic downfall in morals, what would be the best course of action? Who decides what is moral, and why are we basing our legislation on a book that was written centuries ago?
Today, where you're at in your life, would you be willing to die for your country?
What has influenced you to run for office? What do you hope to contribute that the other candidates are not able or willing to contribute to the government and the people?
The Bush administration has made a big deal of President Bush's Christian faith. Democratic candidate John Kerry is also a Christian. My question for both candidates is how does your faith affect your decision-making for the future of our country? Also, America is based on the separation of church and state. For the candidates, is it conflicting to take a position on issues based on Christianity (such as abortion and gay marriage) when not everyone in America believes in God or Christianity?
I am concerned about our growing population in the U.S. and all over the world. The traffic, overbuilding and suburban sprawl is not slowing, and I worry, that by the time I am an adult and have a family, that my quality of life is really going to suffer. I would like to hear the presidential candidates address their views on over population, how to control it, its effect on the environment, energy consumption, land use, etc., and on how to stop the overcrowding of both America and the world.
Why, as an American citizen, will I have to compete for jobs and college financial assistance with people who are here illegally from other countries? My immigrant parents followed the rules and waited their turn.
This question is for both candidates. Senator Kerry, if you are elected President, what would you do to cut down on guns in school? President Bush, if you are re-elected, how will you try to cut down on school violence?
Wait, don't tell me you want the freedom to choose in an election.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
fairvote is the organization fighting for IRV and PR in America.
Californians, check out Californians for Electoral Reform
Despite the lack of IRV and PR; please vote this November!
So you're a young voter who
- doesn't smoke pot,
- drives slowly
- isn't worried about paying for college
- and stands to benefit from tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%?
Because that's what your "representatives" are voting for: more drug laws, more prisons, and more corporate wealfare.And your biggest worry isn't getting laid, or getting into a good school, getting a decent job when you graduate or avoiding having to join the Army and go to Iraq, it's the gasp unelected judiciary "promot[ing] their own political and social agendas"?
Come the fuck on!
Is there anyone reading the parent post who thinks it wasn't written by Karl Rove or Jerry Falwell and then pressed into this "young voter's" sweaty palm by rich Daddy, who told him, "now go out and make Dubya proud"?
Don't piss down my leg and tell me that it's raining, frat boy.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
I would assume we should just reply to the posts with "MOD PARENT UP" and "MOD PARENT DOWN".
Get crackin', there's 50 posts to reply to.
Please explain how popular vote of the president is anywhere near mob rule. Thanks.
50 posts, most of which are going to be modded up! Talk about Karma whoring :)
But seriously. Many of these are pretty interesting and well thought out questions. I wish the campaign had a lot more of asking questions like these and a lot less mudslinging.
How many civilian Iraqis have died since "the end of major hostilities" in Iraq?
Yes, we should have let the hanging chads be recounted indefinitely until Gore won.
Bush wins, shit
Bush wins, shit
Bush wins, shit
Gore wins. We are finished counting!!
Feed the plentiful ones to the endangered ones.
This is a "Mom and apple pie" question. No candidate will say they're for animal abuse, yet I don't see any president actually doing anything about it.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
I think perhaps a polite answer would be "you need to read up on the separation of powers and why the system is setup that way. The judges are given life apointments so that they can concentrate on upholding the law and constitution, not making people happy."
You know you like it.
Which recommendations of the 9/11 Commission do you oppose and feel are inappropriate for implimentation.
What specific steps will you take (are you taking) to find Usama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Exactly what resources ought our military and intelligence services be given to finish the job of capturing these known perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack on the United States?
Exactly how will Social Security benefits be paid for by your policies after 2020?
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
This is the goal of capitalism... whoever can do it, do it. If they can do it for cheaper, cool. If they can do it better for cheaper, bonus. Why should a company hire you if you're doing a shitty job and $IMMIGRANT can do it better faster cheaper?
jw
Instead of choosing our President from amongst the best and the brightest, why are we continually forced to choose the lesser of two evils?
Why should corporations and universities turn down candidates who are smarter, harder working, and more qualified in favor of you, all based on something your parents did?
You seem to have assimilated the American sense of self-entitlement quite well, indeed.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
The national debt sits at 7.4 Trillion dollars, we have a 500 billion dollar budget deficit, a 500 billion dollar trade deficit, and the one question about the global economy is about the frickin' metric system? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
I would love to see each of them answer...:
What is your biggest weakness. What is your opponent's biggest strength?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
It's always good to ask "why should I vote for you?" and "why do you want the job?"
I don't believe the supposition of this question is true, and if it were true I don't believe there's much that can be done which isn't already being done at the state level.
I'm 23 and I feel the same way, so what's your point?
I would love to see both candidates forget about some of the 'name calling' and just speak the facts, and let them fall where they may (we can make up our own mind based on the facts... and would like that oportunity). (There are times when this is done, but it should be more)
We want to elect a president based on their ideas and opinions of the issues facing our country, not on how well they name call eachother. We already know enough about the candidates character and integrety, now we want to know where they stand on real issues.
Ummm....there's no question here. WTF are they supposed to say besides "I'm opposed to child abuse!" Nix this one.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I agree, it'll be interesting to see the answer. This would be a great question for most job interviews as well.
How do you spell your last name?
How old are you?
What is your favorite color?
I never realized that animals needed subsidized housing.
Stay tuned for new sig...
? #1: Score +5, Interesting
? #2: Score +5, Interesting
? #3: Score +5, Interesting
? #4: Score -1, Troll
? #5: Score +5, Interesting
? #6: Score +5, Interesting
OK, maybe there is some value to breaking the questions down like that, but if ever there was a time that we needed a cap much larger than 5, this posting is it.
(Or perhaps re-post all the +5 questions, with a post that doesn't have the +5 limit.)
We may already be successful. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Top10
this question is redundant to the other question (18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY) about mary jane. the other leads us to answering how to legalize it or why it will never happen. if legal, it would be free to use for medical reasons. if not, then this might be a good question.
I'd put it on the list only if you think the above mentioned question will be dodged or lead to a denial of ever making pot use legal.
I seriously doubt either Rangel or Hollings seriously want there to be a draft for the sake of bringing people involuntarily into the armed forces. The armed forces have even been pretty loud in saying they don't want a draft as non-trained people who don't wanna be there is of no use to the skill-based armed forces of today.
The real reason why they want an all-inclusive draft is nothing makes fence-sitters on a war start to hate it than the possiblity of their family members or themselves being thrown into fight against their will. That's the real point, to force a pull-out of Iraq.
lol.. you are right
Something struck me as odd about the original question, but I couldn't put my finger on it... you did though. simplicity
oh to have the simple world of a child again
If we switched to Metric dollars, the conversion rate would erase the national debt in nothing flat.
The original poster is talking about a radical reform of our electoral system, not nitpicky details of whether we should use this machine or that machine to tally votes.
I'm not saying yours isn't a valid question; but it's going to be asked a thousand times by CNN et al. However, you can bet no one at the debates is going to ask a question about a major overhaul of our democratic system like the parent post. This is the perfect forum to ask these tough questions that wont be covered otherwise... I can honestly say I have zero interest in the Bush-Kerry debates on tv, but I would love to hear their answers to half of these questions that were proposed.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
Just how do you think we're going to get out of our debt if we don't do things to increase economic activity. Can't tax income that doesn't happen...
Converting to SI might help us cut down that 500 billion trade deficit stat you just quoted.
A better way to ask the question:
The U.N. has set a goal to fund global AIDS research at $15 billion by 2005 and $20 billion by 2007. Given how distructive AIDS and HIV is to society, what portion of that tab would each of you recommend paying and why?
Who did what now?
Senator Kerry, we all know that George W. Bush (43) looks just like George H. W. Bush (41) for obvious reasons, but can you explain your own peculiar resemblance to Andrew Jackson ?
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
All parties admit that the reasoning leading to the invasion of Iraq has been a $200 billion dollar mistake.
1000 soldiers have lost their lives. To what extent, if any, have cost-cutting measures been behind these deaths.
Why should corporations and universities overlook crimes [illegal entry/overstay] being actively committed by canditates? Or if they don't, why shouldn't they be punished?
Actually the literacy rates were much higher during the 1700's than todays. If you want some insight into why do a google for John Gatto.
Or if they don't, why shouldn't they be punished?
Should of course be "And if they do . . ."
Because only the cities will matter, campaign in NYC, CHI, LA, DC, BOS, SF, ... and ignore most of the nation..
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Sure, road signs are still English, and you still buy a gallon of milk. Those are cultural things that will stick around forever. They also don't really matter. Everything that matters is now metric.
We've had this (or a variant) before, when Bush told the world that his favourite philospher was Jesus
Cue The Sun...
So originally, it was (at least partially) intended to select a candidate who was popular across the entire Union and supported by the body of Electors who were entrusted with the duty of selecting somebody who they believed would be most qualified.
In today's world, people aren't voting for an Elector whom they trust to select a quality candidate -- they're just voting for a party, since most Electors are pledged to their nominating party (this wasn't anticipated at the time). The result of this strict two-party system and our increasingly national awareness is something much closer to mob rule.
My personal opposition to this bill is the fact that it could be used as a cover for the real reason Bush might want to reinstitute the draft - a dearth of available service members to ship to other countries.
Admittedly, Democrats have pushed the bill from the start - so I am torn in loyalty. I agree with the idea, just not its timing or execution.
by switching to metric dollars...right?
Yup. It was on national television back when Bush was a candidate for the first time.
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
Now decidedly OT:
Yeah, I was very impressed by the Badnarik Slashdot interview - enough to do a lot of reading. While I don't agree with everything in the Libertarian party, I'm impressed enough at his willingness to actually ANSWER A QUESTION, as well as his stance on most issues, that he'll be getting my vote.
It's very frustrating for me now because I'd love to see more people become aware of Badnarik's platform, but that seems unlikely, as he's essentially locked out of the "open" debate.
Your brain is not a computer.
I'm no expert but surely Metric vs. Imperial is not the big issue in US Competiveness. China, India and other Asian countries are not outcompeting the US because of Metric adoption surely?
Now there is the question of Metric adoption at NASA and failed Mars missions which might relate this a bit more to the "real" world. Let's spice it up please Metric fans!
So your argument is......the American public can't be trusted to vote soundly? Why then even have people vote? The electoral college isn't a "buffer" for common sense or anything. It doesn't give people extra time to think about their vote rather than jumping the gun. All it does (in this day and age) is decrease the granularity of the voting power. No electoral college will (realistically) vote against the party which it was selected to vote for. That's a given. The current way it works only disproportionally favors the votes of certain people (people in the "swing states") more than other people (people in the "blue" or "red" states). For example, I live in California, my vote will essentially count for nothing in the larger picture because California will vote Democrat. The minority who voted Republican or Green or whatever is pretty much tossed asside and their votes discarded. The entire voting power of California goes the way of the majority. Someone else, however, who lives in say Florida, will have much more power to his vote than mine. His/her vote will actually statistically affect the outcome. Voting is an individual thing, it follows that the system which counts votes should have the fine granularity to the level of the individual.
As opposed to campaign in Oregon, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and ignore the rest of the country.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
There was never a need for an amendmant, apperantly, to ban alchohol. But what the government has done is ban the sale of MJ and other drugs under the commerce clause of the constitution.
The bigger issue is that the states have also banned most drugs pretty much universaly, which they have the right to do (in fact, they can ban alchohol if they wish)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
President Bush: How do you pronounce "Nuclear"?
Senator Kerry: How do you pronounce "Genghis Khan"?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
How many times have you been arrested? (http://onesimplequestion.blogspot.com/)
1) So, you plan on keeping American jobs in America by buying Canadian drugs? 2) Democrats always say that Bush's foreign policy angers the rest of the world. In 2003, the World Trade Organization forced Bush to reluctantly repeal our steel tariffs. Your campaign argues that you will bring these tariffs back. Won't this make the rest of the world angry?
Canada has an agreement with the United States to not allow draftees to relocate within .ca. I am unsure if there is a similar agreement with Mexico though.
vodka, straight up, thank you!
It's not clear to me why this comment was modded redundant OR flamebait (ad hominem attacks by "orthogonal" notwithstanding).
The judicial usurpation of politics is a serious issue which I haven't really seen addressed in other posts, and is of interest to liberals and conservatives alike.
Given the power of the judiciary lately, and the potential for the upcoming president to select up to 2 Supreme Court justices (which WAS covered in an earlier post), not only the CHOICE of these particular judges, but the presidential candidate's attitude toward this problem is of grave importance to many of us. i.e. it is not merely where candidate's choice of judges stand on current issues, but on their view of the separation of powers in general.
Alright, rather than just "mod", here's my take on all of them:
... there are checks and balances to this system.
1) Electoral Reform - Oh brother. The electoral system is not broken. You should understand that the fact that a minority-vote-getter can become president actually proves that "Majority rules, minority rights" does exist in this country. Besides, electoral voting actually strengthens the individual vote (Miami-Dade county would not even exist if it wasn't for the 2000 vote).
2) Online Voting - my opinion, but I think there's more pressing issues than just the opportunity to vote online (besides, you don't get the obligatory "I voted" sticker).
3) Judiciary Appointment - this process was made to prevent stupid Joes from appointing judges. You can call it corruption, but Bush has had a *ton* of court appointments denied by Congress
4) AIDS - not unique. This question always appears in the debates, and they always have canned answers. "Blah blah, money for research, blah blah, I don't have AIDS, so I don't care, blah blah." Move on.
5) Supreme Court Justices - PICK THIS. Every president wants some "echo" of their power to last throughout the ages, and this dates all the way back to John Adams and the appointment of Federalist John Marshall. Ask this question, and you get a good mirror image of the policies you can expect from candidates themselves.
6) Marijuana vs. Alcohol - Hippie question. Alcohol is part of our culture, like it or abstain from it. No dance with Mary Jane. Move on.
7) Drug Fight - Don't ask -- you'll get another canned answer from the politicans. "DARE this, Community involvement that, but you gotta love the alcohol commercials!"
8) Medical Marijuana - Another canned response "Needs more research - need to make sure there's a way that it doesn't get abused." Not worth the breath, hippie. Go pack your bags and move to Holland.
9) Drug Provision for Financial Aid - Definately the way to Go. My gosh, this is a good question, and one I never thought about before. Poster definately has a point that those who have paid their time still deserve an education.
10 and 11) Draft - They'll all deny it, and everyone knows that. They may plan it, but they'll never admit to it. So don't bother to ask.
12) Focused goal on Alt. Fuels - Worth Asking, especially with the spin on the "10 year mission to the Moon" emphasis. It just goes to prove that things can get done if you really put your mind to it.
13) Child Abuse - Sad to say it, but skip it. What you need to stop this is GrassRoots - neighbor to neighbor, family to family, friend to friend, and teacher to student is the only way to fix abuse. Jail does not deter hate.
14) Animal Rights - Eat more meat. Death to PETA. Next.
15) Sex Ed - Thought Provoking - it's a good domestic question, because teenage pregnancy has always been a problem.
16) Home Schooling - Last I checked, Bush was supporting it with "No Child Left Behind." If he wasn't, he'll just plug it as another alternative to failing schools.
17) USA, the World Bully - Fine ask it, but the same question will be asked in the debates, and the answers will only be the same as what is said in the television commericals.
18) Isreal vs. Palestine - Don't ask, don't tell - it's been the policy for the last 50 years regarding the actions of Isreal. No US leader that I know will change that right now.
19) Integrate Family Values - Of course, the president has always been responsible for raising the children of the US-of-A. Need family values? Find a family that you can value.
20) Metric Conversion in the USA - thanks. I needed a laugh. Metric in the USA? That's hilarious.
21) Civil Marriage for Gay/Lesbian
Why don't we try getting them to talk about what they'll do about the abused, homeless, starving, and neglected people in the US first?
#'s 38 and 39 are essentially the same. They would be better if rolled into one question, as there are some aspects to each not covered in the other.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
you seem to have missed the ILLEGAL part of 'illegal immigrants'
I know it's lame to reply to yourself, but I thought of a potential replacement.
"Consider for a moment your life outside the scope of the presidency. In other words, Senator Kerry should consider this as though he wasn't running for the presidency and had no plans to, and President Bush should consider this as though he were not the president anymore. What is life about? What makes you tick; what is most important?"
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
In several resent speeches, you have complained about what you term "vicious, unfair, partisan" attacks on your character from supporters of President Bush. In light of that, I was wondering what you thought of the many comparisons made by liberals of President Bush to Adolf Hitler. I am not speaking here of the usual Internet kooks and yahoos, but of several national figures such as cartoonist Ted Rall, billionaire currency trader George Soros, and the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. Do you feel these comparisons are valid? If not, do you feel that they are within the realm of "respectable" political opinion? If not, what statements have you or your running mate made to condemn or discourage such statements?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Thousands of people poured over the wording, grammar, and nature of these questions, making them as simple and clear as possible, yet both of you won't ANSWER THEM.
We don't want to hear you talk about unrelated crap that has nothing to do with the questions in front of you, we don't want a rambling missive about the failings of your opponent(s), we don't want a speech riddled with prewritten soundbites. We want answers.
When will we get simple, clear answers?
President Bush and Senator Kerry, today's presidential elections focus heavily on the hot topics or issues which, honestly, tend to give voters a very good picture of how a candidate will move issues in the government. But what the Americans of today see little of is the character of a man who is running for their president. What do you think, if any, is the importance of character of the President of the United States?
Where do you stand on English as the national language?
sort of President Bush,
a ig n/24bible.html
your campaign admitted to "Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible."
Do you want to take this oppurtunity to apologize for your party actions?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/camp
Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 24, 2004
The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.
The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.
A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."
In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.
"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters.
An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?"
"Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."
In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again."
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the mailings an ugly contrast to Mr. Bush's public statements. Although the president has called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he often emphasizes the need for tolerance as well.
"The president takes more or less the high road and his henchman and allies on the right have been let loose to conduct these ugly, divisive smear campaigns," Mr. Foreman said. "It is wedge politics at its worst."
In any event, the Bush campaign appears confident about its religious appeal.
The mailing seeks to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant pastors and political leaders who say they worry that legal rights for same-sex couples could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bible passages criticizing homosexuality.
Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful.
Mr. Parker, of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "I think it is laughable to think that someone could be arrested for reading out loud from the Bible.''
But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech."
Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far."
Hey, at least it raises the bar a little--you have to campaign the whole state. :-)
Program Intellivision!
Take the Maddox approach...Teh Funny
That's right. All your base.
Having trouble finding the actual questions amongst all the replies?
CLICK THIS LINK for the proper Slashdot sorting to find the questions.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Maybe this is "-1, Offtopic", but how do I find out who my Electors are?
And why is it, on the ballot, I only see the names of the candidates (Bush, Kerry, etc) and not the names of the ELECTORS that I'm REALLY voting for?
Thanks.
To the candidates in three parts:
(I) President Clinton was dragged through impeachment charges, rightly, because there was evidence to suggest he lied during a trial. Despite this mess, and your side of the political fence, when a President violates the law, it seems serious enough that it warrants high attention.
In that vein, do you think that: (a) lies by the President to start a war (e.g., purporting the existence of weapons of mass destruction), if done so with the purpose to deceive the public, warrant a charge of high-treason if substantiated, (b) would such a charge warrant the death penalty, and (c) should be an inquest for President Bush for such a charge of high treason? Why or why not?
(II) Alternatively, if a President is grossly negligent in starting a war by relying on faulty intelligence, should he be culpable? Why or why not?
(III) Finally, if the President did not lie about weapons of mass destruction, is there any other option but to deem that President as being anything but grossly negligent when it turns out he chose to rely on intelligence that has borne out to be false by the lack of existence of any weapons of mass destruction, and if so what is that alternative view?
--On a side note, I wonder why no one is bring this up? Seems lies (falsified memos/intelligence) to start a war would be a bit more serious than lying about what intern you screwed (both are bad, but one is significantly worse if its true).
A few quick comments:
1) Good feminists have abortions.
2) This desire NOT to work is the main reason women are rumoured to earn 0.70 on the dollar.
3) We have ~8 billion (with a B) people in the world, I am not encouraging you to have anymore.
4) As a small buisness owner, pass this and I'll think long and hard before hiring a women of child bearing age. Of course, I'll officially turn you down for some other reason. (give me credit for knowing how to play the game.)
I already have a women that takes 1 maternity leave per year for the last 3 years (3 kids). The energy expended in finding her a temp. replacement and reorganizing her duties has me trying to find ways to permently replace her with minimum legal risk.
5) Maybe the US is the "undisputed world leader" (a claim I beat I could dispute) beacuse it doesn't spend money on issues like this.
6) I thought women wanted equality. How is giving the mother time off equal treatment to the men who don't get time off? Oh, I forgot. It is the National Organization of WOMEN, not the National Organization for EQUALITY. Men are just sperm donors with wallets to them. If you rapist, murdering men would just give us your DNA and money and we'll live 10-15 years longer than you.
BTW, if you want equal treatment, men should be able to disown (i.e no child support) a kid during the man amount of time a women has the legal right to unilaterally decide on an abortion.
Of course, I could be wrong. Or maybe I am right, just not politically correct.
To both candidates, what would you do if a large popular majority wanted you to revoke the free speech rights of a mostly unpopular minority?
What about if the popular media wants you to revoke the fair use rights of teens?
Which immediate family member would you send into the midst of the most vicious fighting, and why?
I think Israel has the right idea. Why don't we kill every leader, every member, every supporter of any such militant group or any group that uses terrorism as its tactic.
Groups that use terror as their tactics need to be met with so much furor, so much destruction, and so much death that no other group would dare to follow in their footsteps.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
this question sounds too emotional to be taken seriously. no useful information can be gained by asking the candidates this question.
Nope. You missed the point. Most financial aid is provided/guaranteed by the US governement. Many of our institution are funded by the federal and local governments.
Why is it better to give that money to an illegal immigrant than a US citizen?
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
This is too unfocused and assumes that the candidates already undersand and accept that harm is caused. Bush would no doubt argue that banning gay marriage does not constitute discrimination, (pardon me a moment while I stick my finger down my throat,) and Kerry would argue that marriage is a state issue and none of the federal government's business.
Instead, if you must ask about gay rights in the debate, ask about something specific, like how the candidates would relieve the suffering of American citizens who are in love with a non-citizen of the same gender, yet can't bring that person into the US because the federal government won't recognize marriages of gay couples which take place in Massachusetts.
This is one of the best questions in this forum.
To find out who your electors are, you need to ask the Secretary of State (it's probabably on their webpage).
Each state handles the Electoral College differently. Some states do list the names of the Electors on your ballot.
I believe this is the information you are looking for:
The U. S. Electoral College.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
My guesses: Easily fatigued, less energy, sleeps more then usual. Requirement to get up and move on a regular basis slowing productiveness. Risk of passing out regularly. Regular visits to the hospital due to emergencies small and large which take out a good chunk of time for learning.
Implying the author is brain damaged is not exactly a classy move, especially since (s)he is likely reading this. And it doesn't really relate to the question either.
Crud, I'm replying to a troll, aren't I?
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
You hit the nail on the head here.
Doesn't exist does it? And before you go to tobacco, that does not cause changes in mental function the way weed does.
-I am an elective eunuch.
Recently I had to leave the US after working and studying there for 7 years. This was (to my surprise) due to the fact that I lost my job, and was no longer welcome in the land of the free.
What changes do you plan to implement in this wonderful country that will provide some safety to those law abiding, tax-paying, non-permanent alien residents (a/k/a non-green card, H1B holders, "not marrying so I can stay" foreigners, etc)?
Furthermore, if you were forced to leave America right now, would you think it is fair to leave behind every friendship you have made during the last 7 years (even thought you have never broken any immigration or otherwise law)?
For one of my friends, though, marijuana was a gateway drug. After the first time he got stoned, he said "Wow! They really LIED to me about pot! I wonder what ELSE they lied to me about?" and headed off to try all the other things they'd told him were Bad, many of which he also liked, though a few of them he decided really _were_ bad.
And while we're at it, what message would it send to our kids? We might send the message that when _adults_ are wrong about things, they admit it and change their minds, or we might send the message that when adults are wrong, we tell kids that they have to do what we say Because We Said It and we'll make up whatever bogus lies will scare them into believing us, just like we do about so many other things.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
There has never been an leader in the history of the world who has not screwed up. Such perfection is impossible. Therefore, this is only an opportunity for the challenger to score points at the expense of the incumbent, regardless of who they are or what positions they take.
Besides, this question will only be dodged anyway. What do you do when you interview for a job and the guy asks, "What would you say is your greatest weakness?" Do you answer truthfully, and say "You know, sometimes I just get so drunk I can't get out of bed in the morning!" or do you make up a bullshit answer like "Gosh, it's embarassing, but I just get so wrapped up in my projects that I just work too hard!"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
That's just a Larry King softball. They're both going to answer something smarmy about family, God, and freedom.
Or perhaps hot girl-on-girl action.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I'm 26 and last year I made $26,000. I recieved a $300 check from the US government, in addition to a $500 refund.
The year before I owed $125.
My filing status didn't change.. and I used the same tax software (and haven't gotten audited.. hehe)
So what's with this tax cut for the wealthiest 1% bullshit people keep spewing?
No, he understands that he used to pay an income tax rate that was about 9% higher than he is now, and all the chest-pounding idiocy of "top 1% tax cuts" doesn't change the fact that he's paying less than before.
Unless he's poor. Then he's paying 16% less.
But how dare Bush extend the cuts to the rich too. Because of that, he should obviously vote for the guy that wants to take that 9% away. THAT'LL LEARN 'EM!!
- Just because the drug policies turn lots of users into criminals,
- and make users spend lots of money for inherently cheap products, ruining the economic lives of many and leading some into crime, especially blacks and Mexicans who can't afford to buy expensive dope on their wages,
- and create strong profit incentives for people to go into the drug business,
- and teach kids that drug dealing and joining gangs can make them rich and that going to jail is normal,
- and require far more police to fight them, and more prisons to put users and sellers in,
- and a much bigger government to hire all the police and prison guards,
- and require armies to go attack countries in Latin America which grow drugs,
- and armies to attack terrorists and resistance armies who are funded by drug profits,
- and much bigger government to hire all the armies,
- and creates huge corruption in drug-producing countries and drug consuming cities' police forces,
- and lets politicians claim that they need ever-increasing power to stop all these problems,
doesn't mean that Prohibition is a Failure! It just depends on what you want for society.... Think of it as Evolution in Action.Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Not last time I checked. In fact, the Catholic church came very close to refusing to allow him to attend mass because he isn't rabidly pro-life.
Funny how the catholic church wants to be very much in control of the state. Oh well. At least it's now the second largest non-profit org in the world(1st is harvard, oh boy).
Please help metamoderate.
I would love to hear what they answer to "What did the people of the United States ever do to you that they deserve to be treated in the way they have over the last 4 years?"
Granted that would be directed at Bush, but one could ask Kerry something along the same lines, "What are you going to do to prove you don't despise the people who vote you into power?"
flinging poop since 1969
Whoops, I forgot to preview :(
The word "Nonsense" was supposed to be a link to this debt graph for evidence.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Sounds a bit childish and I think the candidates could easily find something good to say about each other. They don't because they're trying to differentiate themselves, not show what a great guy their candidate is.
;-)
Not to mention the "when" in that question really should be "if".
How about this instead?
"I am getting very frustrated and disappointed by the continued use of negative advertising in political advertising campaigns. I also feel that a campaign ad cannot truly explain a candidate's position on social security, health care, the environment, or terrorism in the course of 30-60 seconds. Yet this is probably the form of advertising that reaches the most voters. How effective do you think media advertising is in conveying your message, and what if anything do you think needs to be reformed about political advertising campaigns?"
A second question, either for the candidates or for anyone here who may know the answer: "Also, is there any independent source where I can find comparisons of your various stances on issues to objectively weigh the differences from an objective viewpoint?"
This question will never make it to the President, but I'd like to know how he responds to the arguments against the Iraq invasion presented by Brent Scowcroft in 2002 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h tml?id=110002133)
p )
He also said "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?" he asked. "We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. We don't gain the size of our victory by how many innocent kids running away -- even though they're bad guys -- that we can slaughter. ... We're American soldiers; we don't do business that way." (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/a19990303bus h.htm)
e ney.htm)in which he said that "I think the proposition of going to Baghdad is fallacious," that invading would get the U.S. "bogged down in a quagmire," and that "Saddam Hussein's offensive military capability, his capacity to threaten his neighbors, has been virtually eliminated."
Or George Bush Senior's statement in 1998 that invading Iraq would have "incalculable human and political costs" (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.as
Or Dick Cheney's assessment in 1991 (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/ch
I want to know how the President (or anyone else, really) can reconcile the 2003 invasion of Iraq with these pronouncements. Obviously the situation has changed over the years, but it clearly has not changed enough to prevent the situation that Cheney described.
Eh?
And unless every citizen gets to vote on every bill its not a true democracy.
A citizens vote in Montana is worth 2.5 times the vote of a citizen in California. That is anti-democratic.
and Alan greenspan is apointed, and 5 year olds cant vote *thats* undemocratic. Guess what we are not and were never to be a democracy, we are a republic. The president is the head of the states, not the head of the government. The law makers (Montana has 1 in the hose for 786K, and CA has 53 in the house 1 for every 650K.
Yes if you want to totally scrap the constitution and start over feel free but without the constitution there is nothing that compells any state to rejoin the union.
Better yet, why is marijuana illegal at all? If people have the right to drink alcohol. Alcohol, gets you drunk, which impairs your motor skills, decision making skills, and has other various effects on various people. (Sad drunks, happy drunks, angry drunks, i-love-you-man drunks, etc.) So why is the consumption of marijuana also illegal when it has many of the same effects (if not better, such as relaxing and medically beneficial)? Either criminalize alcohol, or legalize marijuana.
Only the democrates are putting bills out on the issue and it's going nowhere. Any time I see anyone mention the draft it just screams ignorant scare tactic. I'd really like to know what the dems are smoking that they can even pretend to threaten people with this issue. Only the democrates are claiming Bush is planning to initiate a draft and yet only the democrates have crafted bills to initiate it which the republicans aren't giving the time of day to.
After Vietnam the country came to it's senses and realized that you can't force somebody to fight for their country. That was a "small part" of how we became a country in the first place. You have a right to not have to put your neck on the line for your country if you don't believe a cause is worth fighting.
It's called a "conscientious objector" back when there was a draft. Not everyone who got out of the draft fled the country. Many "COed" their way out of the war. Even if there were a draft (which there won't because it's been found wrong on so many levels) you can object to the war and go home.
It really is a shame that the dems have stooped to this scare tactic to try to get people to stop supporting the war on Iraq.
Not everybody who supports any war, fights in it. And there's nothing wrong with that no matter how many liberals scream otherwise. It's idiotic to assume that you can't support anything dangerous if you don't put your neck on the line yourself. If someone wants to put their neck on the line for a cause (even dangerous sports) then they need supporters of all types. Even those who are sitting in safety. It's good to know there are people who can't do what you do, who appreciate what you do for them.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
This is a terrible question. Let PETA worry about the safety and well being of lesser creatures like the mouse running around in my house.
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
How about this: why, in the communication age, do we still have what basically amounts to a fuedal system of government? Does there really need to be a distinction between state and federal legislation anymore? It may have made sense 100 years ago, but modern technology seems to have seen to it that the logistics of long-distance rulership are now mostly trivial.
no its not. asking the candidates whether or not they support a complete rewriting of the constitution is not a good question.
GREAT post!
The reason no one brings this up is because there were no lies told by President Bush. If you disagree, please cite, with sources a single lie told by President Bush. Please note that in order for something to be a lie it must be an untruth deliberatly told, not something believed at the time that later turned out to be false.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
According to Bush#1's Office of National Drug Control Policy strategy report, if cocaine and heroin were legal, you could be a cokehead for less than the price of a pack a day of cigarettes or a pint of cheap booze, and a junkie for under $1/day. So all this crime and violence associated with Drug Prohibition are because there's some compelling moral difference between being a junkie and being a drunkard, so important that we should criminalize users and let sellers attack each other on the streets with illegal assault weapons and let terrorists fund their organizations with opium-growing profits.
But it's going to take a lot of social change before America relaxes enough to legalize cocaine and heroin - think about Marijuana legalization first. Sure, the first month it's legal a lot of us are going to go on a few weekend benders and get it out of our systems (:-), just like the first few weekends after The Noble Experiment of alcohol Prohibition was repealed. And too many stoned drivers will get in car accidents for a while, but mostly people will stay home and order pizza. And the first six months or a year's worth of demand will mostly be satisfied by former criminals who were professionally growing it, until the tobacco farmers take over and people start growing their own in their back yards. (Marijuana's already the largest agricultural cash crop in the tobacco-growing states, as well as in the West Coast lumber-growing regions, but that's mainly because the street price is as expensive per ounce as gold rather than as cheap per pound as tomatoes.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It would send the same message to kids as they are getting now. Some drugs are okay, others are not okay. If we move pot from the list of bad drugs to good drugs, it isn't going to make much of a difference. The problem is that kids shouldn't be taught that some drugs are good and others are bad, they should be taugh that some substances are dangerous, others are not, and others we just plain don't know. (Yes yes, in reality all substances have some degree of danger, but smoking weed isn't really as bad for you as doing lines of cocaine.) Kids should be taught stuff on what we know to be dangerous, and therefore why it is illegal, rather than just trying to force feed them what is good and what is bad.
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
You know, I'm really sick and tired of hearing this from conservatives. As if liberals are incapable of taking control of their own lives or have nothing better to do than to sit around and talk shit about the government and corporations.
I would like to hold my elected officials accountable for what I perceive as their failings. I'd like to do the same for our corporate executives too, like those involved in the Enron scandle. Have I got better things to do? Probably, but damnit, I just happen to give a crap!
When John Kerry is president next year, and he raises your taxes*, something tells me you won't be singing this tune of "taking control of your own life rather than blaming the government", but rather screaming bloody murder when you don't get your $300 check in the mail.
*John Kerry will probably not raise your taxes.
Wild Eeep!
Perhaps what you're trying to say is that the States as political units are obsolete. I disagree: small political units are the essence of self-determination. Large, monolithic governments cannot make allowances for local conditions or the local will of the people; this was part of the reason for the failure of the Soviet Union. In any event, this would be a draconian change to our system necessitating a virtual rewrite of the Consitution. I doubt you'll find much support for such an undertaking.
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the electoral college was put into place because a direct popular vote would have been impractical. That had nothing to do with it at all. See my reply to an earlier post in this thread for a link to the Federalist Paper discussing Presidential elections.
And the brethren went away edified.
No electoral college will (realistically) vote against the party which it was selected to vote for.
Each state has its own set of regulations governing the composition and behavior of the electoral college. I *believe* the majority of the states mandate that the electoral college all cast their votes the way the state voted. (I'm too lazy to look up the exact numbers. You have google, too.)
Colorado is currently considering a referendum to be voted on November 2nd which will distribute their 9 electoral college votes proportionally to their popular vote. I *believe* they will be the first state to distribute their votes to more than one Presidential candidate.
In any case, this is a very complex issue, which may or may not have a reasonable solution. My opinion is overly-simple: the two-party system allows two essentially identical candidates to dominate the process, disallowing potentially more reasonable candidates from consideration. Until we come up with an alternative to the two-party system, the issue of how to determine a winner is moot.
But, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The Constitution might arguably let the Feds regulate the Interstate Commerce aspects of drug policy, but local policy-making is something that Republican core doctrine says ought to take priority over Federal policy.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I'm a Washington D.C. resident, you insensitive clod!
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
You are BOTH distantly related to British Royalty.
You BOTH from a secret sociaty (skull and bones) founded on drug money, taking in only 15 candidates every year which puts its tie to the brotherhood above 'anything else'.
Is this blinding bind not a threat to national security?
Well, the concept of distribution and delegation of power that permeated the feudal system I believe still exists in the US government. As you pointed out, "Large, monolithic governments cannot make allowances for local conditions or the local will of the people". Is that really much different than a system whereby a knight oversees a specific portion of land and chooses for himself in which way he would like to enforce the law of his king - whether he should decide to bend the rules and show mercy to his servants or strictly obey the laws under which he is commissioned? The two systems, IMO, seem strikingly similar.
However, I do see your point. If the federal government were to try to provide legislation for every circumstance in every location across the country, our laws would be even more of a tangled mess than they are now.
If it wasn't already "excellent," Roblimo's karma is going to be through the roof after this.
my pet machine
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the electoral college was put into place because a direct popular vote would have been impractical. That had nothing to do with it at all
Funny, because that's exactly what the Federalist Papers are all about. The majority of the text is spent discussing the trustworthiness of the electors, and how they will be chosen to represent neither their personal interests, nor those of a monied club or foreign empire.
Since your claims about the contents of that document are so at-odds against the actual text you linked to, prehaps you'd care to paste in a few of the bits that shore up your position?
(And just to make it more of a challenge, you're not allowed to choose sentences beginning with the word "Talents". I've already read that one line, and it's insufficient)
The United States is a Fereral Republic, that's what allowed our country to become great so quickly. States controlled their own destiny except for a few Federal questions, and if someone was unhappy with the law in their state, they could easily move to another. The Federal government has taken too much power under the auspices of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and now people expect the Federal Government to solve their problems. The whole point of this systems was your STATE representatives were elected to represent you directly. The Federal government was merely there for common defense and arbitration of disputes, setting a common baseline for all of the states. The closer to the people the representatives are (ie. your state vice federal legislators), the more accurately they will represent you!
Regarding your sig: "it's = 'it is'; its = possessive. E.g. it's flapping its wings"
:-) Maybe a period at the end too, since you stuck one after possessive.
There should be a comma after "E.g." I mean, while were going grammar police, might as well go all the way
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
why is it that medical marijuana is still illegal by federal standards and not the decision of the states or the individuals it affects?
Interstate commerce for one.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Some of the drafters of the Constitution worried that the populace would just vote for whoever was popular in their state
Irrelevant. The question was about "mob rule", but your answer was about "sectionalism".
Lets ask them unloaded questions, questions that do not force any issues whatsoever.
Jeeeez.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If the FCC charged for spectrum, they could allow the broadcasters to file losses for all campaign advertising.
Then only allow the largest claim to be the amount of the party they lost least times the number of parties advertised on that station. If you advertise one party less, you can't claim the ammount you advertised the other parties as a loss.
That should effectively encourage equal advertising of the parties. And the stations will be glad it is an election year because they can claim more losses!
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
"I George Bush do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ..."
Oh, and deliberately is spelled with deliberation.
I have a novel idea. Reduce the pandering to the electoral college AND the voters, simply by randomizing how the election will be decided. I.E., Popular vote one year, electoral vote the next.. electoral vote the next.. no one knows BEFOREHAND.
Does anyone not see the utter brilliance in this idea?
Oh, yeah. Spend like it's free. Republicans.
Medicare? Sure, only $400 billion (oh it passed? yeah, actually it's closer to 550 billion). Iraq, $200 bil, so far. How about another 400 bil (no no no, it's on its way down) in federal and 600 bil per year in the trade deficit (Please, China, let our currency fall!). Those are the dirty little secrets of conservative leaders...
The question you have to ask yourself is "Am I getting my share of the profits?" If it's just a $500 refund check, then your children would like to kill you.
That's 1 electoral vote per every 262,000 people.
Those numbers are correct, but they don't tell the whole story. You're focusing on the ratio between population and electoral votes (which helps small states), but there's another important factor: winner-take-all allocation of those electoral votes.
WTA creates unfairness too, but it helps larger states. The math on it is harder to work through, but think about probabilities. The power of one person's vote is equal to the chance her single vote will tip the balance in that state, multiplied by the number of votes that state has. George Bush has a low chance of winning CA, but he still campaigns there, because if he were to somehow make it over the top, the Kerry campaign would be DEAD. There's no way they could come back from that 70-point hit.
All things considered, California votes have the most power, and Nevada the least, with Montana and Kansas down in the bottom 20%. That math is from Electoral College Primer 2000, although I'm copying the data from a Microsoft article.
When I first saw this topic it really got my brain reeling about the possibilities.
Then I came back down to earth.
As much as I have hundreds of questions I could pose to each of the candidates, I know that ultimately any real tough or direct question would never be answered from them in any straightforward manner.
So what's the point?
Ask yourself, what could either of these men tell you that would really change your mind about them? What brilliant revelation will come from their lips that will suddenly make you understand? We've delved into their history to the nth degree. If you can't tell what kind of people they are from their past and their present, and knowing that in person you're going to get "politician-speak", what's the point?
98% of the questions posed here would never pass muster to be asked to either of the candidates in a substantive public forum, and ironically, all of us know what the answers would be. Bush would respond with a shallow, thoughtless one-to-three word quip and then look at you like you slept with his wife while signalling the SS to remove you, and Kerry would blather all around the subject and twist it around to the talking points he rehearsed earlier in the day.
No wonder people don't vote. No wonder we don't have truly great people in office any more. Who wants to put up with it?
Aside from that, you bet your ass I'll be voting this year, as I do every year. The people this election is really about are not the people running, but everybody else in the country. You don't need to know diddly about Bush or Kerry. Look at your world and ask yourself if in the last four years you like the way things have been going. If you feel safer, more secure, live more comfortably, have more money and job security and better healthcare, then vote for GW Bush. If you aren't happy with the way things are going, one things for sure, keeping the same guy in office won't improve things and considering how the last election went, you can't afford to vote idealistically for a candidate who has no chance of winning. So it comes down to Bush or Kerry, and you must vote Kerry if you don't like the status quo. What either of them do or say at this point is moot to me. I'd vote for a bagel over Bush just to see if it could run the country better, and even in that case I'd be more hopeful and optimistic than I am now.
Sad but true unfortunately.
By Margaret Thatcher of course.
And so where the Israleis fighting for their own state.
And so on and so forth.
Be careful, your terrorists, freedom fighters, etc.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The states, not the people, choose the President.
The United States of America is technically a government of, for, and by the States. It's a government of the people insamuch as the People live, work, and vote in the States.
This is something that is glossed over in most history classes, so most of you never have been exposed to the idea. Back in the day, the idea of any kind of overarching government was an anathema to both the People and the States. However, it was recognized that some things (international relations, interstate commerce, war & peace, etc) were handled more effectively by a government representing the states, and that could mediate between the states.
It was also recognized that the Continental Congress was broken, as it couldn't pay off all those Revolutionary War soldiers who were, in some instances, taking over state houses and threatening Congress with death, etc.
So, well, that's the genesis of the American government. It was put together by a surprisingly talented bunch of men, with a distinct perspective on the world and the behavior of mankind. So far, their system has mostly worked.
The reason the electors are good is because they act as a failsafe. I think that most electors are bound by law to vote the way the state votes. However, just because the law says something doesn't mean you have to follow it. If a majority of the electors felt that someone would be a Bad Choice, they could bolt...or abstain...or something.
That's the last check. It's unclear what would happen in that case, but you never know. Rogue electors might be legal enough to throw the election to the House. Who knows?
The day you suffer what the Palestinians endure I would like to hear what people like you think about their enemy and the tactics you would be willing to use.
Very easy to criticize others from the vantage point of our own cosiness.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If the federal government were to try to provide legislation for every circumstance in every location across the country
You sure about that? Do you really think that having one single law against wiretapping (for example) would be more messy than 53 separate laws*, with different penalties and even different definitions of what a "wiretap" is? And remember, some states might not even outlaw it at all. (Then multiply the complexity to 52*52 if you're wiretapping an inter-state message...)
There's also a question of fairness. There's nothing magical about state boundaries that says it's OK to possess recreational fireworks on one side, and reckless endangerment to innocent lives on the other. Given that some laws shouldn't be universally applicable, it'd still be possible to turn them on and off without relying on state boundaries. We do it with speed limits...
* Yes, I said 53, not 50. There's also DC, Puerto Rico, Indian Reservations, and other places outside state jurisdiction that still need laws.
Someone who has made no mistakes is someone who hasn't done much of anything. /should be a proverb, or something
And at least they understand why this is important.
Chauvinistic countries (and people) clearly don't.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And unless every citizen gets to vote on every bill its not a true democracy.
Why do these people continue to argue against the dictionary? I can understand disagreeing with a word of recent coinage, like "piracy", "decimate" or "disconnect", but the definition of "democracy" has been set in stone for 1200 years. If you don't like it, get another word.
Fun fact: Even IF every citizen gets to vote on every bill, it STILL might not be a democracy! Consider France in 1721... there was one citizen, and he voted on each bill.
The Marijuana Policy Project Voters Guide
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
Take a look yourself on the graphs in Brian Olsons essay named Simulation Of Various Voting Models for Close Elections
And there is more info here
Chatolics are Christians, actually they are the biggest Christian denomination in the world (and the only one that can track its leadership back to Saint Peter himself).
If you don't like them, fine, that is your prerrogative, but sprouting nonsense will not make a patent lie become a truth.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... the law of offer and suply is a bitch.
What an stupid question.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
This is the question I asked (you can see here - and please read my initial version of the question for my full intentions), so I figured I'd do a little explaining of why I asked.
I know about the money Bush gave to this in his last State of the Union address. I did not know about Kerry's specific plan. But that's not the point. I made the connection to the space race in the 60s for a reason.
In the 60s, a lot of money and political power was put into the space race so that we could definitely win. It was an incredible challenge and an equally incredible victory. The point is that the use of alternative fuels is also an incredible challenge (if not more so), and it will require an equally incredible movement. I don't think either of the two plans they've given are up to the task. It's as if they aren't really trying to solve the problem, and more like they're just trying to do *something* to say they've addressed it. Maybe I'm wrong. That's why I've asked the question.
I'm wondering if Bush/Kerry can explain why a large movement hasn't been made to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I think their answers to the second half of the question are the more telling in this regard.
==
I don't know exactly what that means, but I'm sure it means something....
There's no Constitutional requirement I know of that the states have to have a plebiscite to appoint their Electors; the Constitution just says the Electors will be appointed in such manner as the state legislature directs.
Simply appointing a body of electors would be a hard sell to the state's population, but it's not contrary to the Constitution and for that matter it's a step the Florida legislature contemplated in 2000.
All's true that is mistrusted
The kind of Imperialism in the 20 and 21st century will not resemble the one of the 18th and 19th centuries.
The US is not interested in getting more colonies, that process stopped in the XIXth century with the forceful annexation of half of Mexico. ALthough the US tried its go as a colonialist power in the Phillipines, it probed so expensive and bloody that cured US colonial adventurism, hopefully for good.
But todays colonialism is different: countries vie for spheres of influence and that is why only big countries will have any and why small countries ally themsleves to bigger ones (EU, ASEAN).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Actually the literacy rates were much higher during the 1700's than todays. If you want some insight into why do a
That's a total lie. The literacy rate in 1700 was less than 1/40th of what it is today. Even in the USA, literacy has increased by more than 5x in the past 300 years.
Maybe you're confused, and meant 1800 instead of 1700. North America experienced a huge literacy growth across that time.
google for John Gatto
Fortunately for him, Gatto is too smart to talk about literacy back before 1850. Note that many historical literacty statistics you find will often be biased to sample men only. And do you think they included the 12% slave population in those figures? Doubtful!
as the President, your actions will decide the price of the food I buy at the store, what treatments I might be able to recieve in hospital, our relationship with neighbouring countries and ultimately whether I (or my children) will need to be drafted.
By the way, I'm British. I can't vote for you and have never even been to the US, so my question is this: why should I try to persuade my American friends to vote for you.
The electoral college would prevent this sort of thing from deciding the election.
No, it couldn't prevent it at all. Suppose that the faked anti-Bush memo on CBS hadn't happened until the week of the election, and suppose that they actually dug up an old typewriter to fake it on, so it took more than 20 minutes to discover the forgery.
If that contributed to Kerry winning the election, do you actually think that any of his electors will say to himself "Well, I'm a lifelong Democrat, and the people of Florida selected me to pick the President. But- they might have been unfairly influenced by that fake scandal. I suppose I'll go and vote for Bush, just to keep things fair"
you have to campaign the whole state
No you don't.... you can still just campaign the cities. Just this way it's Portland and Orlando instead of Frisco and Manhattan.
Your parochialism is so immense that is not funny.
Most of the world uses km/hr and let me tell you something, it does not hurt, and nobody cares. But it is much simpler to do arithmetic with hose units. I will not probe this since it is widely documented.
Poor people in the metric world! We don't have pints! The horror. Guess what buddy, there are bottles of 250 ml, 500ml, 1l, 1.5l, 2 l and 3 l.
Germans seem to be pretty happy drinkers and I don't see them crying for the lack of pints to measure their beer. Of course you could drink beer in 500ml (or half litre if you really are that hung up on English system terminology) glasses and I assure you the 30ml or so difference would be completely unnoticeable, specially after the 3rd or 4th glass.
I think. being reasonably intteligent individuals, we should use the easiest system to stop wasting our time in pointless conversations to a system that lacks any logic whatsoever.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
AC: Why is "Democracy" considered such an ideal.
If only there was a question mark on the end, that'd be an excellent question- especially for George Bush.
Why does he consider democracy so important that 100s of Americans and 1000s of Iraqis should die to bring it to the Middle East?
- doesn't it vex you that the US is among developing countries on issues like human rights, poverty and crime?
- what's so unchristian about well organized health-care (note this is not the same as nationalized health care, none of the candidates want that, although you've got to admit countries like Sweden do very well indeed with it)
- isn't it strange that the US is the only western country that doesn't want to admit to the term 'cultural violence'?
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Why is there no question about this? Specifically, I'd like to hear what the canidates have to say about the Fair Tax proposal http://www.fairtax.org/.
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. [murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
These questions lack the sort of rigor I expect from Slashdot. I suspect more than a few people didn't actually email them. Here are some questions that need to be asked of the candidates:
- Deficit
The U.S. deficit stands at a record $477 billion. How would your Administration curb the deficit? Is there any way to cut spending without hurting homeland security, the Iraq situation, education or social security?
- Intellectual property
What is your policy on the INDUCE Act and extensions to copyright law? What is your attitude toward the preservation of Fair Use provisions in copyright law? How much power should organizations like the RIAA and MPAA be given to enforce copyright?
- Iraq situation
President Bush, how do you justify the war in Iraq knowing that before the war Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD and had no ties to al-Qaeda, and that parts of Iraq are now under the control of terrorists? How can you claim to be fighting a relentless war on terrorism when you have designated areas of Iraq as no-go zones for U.S. troops? To both candidates: in light of the CIA's recent predictions, what is your plan to avert a civil war in Iraq or defeat the insurgency? How do you plan to fight the insurgency without offending Iraqis and contributing to the cycle of violence?
- War on terror
Do you foresee an end to the war on terror? Will legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act and other suspensions of civil rights continue indefinitely?
- War on terror
Over $200 billion has been spent in Iraq and airline security has undergone tightening while port security and chemical plant security remain in large part unimproved since 9/11. What are your plans regarding this? How would your Administration protect the homeland?
- Religion
What is the role of religion in decision-making in the presidency?
- Electronic voting
(by 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?
- Kyoto by 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?
Caffeine is not addictive.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And you don't get to tell people what they can and cannot say. That's a very childish attitude.
And the brethren went away edified.
I like this sort of brazan challenge to common sense. How do we know that the world is round?
... freedom itself is under attack. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. ... This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. ... Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us."
Well:
It would take me all night to list all Bush's lies, but here's a few. The falsehoods told by George Bush (and most other politicians) can fall into five categories: Self-contradictions, falsehoods stated while ignorant or with a plausible after-the-fact claim to ignorance, statements that are only technically or half-true, lies by implication, and outright lies.
Some outright lies:
The single worst lie Bush has told, I think, is that the terrorists attacked us "because they hate our freedom," and that "America has been called to defend its freedom." That isn't true (defend it from what? Radical Muslims cannot take away an American's freedom; the government can), and it's clear that he said it mainly because if you can invoke the word "freedom," you've got a pretty good soundbite. If you can get Americans united in what they believe is the cause of freedom, you can get most of us to blindly play 'follow the leader' even to the point that we will eschew freedoms and the right to privacy in the name of freedom.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20 020409-8.html
"They ["the people we're dealing with"] hate our freedoms."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20 020328.html "They ["an enemy that are nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers"] hate what America stands for. They hate our religious tolerance. They hate our freedom of speech. They hate freedom of the press. They despise freedom. They despise freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html
" On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country.
In fact, the Al Qaeda group attacked us because it is a group of Islamic extremists that believes that the force of what they call "jahiliyya" (infidelity), represented by the West and epitomized by America, is on a crusade against Islam. Usama Bin Ladin turned his focus from the Soviet Union to the United States when he became aware that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the Muslim holy lands. He came to see the United States as "the head of the snake," ultimately responsible for all the regional conflicts in the Middle East, citing America's apparent support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the growing global effect of American culture, and other influences. In 1998, Bin Ladin issued a fatwa declaring it the duty of what he believed to be "real Muslims" to kill Americans.
They don't give a shit about freedom. There was no terrorist group sitting around in a cave at one point that suddenly decided, "Hey, you know? America is way too free. Let's go hijack some airplanes and let's show 'em." Freedom doesn't enter into it. What they hate is what they percieve as our "imperialism" and what they call our "crusade against Islam." It's quite irrational, but that is the al Qaeda assessment of the world. If there is a madman on the loose, you should at least want to know what has driven him mad so that
Eh?
Ach, "brazen," that should say. Whoops.
Eh?
The CSA wasn't given enough time to prove whether it was a viable solution.
because it got invaded soon after it's inception.
Who run Barter Town?
Everyone keeps mentioning how surprised the candidates will be by these questions. I don't think so. They've both heard of the Internet. (Okay, maybe Bush hasn't..) Regardless, I'm sure they have people in their campaigns to dig this stuff up and make sure they're prepared for it.
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
Part of the point is that correlation is weak, and most likely has very little to do with the drug and a lot to do with the circumstance (i.e. the vast majority of people who try smoking cigarettes don't go on to do coke; a somewhat larger number of marijuana users go on to coke because marijuana is illegal and that illegality causes the 'gateway effect', not any inherent property of marijuana)
Basically, the problem is that causality of pot leading to harder drugs has not been proven to be causally linked to *the drug*; it can only be linked to drug+circumstances. Many people (I count myself here) believe that if the drug was unlinked from the circumstance; if smoking pot no longer required dealing with sketch-ass dealers and was no longer demonized, there would be little to no gateway effect present.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
The one thing I want to know is how did Roblimo post so many questions without getting bogged down by a whole ton of "Slow down, cowboy..." messages? I think this question, more than any, is vital to the nation.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Would that the unwitting slavery of the "free world" due to corrupt money systems were a more salient topic for presidential debate than slugs and kilograms, and yards and meters! And for an added bonus, a corollary topic to the hoped-for topic of debate would be our infamous and balooning national debt.
I can't believe you guys are so naive... can't you see Roblimo is after free karma?
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
The electors are appointed by the political parties to vote for the candidate whose name appears on the ballot. In some states they're legally bound to vote for that candidate, but in others they're not. (Some Southern Democrats refused to vote for a Roman Catholic in the 1960 election and cast their ballots for a different Democrat. Imagine if enough of them had done this to throw the election to Nixon.) You don't know who they are because, in a very real sense, who they are makes no difference at all. Nothing is done as the system was envisioned to work.
And the brethren went away edified.
I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.
Mm, and I meant to link this, too. http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/8/20/213846/709
There's plenty to choose from.
Eh?
"Mr Kerry, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"
Sheesh. These questions are so stacked that no one will ever take this community seriously.
n/t
# Please try to keep posts on topic.
# Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
# Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
# Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Seriously, tort reform is a pipe dream like privatizing Social Security.
I see it as a non-issue because I won't see change in my lifetime.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Look at the names of cities in California - Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose. What makes you think they were setup by english/german immigrants? Your family are most likely newbies to the area.
This is completely off-topic.
You know, I was having a discussion with my lover the other day because she had gone off the pill for a bit, and we (out of habit) had had unprotected sex a few times. Not a big deal, she didn't get pregnant (although it was dangerous), but I said something like, "You know, you really should get back on the pill, or we should start using condoms or something, because if you got pregnant you'd probably have to go all the way down to Hong Kong to get a safe abortion." (We live in Shanghai).
Anyway, she said something then that scared me a lot, as a man. She said, "I don't know if I'd want to have an abortion." And I just about exploded. Essentially, the thesis of my argument was, "You can't make that decision for the both of us." Her retort, then, was "Don't you think you should at least consider my opinion?"
And my answer to that was no, that I shouldn't have to. In normal circumstances when two people have a difference of opinion on a decision to be made, I would be rooting for the consensus approach -- but in this case, I felt that we were dealing with a decision that had two very different outcomes. One possibility, abortion, had very little effect on our lives. Sure, we'd both be filled with "what ifs" and she'd probably feel sick and depressed for a while, which is lamentable, but contrasted against the outcome of not having an abortion, it just seemed rather minor. I felt that no one (man or woman) should have the ability to unilaterally make a decision that would affect someone else's life for at least 20 years and probably forever.
Anyway, the reason I'm bringing this up is because it seems like a classic case of men's interests versus women's. In classic women's lib, we've often talked about how men in the old days (and in many places still today) have "hijacked" women's bodies for the purpose of bearing children. This is mostly universally decried. Now that women have the power to choose of their own accord whether they want a child or not, there seems to be the possibility of a woman forcing a man to be a father when he doesn't want or isn't ready to be (along with all the responsibilities, financial and otherwise, that that implies).
I really had a very emotional reaction to all this, I must admit. Thinking about it now, from a more distant perspective, I wonder if this not-at-all uncommon response from men on this issue is actually a result of experiencing, for the first time, what it is like to not be in power. I mean, we control most everything else, but one of the great successes of feminism in the western world is giving control of women's bodies back to women, which is logical, after all.
But a side effect of power is that for everyone who has it, someone doesn't. I made my argument to her and she accepted it, but in the pit of my stomach I knew that if the time came and she decided an abortion wasn't for her, there was nothing I could do about it except run out on her and my child, and I could never in good conscience do that.
In the past, men have held all the cards, and women I suppose have simply had to put up with this uncomfortable feeling of having life-altering decisions made for them. But women's bodies have always held extreme appeal to men, and because we covet them, they have always been a source of power. So we've done all we can to strip this power from women, or convince them they don't have it. I'm thinking, in particular, of social attitudes to female infidelity. Throughout history, men having multiple lovers has always been accepted -- even in the Bible we have virile King Solomon and his harem of women. The opposite, however, has never really been true in our society (have you read the Scarlet Letter?). I was thinking that this is probably because a woman always knows her child is hers, but a man can never be sure. Because, in a patriarchal society, inheritance of land and titles has always passed from father to son, it has been absolutely necessary that we ensure our bl
and stands to benefit from tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%
Heck, why not make taxes 100%? After all, 44% of American households don't pay federal income tax, so it's not costing those people anything at all. They can just vote the actual taxpayers' money away 'til the cows come home.
The fact is, taxes on "the rich" (usually just normal people at their peak income-producing years) need to be somewhere between 0 and 100%. People differ on what that number should be, so it seems obvious to me that the number may be lowered, and if it is lowered, it's not automatically bad. Remember that it's a tax break, not a gift from the government (a critical distinction: a tax break encourages investment, a gift just buys votes).
So, if you make a credible argument that the taxes on "the richest 1%" are too low now, and that those taxes should be raised, I will respect that. But I will not automatically assume that a tax break is bad.
You make some good points about the reps though. In about 10 years I figure pot will be legal here in the U.S. in some form. It just can't be contained. Too many people do it.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Most people that graduate from inner city schools still can't get into high school
That should read "university". Sorry.
I think you're missing the point of my story. No birth control method is perfect anyway; even if we'd been using condoms or she'd been on the pill, there remains the possibility of conception. My answer to unwanted conception is abortion.
Now, I will agree that contraceptives are a superior solution. But I think of them as a superior solution because they are less possibly harmful to the woman, less costly, and less psychologically disturbing, not because I want to avoid killing babies.
Just wanted to note that, you know, in case you wanted to get more offended. I don't jive with the whole pro-life stance thing and if your little retort is seeding for that sort of debate, this is the last response you're going to get from me on the subject.
"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
obviousally that does not work. look at the last 3 presidents.
none of them, both the Bushes and Clinton (and in my eyes it goes back to Nixon) had the righty stuff to lead the superpower on this planet.
and right now we are staring at 2 people who also do not have these abilities...
seems our founding fathers never banked on that becoming president was based not on your skills but how much money you have.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This is a good question, however it could be worked a little more.
Unfortunately people have the idea that animal rights means you are a crazy, because people don't understand animals can feel (mental or physical) pain.
Protecting animals can go a long way in helping people. For example, if the government would actually start regulating the meat industry better, millions of workers would have a better way of life. The meat industry is the most dangerous industry in america to work in, and it's all because of giant factory farms. This doesn't even begin to cover the environmental effects that this industry has.
A better way to phrase the question would be to make it about farming and health. Phrasing it in a positive light goes a long way too. For example:
How would you work to protect small farmers from being disenfranchised from the large corporate and factory farms? Would you consider greater tax breaks for farmers that grow healthier and more environmentally safe food?
Sadly people just don't get animal rights. When they are faced with the question in black and white terms they end up making excuses for their behaviors. Or they get angry and dismiss it all as crazy PETA nut-jobs (very unfortunate, because PETA is nothing more than a marketing tool, meant to piss people off to gather attention, defeats the entire purpose if you ask me).
But... But replacing crude oil with alternate fuels, that would mean all the american boys who lost their lives in Iraq, died for nothing!
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
who would you support?
In fact, let's make this a two parter and also ask who, other than yourself, you would want to be President.
Because of the exigencies of the political process I would expect the answer to the second part to be different from the first, some of the best men for the job being men that can't be considered viable political candidates.
KFG
when do you plan to confess?
That's a ridiculous question. Of course they'll say they will never support a draft. As we saw in Vietnam, conscripted men make AWFUL soldiers. They don't want to be there and they don't care about their fellow soldiers' welfare (because they are there against their will). Some may have learned to deal with it and went on to serve with honor, but for the most part it would've taken 2 or 3 draftees to equal the fighting usefulness of one volunteer soldier.
We have plenty of volunteers these days, so why would we bother even talking about the draft? Selective Service is there in case we have a serious threat to our nation's liberty like a massive outside invasion from China or Canada being invaded by a billion communist polar bears or something and calling for aid from their friends to the south.
Aside from Iraq, which was the stupidest thing Bush could've done (and I was a STRONG supporter of him 2 years ago), none of our actions against terrorists require a significant investment in ground troops. Even if the terrorists numbered 50,000-100,000, they are scattered around the world and not formed as a fighting force. We need to fight them with tens of millions of police officers and thousands of special counter-terrorist forces throughout the world, not drop million dollar cruise missiles on empty caves and send hundreds of thousands of troops halfway around the world to be sitting ducks in the middle of a desert.
what, exactly?
Are you suggesting that we do away with the popular vote altogether and let the state legislatures decide? Or we vote for electors that aren't pledged to vote for a particular candidate? What exactly are you suggesting we change? Are you just suggesting we need a different style of campaigning where the candidates appeal to the electors and not the people?
All this talk of the founders' intents is evading the issue. We live in a different world now. A system as envisioned (and as imperfectly implemented in our modern age) by the US Constitution is not perceived as democratic any more. Do we want to change it to make it more so, or not? (And if you are going to take me to task for being so concerned about perceptions, please explain why the perception of fairness is not of upmost importance in a democratic society.)
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
You are asked to rate the question, not puff for your dope habit.
Well, thank God they spelled/chose *affect* correctly. Unless they meant to affect an individual, by effecting a state?
This "The US is a republic not a democracy" meme is really fucking annoying.
Now, you may be right that the US isn't particularly democratic, but that has fuck all to do with it being a republic. A republic is merely one (and probably the only practical one on a scale as large as ours) possible implementation of a democracy. There are likewise many ways of implementing a republic, some of which are more democratic than others.
Now, to the extent that the US Constitution is revered around the world, it is generally because it spells out in detail the structure of a government beholden to the people, and specifically enumerates the democratic rights of the people.
In that context, the electoral context may be an anachronism. The whole electoral system may, in this day and age, be working against the democratic ideals embodied in the constitution. In that case we have the constitutional power to change it. That's democracy.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
it's the truth. If your question has the word "If" in it, Bush will just say, "I don't answer hypotheticals."
Dear President Bush/Senator Kerry. You have called for full implementation of the 911 Report Recommendations. As you are aware the 911 Report fingered America's porous borders and Illegal Immigration as the key to any successful Homeland Security effort. It was discussed in the White House in January 2001 and it was noted that no other measures would be of any value unless this situation was corrected. With Illegal Immigration running at 3 times the rate it was running on 9/11/2001 how would you rate the efforts taken to date to contain this problem and what are you going to actually begins correcting this?
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Dear President Bush/Senator Kerry. I am an American Citizen. My wife is a Perminant Resident Alien. We must mark up our wages 150% in order to pya the high federal taxes. Due to the Free Trade Agreements we must compete against foreign goods and services brought into our market TAX FREE. What are you going to do about this Trade War being leveled against us by the United States Government banning us from our own market by such punative tarrifs on our wages while our foreign competition is tax free?
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Your state's Secretary of State would know. The SoS is the "election official" among other things. I happen to be a presidential elector in Nebraska this year.
Constitutionally Correct
who, other than yourself, you would want to be President
Hopefully, they've chosen that person to be their vice-president. Because if they are elected and become disabled in their capacity as president for whatever reason, then the vice-president takes over.
What?
(Replying to the grandparent): "To me as a young voter this is the most discouraging aspect of trying to stay involved in the political process: my elected representatives make laws that represent my views as a citizen."
Laws like what? Patriot Act? Does that represent you?
Then you, sir, are an asshole.
(Replying to the parent): Your answer is correct, it seems like the question was scripted for such an answer.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Hopefully, they've chosen that person to be their vice-president.
You mean like the way LBJ chose Humphrey?
No, I'm afraid the the choice of VP is always a purely political decision made in order to strengthen the ticket and the party, with the party bosses playing the dominant role in the decision.
Sometimes done in order to take a strong, viable member of one's own party and knife them in the political back for the "good" of the party.
KFG
If you feel safer, more secure, live more comfortably, have more money and job security and better healthcare, then vote for GW Bush.
No, what's *really* sad is that you believe all blessings flow from the presidency.
How exactly do you think Kerry would give you "more money and job security and better healthcare"? Where exactly would this river of milk and honey come from?
And I feel a HELL of lot safer than I would had Gore been in the White House in these times. We'd probably still be having "summits" with bin Laden, trying to "understand" him and why his actions are our fault, and begging him to convince the "real" miltants to stop the attacks (a la Arafat).
Ginger or Mary Ann?
The majority of U.S. citizens, nine U.S. states, and several medical associations, support the use of medicinal marijuana. Mr. President, as Governor of Texas you once said that "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose." Do you plan on making medical marijuana a federal or state decision?
. billpress/)
Notes:
Most of the suits against states allowing the use of medicinal marijuana were filed during Clinton's time. (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/17/column
The above question un-loads it by not having the candidate make it an issue of whether or not they support it, just whether it should be a federal or a state decision.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
I don't want to make the same mistake I made in the last election.
For the candidates, is it conflicting to take a position on issues based on Christianity (such as abortion and gay marriage) when not everyone in America believes in God or Christianity?
Not everyone in America believes in your particular set of secular ideals either, yet you somehow feel free to hold them, express them, and act upon them.
Of course when you consider that the government had a managable role before it gave itself extended power and overstepped its bounds,you realize we had a good thing going.
The fed regulated interstate commerce,lay tarriffs on imports to support itself(thats right folks,NO TAXES on citizens),ran a post office and saw to the protection of OUR borders.And that was ALL,everything else was given to the several states to run themselves,locally.
The federal government has NO Business doing anything that isnt constitutionally given it to do.period.Anything over and above that has caused endless trouble since.
So.....Would the affable,interchangable Bush n Kerry be willing to do the right thing and delete governments illegal participation?
Probably not seeing as how they aren't good libertarians,politicians or human beings and really don't care about anyone but themselves.
hmmph.... mod that one up if youve any testes.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I think perhaps a polite answer would be "you need to read up on the separation of powers and why the system is setup that way. The judges are given life apointments so that they can concentrate on upholding the law and constitution, not making people happy."
That is the problem, I have read up on the separation of powers and the courts currently are too powerful. Thier original power was to interpret the laws. Determining the Constitutionality of them was a power the Supreme Court took for itself after the fact. The problem is that judges are using thier personal views and not a logical view of the laws to base thier decisions. What is the point in Congress passing a law that the majority wants(like the no call lists) when a single non-elected judge can just throw it out? It is much easier to have a judge make the laws then getting them pushed through Congress so that is what is happening lately.
As for the comment before about this not being an issue. It is not an issue if you agree with this crusade. Claiming that the only people that care about this issue are the priviledged and the Rublican is down right offensive. I am and always have been a dirt poor Independant. Both Republican and Demacrats make me sick and I feel that political parties are the worst thing that has ever happened to our political system. Everyone is screaming that only the rich benefitted from the tax cuts, well if that is the case how come all the rich people(ie Hollywood, Gates, etc) are Kerry supporters? If you do a tax cut based on percentages it only makes sense that the people that have paid the most in are also the ones that will get the most back. The rich pay a far greater percentage than the rest of us as a penality for being successful.
isn't worried about paying for college
Wrong again. I will be in debt until I'm 40 paying on student loans. I didn't qualify for a single grant because I'm a white male. How is that system fair when the majority is penalized for being the majority. Grants should be based on need and not race. Race should not factor in at all.
Excellant post. If I had mod powers I'd mod it up as insightful in a second.
Having gone to high school in a very conservative area, where parents refused to teach their children proper sex education, I watched 20 of my classmates leave due to teenage pregnancy. Some knew about sex while others had no idea how to get pregnant.
Hmm, I doubt that you're much older than me, and I went to public school in your part of the world. Sex ed was already busily ramping up, as were teenage pregnancies. In fact, they seemed to rise in tandem (which could either mean "we need even more!" or "oops").
Question for you, rather than the candidates: Do you really think it was lack of education? How do you explain the failure of the education programs to achieve their stated aims? Wouldn't we kill for the statistics of the early to mid sixties, when these education programs were first developed and sold?
This should have been modded as a '5'.
I'm not a doctor, but I play one in bed.
This is a "Mom and apple pie" question. No candidate will say they're for animal abuse, yet I don't see any president actually doing anything about it.
I'm not sure that they should either. This seems like a state or city issue to me. The higher and more seperated you get from the problem the less effective you will be in solving it. I think the penalties for animal abuse are rediculously low, but I don't want Congress dealing with the issue, I want the state dealing with it.
Mr President, just how far do you think it is appropriate to mischaracterize your opponents words and history before you have sunk to the level of deceitful demagoguery? Or do you even care if you sink that low? Of course not, look who I'm talking to, disregard the question.
The republicans are for the rights of states to be conservative, and nothing more.
The republicants are the ones who oppose medical merijuana, the republicans opposed assisted suicide laws. Basically anytime a liberal state wants to do something liberal, the conservatives living in that state run to their federal government and cry "save us from these liberals".
They aren't for states rights, they just like to say they are. I suppose you think they are for small government too?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
We already give more than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD COMBINED!
m
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2003/23909.ht
Why do we (US) have to pick up the tab on everything?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
No it's not.
If judges are really overturning, rewriting, or recreating laws based on their own agendas, an appeals court, federal court, or the supreme court should overrule them. If the supreme court is making laws, then maybe you should ask your congressmen, whom you DID elect, why they're stuffing exceptionally partisan men into the court in the first place, instead of impartial, learned scholars are law.
As you will notice from my answers, I am for all the good things and against all the bad things. My opponent, however, isn't for the good things as much as me and he also isn't against the bad things as much. So it is clear that I am more good and he is more bad.
If you were to recieve information from Russia, British and American intelligence agencies that a country known for using gas on it's own people was still producing weapons of mass destruction, what would you, as President of the United States, do?
The U.N. has set a goal to fund global AIDS research at $15 billion by 2005 and $20 billion by 2007. Given how distructive AIDS and HIV is to society, what portion of that tab would each of you recommend paying and why?
Uh, all of it.
The US pretty much pays the UNs budget, and bankrolls all of it's crazy schemes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
True enough. Point taken.
Program Intellivision!
1. It's your birthday. Someone gives you a calfskin wallet. How do you react?
2. You've got a little boy. He shows you his butterfly collection plus the killing jar. What do you do?
3. You're watching television. Suddenly you realize there's a wasp crawling on your arm. How do you react?
4. You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't, not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
5. Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your mind. About your mother.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Mr. Kerry, Bush has been repeatedly saying that you change your position too many times thus not suitable as a leader. Is there anything you want to say about this?
In about ten thousand years we expect that humanity has moved beyond the solar system and is ruled by a decaying empire that has its capital on a planet near center of the galaxy. What steps are you taking to ensure that this will happen? What is the current state of research (military or civilian) on positronic brains?
I wont't vote for someone who says the same thing every day in the face of changing information. Our president can not admit that anything he does is/was wrong or ill-informed. He hsa been described as listened to all side of a debate, and then choosing a course of action, but I have yet to see him actually swayed by a position contrary to his own, regardless of evidence.
Then again, I suppose if you agree with his platfor positions, he's the perfect candidate. I happen to disagree with many of tehm, so - like the GP, I'd probably vote for a bagel. (I like mine with cream cheese, no lox)
I find in interesting that many people have asked for Dan Rather to resign after believing and publicizing memos which have been found to be forged, but the same people have no problem with the President invading a country on (what we now presume is) faulty intellegence which may have been cherry picked to support his desire to begin military action. Double standard? That's the way I see it. BTW - I think CBS WAS wrong to publicize the papers just to get a headline scoop.
Oh, and for the record, there was a way that the US could have had hard data that Iraq was producing chemical WMD. Unfortunately, the program is highly classified, and the mention of its exstance might jeopardize its future operational effectiveness - as is the case with many ongoing CIA prgrams. Before we invaded, I believed that this might have been a smoking gun. Based on the reactions of several international governements, and our own governmental information, I do NOT believe we had that data, and our jusification was based on softer intellegence.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I'd ask both of them why either of them should get my vote when voting in America is almost as bad as voting in the former Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union you had one candidate, one party, and no choice. In America you have two parties (yes, there are others, but they are not automatically on the ballot) of which the choice between the party candidates is like choosing wheather or not you want to be hit in the head with a hatchet or a pick axe. The methods are different, but the results are the same.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Dear Sirs,
How would you reform the current departments of Justice, Treasury, Homeland Security, and Defense so that intelligence gathering and analysis is faster and more thorough? Specifically, what do you suggest would be the optimal agency structure to provide the fastest response to actionable intelligence and better collection of information for long term analysis?
The 9/11 Commission Report details the enormous failings of our intelligence establishment. The system was truly "Blinking Red" and yet neither the FBI, CIA, INS, etc could find the link in the pattern. What would you specifically do to force coordination between different agencies and encourage more intelligence sharing?
The Information Technology used by the FBI, CIA, and other agencies are woefully inadequate for current requirements. We live in the most technologically advanced country in the world and yet our government agencies do not possess this technology to protect us. Will you spend the money to give it to them?
Favorite
Found this though it would be good for a laugh. http://discourse.net/archives/2004/09/hey_florida_ have_you_got_the_hint_yet.html
How did this get modded "Troll"?? This may be "redundant", but it's still making a viable point. Somebody's ass needs to get Meta-Moderated.
Where, exactly, in the Second Amendment, does the Constitution mention guns? It says, and I quote, "keep and bear ARMS". My right to keep and bear ARMS has ALWAYS been infringed. I cannot have a Stinger, VX Gas, anything fully automatic, anything concealed... (nor should I be able to, by the way, in my worthless opinion). Hell, I can't even own a switchblade and the two of you support the "right" of the great, unwashed rabble to own GUNS? Your thoughts?
Mr. President, how has your faith guided you through these troubled times?
Play Command HQ online
This question gets at what could be a fundamental difference in education policies enacted by the President.
Will President Bush or Kerry support home schooling by insuring equal access to educational resources, athletic opportunities or facilities, funding (ala school vouchers), or tax credits?
This question is not related to sex ed, that's true. I don't know why it got tagged that way.
Still, this is one of the few questions to probe at general education policies.
quoth the parent:
You're missing the point. The high-population areas do indeed have more power than the small areas -- but they have slightly less power per unit person, which is how it should be.
If you think of the poll as a kind of discriminator device (it is), reducing a nearly-floating-point number to a single bit via sum-and-threshold, then the electoral college clamps the output from any one geographical region. There's no practical difference between, say, a 51% majority and a 98% majority in New York City or in Los Angeles. That makes it harder for those places to dominate the election. Consider a candidate who enjoys a 98% majority in San Frangiego and Boswash, but only obtains 35% of the vote in the rest of the country (pretty dismal). In a straight-sum system, that candidate might win based on the popular vote and stress the country. Those disgruntled states might even try to secede, if the pattern repeated long enough.
The electoral system tilts the game in favor of moderately broad support bases. You can't win the presidency without support from a much broader geographical base than would be required under the straight-sum system.
Wow, that's disappointing; this is something Kerry really needs to address. With the advancement of Intelligent Design (see the latest edition of Wired or Google it) our development is being backtracked from the very basics: our children. The drive is to teach creationism in schools as a legitimate counterpart to evolution, despite the fact that it has no scientific evidence (the mathematics are flawed and skewed based on misunderstandings of macro/micro evolution), is picking up. Will kids weigh the two objectively? Hardly... they'll go with the faith they were raised on. More to the point, is it really appropriate to allow public schools to teach this considering the separation of church and state? No.
But then, this would be an election-killer answer south of the bible belt...
- Avoidance of the "Tyranny of the Majority". This sounds like a rather oxymoronic phrase at first glance. But think of a hypothetical simple, small country where 75% of the people are businessmen living in a city. And 25% of the people are farmers living in the countryside. Now suppose this hypothetical country operates its presidential elections via simple majority. What happens is that a presidential candidate in this hypothetical country does not even need to cater to the wishes of the 25% minority. While the minority's votes count, they are effectively useless because they can be easily voted down by the majority. They might as well not even have a vote at all.
- The Electoral College is only one part of a careful system of checks and balances. The Founding Fathers DID want one branch of government (Legislative) to chosen by popular election. The legislative branch is arguably the most powerful, since only it can introduce laws and can even override the President's veto.
- Realistically, the winner of the popular vote STILL wins the election. It's not like the electoral college system elects wildly unpopular candidates. While I greatly dislike Bush, even I have to admit that the popular vote differential in 2000 was basically statistically significant.
Now, you may not agree with those reasons. And there are plenty of valid reasons to dislike the electoral college. I myself would favor many reforms to the current system. However, a lot of people who oppose the electoral college do so from a very unreasoned, uneducated, kneejerk standpoint. Some facts needed to be laid down on this thread.That's an extreme hypothetical example, of course, and an electoral college wouldn't completely solve it. But it is a step towards solving it. What America's electoral college does is provide an equalizer so that the smaller states' voices are not completely dwarfed by the larger states. It's the same concept behind the decision to allow every state to have two Senators, regardless of population. For example, California has about 67 times as many people as Wyoming. But it only has 18 times as many electoral votes. If you think Presidential candidates spend too much time in a few "battleground" states like California, New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania NOW... well, the situation would be even worse without the electoral college.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
It's a major difference, if you say "inciteful" it sounds like you're saying that people thinks he incites something, say violence. In that case, people proabably don't like him. If you say "insightful" youre saying people think he's right and has great insight.
Most of your other spelling mistakes are minor, but there are times when spelling something right is very important to convey the right meaning.
Here's a question: Why do you think a President ought to be chosen by popular vote?
:
:"the founding fathers were better and wiser people than we'll ever be; there's no point in criticising, let alone trying to improve their work". To try a daring analogy with programming, it's like believing that Linus' code is always bug-free and the single best and most elegant solution to a problem.
I dunno, maybe because that's what democracy is about. The people... vote... for their leader...
But that's not my main point. The really interesting part of your post is the following
Plainly, the Founding Fathers thought otherwise
So what? I mean of course the founding fathers were great and wise people and the constitution they wrote should be held in great respect and everything. But finding out what the founding fathers thought does not close the discussion. There are many reasons why the founding fathers could have thought that way. Maybe, at the time the constitution was framed, the objective was to bring together 13 very independant-minded states and the US of A didn't actually make much sense as a nation. Maybe the founding fathers made the best decision considering the situation of their time and since the US have changed in 2 centuries, the best solution would be different today. Maybe the founding fathers were just yielding to the political pressure of current state leaders. Or maybe it served their own political agenda. Maybe they made a mistake... They were only mortals after all...
This quasi-religious worship of their constitution is one of the greatest mysteries I face when it comes to understanding Americans (I'm French BTW). Most Americans I know have a lot of self-confidence. They believe that whatever the opposition, they will find a way to prevail. As a society, America always question status-quo. Businesses innovate and reinvent themselves or they die. I think that Americans, maybe more than other people, have this capacity to change their way of doing things just because the world has changed and there's a better way. I really admire that.
Yet, when it comes to the constitution, this boldness and self-confidence disappear. It's as if Americans said to themselves
I don't know where this contradiction comes from. Maybe it's from something they teach you at school. I don't know. But I think it's worrying because it blocks progress. During the middle ages, in the chaos that followed the fall of the Roman Empire, huge chunks of human knowledge were lost. Fortunately, some books written by Greek or Roman scientists and philosophers were salvaged and cherished like the treasure they were by generations of monks. This prevented Europe from getting 2 millenia backwards. But at some point it became a 2-edged sword. There was so much respect for the Ancients that knowledge could only match them, not beat them. Noone could advance a theory beyond the point where Aristotle or Archimedes left it because it would have meant that he was better than Aristotle or Archimedes. And that was unthinkable. As a consequence (and also for a lot of other reasons), scientific progress was extremely slow during the middle ages.
Similarly, I think that political systems should evolve and improve. I'll try another geeky analogy : the constitution is democracy's firewall; whatever the skill, wisdom and insight the founders had, the constitution is bound to have holes or vulnerabilities. More to the point, if it was adapted to the USA of the 1780's maybe it's partly obsolete today.
I'm rereading this post and realize that I'm a bit harsh to the parent. Your post was actually insightful since it invited the reader to question his beliefs. Also it doesn't even explicitely state that the current situation is good because the founding fathers thought so. Lastly, I don't advocate dumping the US constitution or amending it thoughtlessly; I just feel that critical thought is always a good thing, even (especially) in relation to the constitution.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Seriously.
Say Osama bin Laden is hated by all of the US, and a few hundred million people in other countries like Canada, Great Britain, Australia, etc. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care much either way because he's not targeting them. So that's about half a billion people that hate him. On the other hand, for much of the muslim world, he's a hero. Pakistan alone probably has at least 50 million people who love him.
Bush, on the other hand, has an influence on the entire globe, and had done a whole lot to get people to hate him everywhere. Remember the standoff with China in early 2001? The hatred isn't as universal as the hatred for bin Laden in the US, but even in countries which were once US allies, a lot of people hate Bush. Add to that the hundred million Americans who hate him, and I'm sure he takes the crown for the most hated person.
The very assumption that Osama bin Laden would be the most hated person in the world just betrays a very US-centric attitude, ignorant of the rest of the planet. It's about time American started realizing that the rest of the world doesn't see things the same way they do.
How is our continuing occupation of the entire island of Okinawa just "necessary to bury our dead"? S. Korea? Guantanamo Bay? Germany?
Why is it necessary for us to maintain military presence around the world? Is there any other reason than to ensure military influence?
Check the growth of bases in the Middle East since the 1991 Gulf War (ok, I'm too lazy to find the statistic). At the beginning of that war, we were forced to use Saudi Arabia as a launching point for the military action; today we have dozens of bases scattered throughout Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. Think the permanent bases now being built in Iraq are going to disappear any time soon?
So remind me again how we've "never taken any more ground than was necessary to bury our dead"?
For both candidates: you campaign has placed a lot of focus on your opponent's shortcomings, and of characteristics and behaviors not directly related to political competence.
In contrast to that, what qualities and acts from your opponent's political career do you admire and respect most?
The Constitution is law. In fact it is the "supreme law of the land" (Article VI, Clause 2). So when the courts interpret the Law, they have to take the Constitution into account. And the Constitution says that Congress can only pass laws to do certain things. If the law does something not allowed (like fine people who call phone numbers on a certain list), it is unconstitutional, and thus null and void.
As opposed to campaign in Oregon, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and ignore the rest of the country
Don't forget Wisconsin. I hate living in a battleground state.
We've fought in wars all over the world and never took any more ground than was necessary to bury our dead.
Wow, Powell must be expecting huge casualties in Iraq, considering the size of the country.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
How is this a troll? I'd undenyably true...
-Rob.
A soilder joined the service knowing the risks. They agreed to put their life on the line so others wouldn't have to.
Liberals act like people who support war don't know how horrible it is. Because after all, if we knew how horrible it is how could we possibly support it?
We know how horrible it is, and we're grateful for those who serve so we don't have to.
""This is important enough to me that I think a bunch of people I've never met should be sent to die while I sit at home risk-free"?"
reduction to absurdity. Nobody is sending the soilders off to die. We send them off to do their duty knowing that some may die. There's a very large difference.
It's no different than calling 911 and expecting a fireman to jump into your burning house to save your kid. Or expecting the cops to come put their lives in danger to come help you. We know that fireman and policemen may die because of a 911 call and yet we still dial the numbers when we're in trouble.
It's a rediculous idea to pretend that those who agreed to protect and serve shouldn't be depended on by those who havn't signed on to the profession.
Those who can't should repspect and support those who do.
"in the case of war, there are compelling arguments that they shouldn't"
No such arguments actually exist. If they did I'd imagine you'd at least put one of them in your post.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
With all due respect, I don't think this has anything to do with the parent question-- i.e. the issue of family reunification and our current system.
The real issue is that perminant residents who have immigrated legally may not have the ability to bring spouses, children, etc. with them. The laws provide for petitions for allowing spouses etc. to immigrate too but the BCIS is heavily backlogged (the wait is measured in *years*).
Let me tell you a story. Some may recall that I used to work at Microsoft. Immigration issues of my wife are actually why I finally left. I am a birthright American and my wife is from Indonesia. I filed the petition with the BCIS when she was my fiance. We then had a marriage cerimony in Indonesia but did not file the legal paperwork because this would have invalidated the petition.
During that visit, she became pregnant. I returned to the US, and returned to work. Things were difficult being apart, but I continued to try to work things through the system. THe BCIS estimated that she would be able to come to the US by about the 6th month of her pregnancy. But by that time, the backlog had extended further, and now we were expecting another six months!
After several calls to the office of my Representative and to the American Embassy in Indonesia, I quit my job at Microsoft, took out most of my savings, and moved to Indonesia. I was able to get a work permit through a friend of my father-in-law, but the contract was just for show-- I had no income for the next six months. We did, however, file the marriage paperwork, and then file a new petition through the Embassy (which I could do because I had a work permit and so was technically a resident of Indonesia), though we waited until after our son was born to file this. The petition only took a month to be approved, and only another month to get an interview.
These backlogs on legal immigration are causing real hardships for families. Congress actually recognized this when they passed the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 1999 which was intended to address the backlogs of these petitions (i.e. if an American gets married overseas, it would 1-2 years to get the immigration visa, but a fiancee was able to come to the US at that point within three months). Once again these backlogs are becoming a problem and I think that Congress needs to look at the issue. These new backlogs, of course, really got going after Sept. 11th.
This is not a Rep. or Dem. issue. It is an issue of family values in the truest and least prejudicial sense-- i.e. that family is important and such harm inflicted to families by the governments inability to reasonably impliment the protections that they have in place can do no good and might harm our society.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"Id like to hear a SANE response as to why it shouldnt."
It's specified that way in the Constitution, making it part of the most fundamental basis of the Republic.
If you don't like it, persuade your Congress (who *ARE* elected on majority vote!) to pass a Constitutional Amendment to alter the way presidents are elected.
Personally, I would rather push for having State Legislatures elect the presidential electors directly, while working to ensure that the Legislatures are elected cleanly, in fair and accountable at-large elections.
The Constitution allows the states to do that.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
While growing it oneself is MUCH easier to justify ethically (i.e. not spending one's money to further a marajuana syndicate) the bottom line is, the law is being broken and someone caught growning it will be demonized (by the courts and media) even moreso than someone spending money to buy a fix from a cartel.
The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.
is the following: 1. The mindset that the government is who we are to depend upon to solve all our ills beyond those specifically spelled out in the constitution... 2. The the mindset that somehow we owe or should play a leading role in UN and other global orgs. 3. The mindset that we are a democracy - we are not... 4. The mindset that government should be the arbitrer of how we live our private daily lives... 5. The almost total absence of questions regarding the illegal alien problem, insecure borders, and the families of H1-Bs families being allowed to use taxpayer provided services - and the existence of H1-Bs themselves. 6. The almost total absence of questions regarding the legality of the income tax, the fraud of the 16th Amendment, and the fiat system we currently operate under. Hell, lop in Social Security while we are at it. 7. The total absence of questions regarding the very clearly worded 2nd Amendment and the continued assault upon it as well as the 4th Amendment. 8. etc.... Instead all we get is a constant train of "defining marriage", "AIDs", "the electoral college", many of which are driven by and are from the agenda of the Socialist and Communist's of America...many of which are hiding behind labels such as, "MoveOn.Org, NOW, Greenpeace, The Green Party, The Sierra Club, People for the American Way, Mecha, etc., etc.," Our Constitution and our rights and our national soveriegnty are under daily assault and those are the questions submitted? And yes...no electronic voting of any kind should exist in my honest opinion. =8-)
I'm not trying to troll, I am honestly curious. Personally, I don't know the answer. I wonder if either candidate knows. If neither knows the answer, why don't they know? Is it unimportant?
Edit to change medicaid (health coverage for impoverished Americans) to medicare (health coverage for seniors).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
That is the problem, I have read up on the separation of powers and the courts currently are too powerful. Thier original power was to interpret the laws. Determining the Constitutionality of them was a power the Supreme Court took for itself after the fact. The problem is that judges are using thier personal views and not a logical view of the laws to base thier decisions.
The problem is Congress purposefully passing laws they believe to be unconstitutional in order to further a political agenda. The problem is the President that signs a law, knowing it is unconstitutional (and both parties have done it). Clinton was even quoted as saying that he was signing a law that he knew to be unconstitutional because half was good and half was bad, but unconstitutional so the courts could strike it down and keep the good part.
If it were up to me, I'd try him for treason based on those statements, as well as every congressman that voted for it (and it was bi-partisan).
When the Executive and Legislative branches purposefully push things they believe to be unconstitutional for political reasons, who do you think is left to protect the people? Only the people that are appointed for life to avoid political pressure.
Wrong again. I will be in debt until I'm 40 paying on student loans. I didn't qualify for a single grant because I'm a white male. How is that system fair when the majority is penalized for being the majority. Grants should be based on need and not race. Race should not factor in at all.
How is the system for admissions fair when a white male with crappy grades can get into Yale because the nearly-all-white-male alumni have a say in the admissions, but a black student with better grades can't get in because his daddy didn't go to Yale?
Perhaps if you took some deep breaths and looked at the big picture, you wouldn't be so bitter. Yes, in a perfect world, grants would be need based. However, we don't live in a perfect world. If we implimented only the things that worked in a perfect world, they wouldn't work here.
Learn to love Alaska
Given the sad state of our inner city schools, I'm not sure that typo qualifies as incorrect.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
I'm an outsider to your election, but I think you should ask:
Who are you going to appoint to your cabinet? If you hasn't made decisions could you please reveal your short list.
Quoth you:
There is no Social Security trust fund...
and
The current SS surplus gets spent, not saved...
You're saying that there is no money there, but it's being spent, anyways?
No. The trust fund is filled with government bonds. In other words, today's government is indeed borrowing from the Social Security trust, but those bonds have value. (An "I.O.U.," as many on this thread have put it, sounds worthless; the reality, called a "government bond," which you and I could buy ourselves and expect a lifetime ~3% return, most certainly is not.)
Social Security is kept in a seperate account from the general fund. You can argue the merits of this, but it's not as if the money has simply disappeared.
Unless the government defaults on its bonds (and no politician in his right mind would ever advocate that), the Social Security trust does indeed have assets. When you factor in the projected revenue of workers' contributions, there will be enough money in the system to support Social Security for a good seventy years.
And that's even with the coming onslaught of baby boomer retirements. The lurking disaster is the possibility of starving the system, by diverting incoming funds to privatized accounts.
I don't think the CBS issue is quite the double standard. We were given intelligence from several trusted sources that said Saddam had WMDs. We all know he had WMDs becuase he had used them repeatedly against Kurds in the north of Iraq. I think, and this is just my opinion based on what I believe is most realistically the case, that we just spent way too much time cooperating with the UN and that gave Saddam plenty of time to move the bulk of his stuff out of the country, probably to Syria. We will never know what was in the convoys of trucks that our sattelites photographed crossing into Syria in the weeks before hostilities began, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon or a degree from Harvard to figure it out. Unfortunately that is purely circumstantial evidence.
CBS, on the other hand, has been shown to have colluded with the Kerry campaign to manufacture the documents prior to their airing. Joe Lockhart even admitted on national television that he had contacted the Kerry camp about the memos two weeks before they were first aired on Rather's program. Even the man who admittedly forged the documents has said that he warned CBS that their authenticity could probably not be verified. CBS went with it anyway. Nobody was casting serious doubts on our Intel before we went into Iraq, except for France and Germany, whose financial ties to Iraq alone are enough to discredit their concerns.
Like I said, there are things about the Bush admin that I do not like, like Patriot II, CAPPS, etc... but at the same time I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. The things that I am talking about Bush saying over and over again are things like "It was right to go into Iraq" (which I agree with... I think we should have taken him out the first time, but our agreements with the other arab nations before GW1 prevented that), his constant views on tax relief, and so on. He has also admitted mistakes. He admitted that we underestimated the insurgency. He has admitted that we probably do not have enough troops there. He has admitted that it could have been planned better - knowing full well that the media would try to crucify him for it. Gotta admire that..
I am anxiously awaiting the Wednesday debates. I would definitely like to hear what the candidates have to say. I am hoping for straightforward and direct answers to the questions, but expecting a lot of tapdancing. We'll see how it goes.
Federal judges are the only people in high federal office who are free to ignore the money in politics as soon as they are appointed. They are the only people who must do what is right, rather than what is popular (or risk being overturned by a higher court). How on earth can this be discouraging to voters? Besides, voters do select judges by virtue of electing the president and senate that appoint them.
Please drop this lousy question.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
...the current President himself once stated, "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose,"...
...the current President himself once stated, "I believe each state can choose that decision,"...
I urge you not to use the above quote. It's fun enough to skewer a supposedly pro-states-rights candidate on his party's love of imposing conservatism at a federal level. Using a slip-of-the-tongue quote like this makes us seem cheap. Please crop the quote to:
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
The problem with this suggestion is that we are no longer in the 1960s. We didn't go to the moon because we would be better off there than in, say, Wyoming . . . it was a space "race", and we had someone very clear and visible who we were racing against . . . the Russians. We had to beat the Russians. It was wholly symbolic and contributed very little to the greater good of mankind.
Presidents have repeatedly tried to pull off the same kind of "call to the nation" since Kennedy, always choosing goals much higher-minded than being able to hit golf balls in 1/6 g. Jimmy Carter, in his "Malaise" speech that likely cost him what chance he had left of a second term, actually called for pursuing an energy policy that would free us from dependence on Middle Eastern oil. But we weren't "racing" anybody to get off the oil, so nobody cared, and it didn't take.
President Bush has tried to make several calls, on of which was to put a man on Mars. But nobody else is anywhere close to putting a man on Mars, so there isn't much enthusiasm in the US of A, either. Until China has Taikonauts en route to Phobos, I doubt anyone in the United States is going to see a compelling need to get worked up over seeing Old Glory planted on Olympic Mons.
And the same principle applies, I think, to alternative fuels. If the Russians had figured out a way to make soy fuels cheaper than oil and were two years away from being able to outpace us in manufacturing and commerce, the whole country would have risen up and found a way to power cars with nothing but Capitalism (yes, the immaterial concept).
And then sold those cars to the Russians. But until we have an antithesis who might get ahead of us in this area, I am pretty sure nobody's going to care.
For both candidates. In terms of our international relations, the war on Iraq has been a dismal failure. It is pretty clear to everyone that Sadam did not have weapons of mass destruction. In addition, by hastily invading Iraq, we have aliented our allies whose support we could really use now as we struggle with other contries such as North Korea, Libia, Iran, and even still in Iraq itself. As President, how will you seek to improve our foreign relations with other countries so that we can more effectively use international cooperation to meet the goals of our foreign policy?
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
So as long as the medical marijuana is homegrown you believe the federal government should have no power over it?
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Caffeine's not addictive? You should try drinking as much coffee as I used to and then stop and enjoy the withdrawal symptoms. It's not as addictive as tobacco or crack, and it can easily be used at levels that don't cause addiction in most people, but it can be quite addictive if you use it that way. Sometimes when I've been using it and stop, it's just a bit tough waking up in the morning and staying awake late in the afternoon, but I've had times that I've gotten two weeks of severe withdrawal headaches and needed to start the day with tylenol instead.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Your argument that the abortion solution has "little affect on your lives" is bunk. It is going to affect her waaaaaaay more than it affects you, and while unlikely there is a chance she may never really recover from it.
The fact that you wouldn't be willing to run out on her and the child is the real problem here. You shouldn't be able to force her to have an abortion, and she shouldn't be able to force you to stick around and raise or pay for the baby. If there are laws in place that require one thing or the other, then you have to keep them in mind when making your sexual decisions. It really isn't that hard.
Finally, have no idea how it works in China, but in America you can have the baby and then give it away. For some people this is a preferred solution than just having an abortion.
Are you excited by the fact that several of the 527 organizations have more money than any third party has had in many election cycles? What are the Democratic and Republican parties doing to prepare for the day when a 527 feels its issues aren't being addressed by the candidate of its current party and decides to use its war chest to give an enormous boost to an independent candidate who truly believes in that 527's issues?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
they don't care about their fellow soldiers' welfare (because they are there against their will)
That's a dirty lie that'll get your teeth knocked out in a lot of places. Draftees do worse because they had less dedicated training, not because they don't care for the lives of their teammates. (If anything, they care about each other too much, and are more likely to put their safety over the mission).
The reason professional soldiers do better is because, as volunteers, they are expected to stay longer, so more training time can be invested in them. (And, the trainers have more freedom to wash-out the incompetent)
We have plenty of volunteers these days,
If we have plenty, then why is the National Guard in Iraq? That is not their mission. The Army is supposed to fight in foreign countries, with reinforcement from the Reserves if needed. The National Guard should only be activated for missions regarding imminent danger to the USA itself.
Aside from Iraq, which was the stupidest thing Bush could've done
Oh, I could imagine 2 or 3 potentially stupider things. Attacking the Axis of Evil in order of their WMD power, for example... that would've been much worse.
Still, Bush's argument that the insurgents attacking soldiers in Iraq would instead have become terrorists striking the USA just doesn't hold up. The required skill-sets are too different. To infiltrate the USA undetected, you need a level of language and cultural skills that the foreign fighters coming into Iraq just can't muster.
If the founding fathers adopted your attitude we'd still be ruled by the King of England.
Look, Democracy and freedom are goals, they are a process and are something we should be constantly strive for. If the founding fathers thought that our laws should never change, they would have written that restriction into the Constitution.
Instead they wrote the process of change into the constition, and there have been 16 amendments to the Constition in the last 200 years.
In the past, only white men who owned property could vote. The situation is different today -- every citizen can vote regardless if they of their gender, race or economic status. It used to be that 18 year olds couldn't vote. Now they can.
We elect our senators, they are not appointed like they were initially.
The Electoral College is an antiquated system. This is the 21st Century, not 18th Century rural America.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
No the goal is freedom, Democracy is a tool for that goal, but not the only tool. We are a democratic republic, a union of states, each of which can deligate its electors any way they please..
If the founding fathers thought that our laws should never change, they would have written that restriction into the Constitution.
Youre not changing laws, your changing the structure of government. Changing the EC is the equivilent of eliminating the president, might as well compleatly rewrite the constitution (and there is nothing to hold the states into a new union).
nstead they wrote the process of change into the constition, and there have been 16 amendments to the Constition in the last 200 years.
None of which fundimentally chaged the structure of the US govnermnet.
In the past, only white men who owned property could vote.
And they voted for electors
The situation is different today -- every citizen can vote regardless if they of their gender, race or economic status.
Not 5 year olds, but if they could they would still vote for electors
The Electoral College is an antiquated system. This is the 21st Century, not 18th Century rural America.
How is it antiquated..
What I want _will_ unfortunately take a long time to achieve, because too many people are way too hung up in the Prohibition power trip.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
People don't switch sexual orientations all the time. Sorry. If they do, its not because they choose to be gay. Often it is because they come from broken homes and don't know who they are.
Where is the gene that says my IQ will be X? Oh wait, there isn't one. Well maybe there is, but scientists haven't found it yet which could explain why decades of research haven't found a gay gene yet either. Kinda blows holes in your gener theory
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
I would like to record the presidential debates with my TiVo.
Current technology allows me to encode recorded TV programs onto a DVD that I can show to my friends for less than $1 per DVD.
Does it bother you that I have to worry whether it is legal for me to do this?
Very true. Such a logic--and nothing else--is the very reason of the existance of two party system in the US. "I hate one guy so I'll vote for the second one, never mind there are more of them than only two. I will keep voting for 'the other guy' while waiting for the end of two party system." Wrong. The two party system is the result of voting, not vice versa. Anyone who is concerned about it should vote for the third most popular candidate, no matter who he is. Will he win? No. But after few elections "the third guy" might have enough votes so other people might start considering voting for the candidate they would like to win, not for the one who is most likely to beat the one who they would hate to win. This is the only way to finally end the two party farce but it may need a decade or two to gain momentum. People should never assume that voting for their prefered candidate is "throwing their vote away" because that is the very essence of democracy, while the "throwing vote away" nonsense is just the propaganda of two major parties, because they are the only people who benefit from the status quo. Please keep that in mind. By voting for "the lesser of two evils" you are really throwing your vote away. Just once, instead of voting for the less evil of two, try voting for someone good. I know that voting for someone else might be a hard concept for anyone who is used to having a "choice" between Coke and Pepsi or McDonald's and Burger King but The People have to learn that "you can chose any candidate as long as it is one of those two" is only an illusion of real choice, just enough to make people feel good but not enough to have any real influence. This is extremely important to understand if we ever want to change anything.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
They also have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
Last year a sweeping Medicare reform bill was signed into Law. This year, health care costs for families jumped by more than 11% and the white house itself has estimated that costs will increase by another 11% next year. My question to both candidates: what will you do to ensure that health care becomes more affordable to Americans?
Why are we dying to live if we're just living to die?
"Stealing the election" has nothing to do with the electoral college, which as the agreed upon system for the election. Bush stole the election largely through the actions Jeb Bush and his employees in Florida who undertook a number of actions to keep Gore-friendly populations from having a fair shot at voting.
And it was also stolen because of the actions of the Supreme Court. First it was, "well, ok, stop the recount, because if the recount shows Gore won, then that will certainly damage Bush's mandate to govern. Then a few days later it was, "well we've just plum run out of time to do a recount now. Maybe if we had started a few days ago, hehe." A one-justice majority voted in these two decisions--a majority that included Dick Cheney's duck hunting buddy who somehow didn't see the need to recuse himself.
The funny thing about it was I actually voted for Bush (a mistake I won't repeat). But even as a Bush voter, the Supreme Court's way of deciding things made no sense to me.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
In my opinion, minimum wage should be high enough such that in a family of four (two adults and two children) in which only one adult works full time (40 hours/week), the family is able to afford all of its basic health care, food, clothing, shelter, and transportation needs within the locale in which they live. But today minimum wage is so low that even if both adults work more than 40 hours a week at minimum wage jobs, they still cannot afford these basic needs in their locale -- plus, their children are then neglected and the parents must seek out other (often expensive) arragments such as day-care. Do you promise that if you were elected, you would fight to at least quadruple minimum wage, and to then push for legislation requiring it to grow proportionately from that point forth with the overall growth of the economy?
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
As everyone knows, our country is run by rich special interests, not by an equal and democratic voicing of the citizenry's wishes. This is due to actions such as lobbying and campaign financing. I believe there should be a complete separation of money and state, akin to the separate of church and state. Money should be absolutely excluded from all parts of the campaigning or legislative processes. Do you promise that if you were elected, you would immediately move to make lobbying and campaign contributions federal crimes, and in their place establish an equal and fair system of campaign opportunity via federally-mandated media broadcast time for all candidates, etc?
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
From gay marriage and abortion to school prayer and stem cell research, there are numerous issues that boil down to an issue of fairness, equality, and justice. Mr. Bush, you actually want to explicitly encode discrimination and your own personal religious views into the US Constitution. And Mr. Kerry, you are too afraid of appearing unpopular to stand up and fight for those who are being denied (or are about to lose) their equal rights. Why won't either of you stand up and fight (on all issues in all cases) for equality, fairness, and justice? As president, don't you think it's your job to do that, even when you personality disagree with or dislike the minority groups you are obligated to protect?
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
The real problem with our public educational system is that the mini-society naturally formed by students within a school is in direct opposition to the learning process. The only meaningful educational reform I have seen in my lifetime is the recent nation-wide trend toward anti-bullying programs, but even this does not go far enough. If elected, exactly what would you do to dismantle the natural social ecosystems present today in our public schools and replace them with an enforced social structure conducive to education? And because the absence of chaos is still not enough to motivate students to learn material they see as irrelevant, would you be willing to reform our public school system so that students are paid by the school for academic achievement? After all, most adults only get up and go to work at jobs they dislike because they are paid to do it, so why should we expect any different from children?
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.