Bush, Kerry, and Nader Respond to Youth Voter Questions

Slashdot readers both contributed and helped moderate questions for the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate. You can read the answers below, but if you'd like to see an expanded introduction, thumbnails of the candidates, and different formatting, go to the Youth Debate page. And that's not all: We're supposed to get candidates' rebuttals on or about October 17, so don't touch that dial! Opening Statements: President George Bush:

America's youth is at the heart of our great country, providing the energy and vision that will soon lead this Nation. Young people across America are engaging in activities to better their communities and ensure that their opinions are heard. Yet despite the energy and activism of many youth, less than half of eligible voters, ages 18-24, voted in recent national elections. The youth voice needs to be heard - so I encourage you to make sure that it is!

I am excited to be participating in this online debate, because it engages young people and challenges them to think about the issues and the leadership that will affect the future of our country. I would like to thank The New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate, for providing this forum to connect with millions of young Americans. And I would like to thank you for your interest. As this election nears, it is increasingly important that the youth of America cast their ballots to determine the next President of the United States. I hope that on November 2nd, you will give me your vote - and vote for a leader who will continue to promote a prosperous, safe, and secure America.

Senator John Kerry:

We are a can-do country, I am filled with optimism and hope by our nation's young people. The young people I have met throughout this campaign inspire me with their ingenuity and their dedication to creating a better future for America. I would like to thank The New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate and Anthony Tedesco for allowing me the opportunity to address the concerns of the youth of today because they are the leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. Ralph Nader:

Thank you for inviting the Nader-Camejo campaign to participate in "The New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate." We appreciate the work of the founder, Anthony Tedesco, who has produced these debates for America's youth since 1996. It is an honor to be the first non-major party candidate invited to participate. [Please note: All candidates who met the criteria detailed in The Appleseed Citizens' Task Force on Fair Debates were invited to participate.]

Young voters and future voters are especially important to the Nader-Camejo campaign as one of our goals is to find and help develop future leaders of America. I have always seen the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers.

Today we are at a critical point in history and you have an opportunity to lead a mobilization that shapes your future. Both corporate-controlled political parties are taking our country over a cliff, the Democrats are just doing it a little slower. Political pundits will tell you to accept the lesser of two evils, to support an overall pro-war, pro-corporate globalization party, and put your idealism on the shelf. I, like many of you, have reached a breaking point with the two-party system. It either must be driven toward the people or driven out in the coming years. You have a choice - drop out or drop-in.

This campaign is a call to action for the young people of America.

We need a world where politics is activated by vision, not fear, where media is created by people, not corporations, where energy is produced more from the sun and less from oil, where business is driven by human need, not greed, and where foreign policy is dedicated to justice -- not war. No Justice, No Peace.

We need your energy, your passion, and your commitment to help build a more just, equitable world - a world of happiness and the fulfillment of human possibilities. We are developing a 12-year plan to help young Americans to take control of their future and change our political system.

We encourage you to read our website for deeper discussions on the issues presented here - www.votenader.org. We invite you to join with us in this effort to engage more voices in the political spectrum and urge you to pass this message on to all your family, friends, classmates, and instant messaging buddies. Together, we can declare our own independence from corporate rule.

Questions and the Candidate Responses

1. ISSUES OF MORALITY:

The United States is one of the only nations in the world that executes juvenile offenders, putting us in the company of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. Why is the United States on this list? Do you believe executing minors is a good policy, and if not, what will you do to change the law?
- from lead moderator Farai Chideya, 35, of NY

Senator John Kerry Responds:

I believe that the death penalty should only be used for terrorists. I do not think that executing minors is good policy. I will, however, enforce the laws of the land.

President George Bush Responds:

The justice system of the United States has long been a beacon and example for the world, and is grounded in the principles of equality and impartiality. Unlike the legal systems of many other nations, the law assumes innocence unless guilt is proven before a jury of peers. The imposition of capital punishment is reserved by the government as the severest sentence for the gravest of crimes - like the terrible bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

I support the death penalty for heinous crimes, but only where the process is fair and guilt is certain. And I believe strongly that if it is administered justly, fairly, and swiftly, capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime. With respect to the age at which individuals should be eligible for the death penalty, Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed, and I see no reason to change that statue. The Supreme Court will soon consider whether the Constitution requires states to follow a similar rule.

To increase the level of certainty regarding the guilt or innocence of the convicted, I have substantially increased funding for DNA testing. I proposed $236 million in Federal funding in FY 2005 for my Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology initiative, part of a total five-year funding commitment of over $1 billion. This program will improve the use of DNA in the criminal justice system and ensure that DNA technology reaches its full potential.

Many young people turn to crime at a young age, because they lack necessary guidance or education. The best way to prevent youth crime is to attack its causes, and my Administration has put several programs into place to do precisely that.

My Administration supports mentoring programs that help at-risk youth stay on the right path by providing them with adult guidance and educational opportunities. These programs have particularly targeted children of prisoners, who are statistically more likely to commit crimes.

Project Sentry combines education and law enforcement initiatives, to prevent future crime by connecting young people with respected members of the community.

Under Project Safe Neighborhoods, my initiative for enforcing existing gun laws, Federal gun crime prosecutions have increased by 68 percent during the last three years. The violent crime victimization rate is at its lowest level in 30 years.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

The Nader/Camejo campaign opposes the death penalty in any form, particularly the odious practice of executing minors. The government enforces the death penalty unfairly along lines of class and race. Furthermore, capital punishment does not deter crime. It results in innocent people being executed, and corrupts the exemplary status of the state. To reverse this, we need to call for an immediate moratorium on executions, especially of juveniles. We must invest in humane treatment, personal involvement of youngsters, and job creation. We need to restore sentencing discretion to judges by repealing mandatory sentences and arbitrary "three-strikes" laws. We also need to restore due process, judicial discretion and constitutional restraints on law enforcement that violate equal protection and due process of law.

2. SOCIAL SECURITY:

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 in a Roth IRA.
- from Nathan, 25, of MN

President George Bush Responds:

The Social Security system was established for good reason - to enhance retirement security for working Americans. But your future fiscal security should not have to rely on a system that was established for your grandparents - when life expectancy was shorter and few women worked outside of the home. In 1950, there were 16 workers paying into Social Security for each person receiving benefits. That number has dropped to only 3.3 workers paying into Social Security for each person receiving benefits today. As your parents and members of the Baby Boom generation begin to retire, the number of workers supporting retirees will continue to shrink, and when you and your generation retire, there will be only two workers to support each person on Social Security.

Our Social Security system must adapt to these new realities if it is to remain strong in the 21st century. I favor the establishment of voluntary personal accounts for younger workers. These accounts would provide ownership, choice, control, and the opportunity to build a nest egg that workers could use for their retirement and pass on to their families. To ensure that those who are retired or near retirement have financial security today, I oppose any changes in current benefits. And we will not raise the payroll tax on working Americans.

Senator John Kerry Responds:

We faced a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create real, bipartisan Social Security reform with our record budget surpluses. This opportunity was squandered and the life of Social Security was not extended. My Social Security plan is based on three pillars; growing the economy, restoring fiscal discipline and working in a bipartisan manner. We must end the practice of robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the budget and protect savings for the future.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

Social Security places government in one of its noblest roles: as an institution that offers a bedrock financial guarantee to all members of society that they need not fear the financial consequences of growing old or disabled. That's quite the opposite of the U.S. government's all too familiar role as a provider of corporate welfare, a patsy to narrow business interests that hijack government programs and agencies and convert taxpayers assets into private profits, with inadequate reciprocal benefits to the public.

Our Social Security system is under attack. Relying on a trumped-up "crisis" in our social security program, a band of so-called privatizers want to convert our social security commonwealth into individual, private accounts.

The privatizers mislead the public. They distort returns we are likely to experience from a privatized system. They fail to mention the enormous administrative fees that stockbrokers and insurance agents might conceivably skim from private accounts, and they remain silent about the likelihood of millions of people losing their retirement income in the stock market. They ignore warnings that stock fraud hucksters will inevitably take advantage of people who are encouraged to put their social security money in the stock market.

If the system is privatized, this tranquility will be replaced by anxiety, as we worry about whether we will be winners or losers in the system's roller-coaster ride on Wall Street.

We would defend Social Security from risky privatization plans, ensuring its long-term fiscal solvency. Social Security needs no "saving," only improvement through gradual changes to the benefits and revenue structure. Adjusting the benefit formula for widows and widowers would reduce the poverty rate of 20% for older women living alone. If a small amount of additional revenue is needed, raise the income cap on Social Security taxes or tax executive bonuses and stock options.

3. FOREIGN POLICY:

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, including any actions you would take that you haven't previously mentioned?
- from Jodi, 26, of IN

President George Bush Responds:

In little over a generation, we have witnessed the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500-year story of democracy. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy.

The United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East, which requires the same persistence, energy, and idealism we have shown before. The advance of freedom is the calling of our time, and we believe the freedom we prize is not for us alone - it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.

The progress of liberty is a powerful trend. And, today, as we have for decades, Americans are amply displaying our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.

Observers have questioned whether the Middle East, or its people, are "ready" for democracy - as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. In fact, the daily work of democracy itself is the path of progress. It teaches cooperation, the free exchange of ideas, and the peaceful resolution of differences. As we are witnessing, it is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy, and every nation can start on this path.

As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop - as did our own.

In Iraq, the Interim Iraqi Government is working to build a democracy, as they move toward free elections by January 2005.

This is a massive and difficult undertaking, but one worth our effort and sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.

The first measure of our success and commitment to transform the Middle East and our relations with Muslim communities occurred this weekend in Afghanistan. After decades of brutal dictatorship and violence, millions of people turned out to vote for their next President. They defied the pessimists who said it could not be done and gave voice to all those in the Middle East who want to participate in the democratic process.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

There's an impressive catalog of actions taken by our government in our name and shrouded in secrecy: repeating falsehoods to start an unlawful invasion of Iraq, illegal spending, government overthrows, corporate tax havens, sovereignty-shredding trade agreements, circumventing our courts and agencies, taking nuclear waste from other countries, and allowing advanced weaponry and data to be sold by companies to oppressive regimes. It is no wonder the world considers the United States a belligerent bully that protects corporate interests, not the interests of the people.

America's foreign policy might not consist of a succession of follies if it were conducted and monitored more democratically. American foreign policy must redefine the elements of global security, peace, arms control; call for an end to nuclear weapons; and expand the many assets of our country to launch, with other nations, major initiatives against global infections diseases (such as AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and virulent flu epidemics) which have and are coming to our country in increasingly drug resistant strains.

Other low cost-high yield (compared to massive costs of redundant weapons) that extend the best of our country abroad include public health measures for drinking water safety abroad, tobacco control, stemming soil erosion, deforestation and misuse of chemicals, international labor standards, stimulating democratic institutions, agrarian cooperatives and demonstrating appropriate technologies dealing with agriculture, transportation, housing and efficient, renewable energy. The UN Development Program and many NGO's working abroad provide essential experience and directions in this regard including ending the specter of hunger, malnutrition and resultant diseases with known and proven remedies and practices. With this foreign policy orientation overhauls we will discover and facilitate the indigenous genius of the Third World, recalling Brazilian Paulo Freire (literacy), Egyptian Hasan Fathi (agrarian housing) and Bangladeshi Mohammed Yunis (microcredit).

Senator John Kerry Responds:

More than a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt defined American leadership in foreign policy. He said America should walk softly and carry a big stick. Time and again, the Bush Administration has violated the fundamental tenet of Roosevelt's approach, as he described it: "If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble."

But that is precisely what the Bush Administration has done. They looked to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bullied when they should have persuaded. They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a team. They have hoped for the best when they should have prepared for the worst. In short, they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership. And that is what we must restore.

Today, there is still a powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again. An America that is respected, and not just feared. I believe that respect is an indispensable mark of our nation's character - and an indispensable source of our nation's strength. It is the indispensable bond of America's mighty alliances.

The most urgent national security challenge we face is the war against those who attacked our country on September 11th, the war against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. As president, I will fight a tougher, smarter, more effective war on terror. My priority will be to find and capture or kill the terrorists before they get us.

It's time for a new national security policy guided by four new imperatives: First, I will launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world. Second, I will modernize the world's most powerful military to meet the new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, I will deploy all that is in America's arsenal -- our military, our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth and finally, to secure our full independence and freedom, I have a plan to free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil.

4. DRAFT:

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 you supporting such a drastic change in our drafting process, and under what circumstances would you institute a draft, or any other national service, to fight a war?
- A combination of 3 questions from Laurel, 21, of FL, Edward, 23, of MA, and Kevin, 18, of IA

Senator John Kerry Responds:

I oppose reinstating the draft, and I am committed to an all volunteer military. Our military is overstretched and overextended. George Bush has effectively used a back door draft of our National Guard and reserves, and used a "stop-loss" policy to extend tours of duty, delayed retirements, and prevented enlisted personnel from leaving the service. This has happened on the backs of the men and women who've already fulfilled their obligation to the armed forces and to our country. Military families are under incredible strain as it becomes harder and harder to balance the demands of family life and military duty.

I will fight to relieve the burden on our troops, while modernizing our military to meet new threats. I have a plan to expand the all-volunteer active duty Army by 40,000 soldiers. Not by draft, and not to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq, but to add new volunteer soldiers trained and ready to meet new threats and relieve the strain on our troops. My plan will bring more of our soldiers, guardsmen and reservists back home to their families and get them time for the new training they need.

I will fight a tougher, smarter, more effective war on terror. My priority will be to find and capture or kill the terrorists before they get us. I have a plan to win the peace in Iraq, and bring our troops home. And I will face the urgent nuclear dangers in North Korea and Iran, which George Bush has allowed to mount on his watch.

President George Bush Responds:

I want to quell the recent rumors that have been circulating once and for all: We will not have a draft so long as I am the President of the United States. In fact, current law prohibits reinstatement of the draft absent legislation and such legislation was recently defeated in the House of Representatives 402 to 2.

I am committed to keeping participation in the United States Armed Services voluntary. In order to win the war on terror, we must ensure that our troops are highly skilled and specialized, and that they are trained and equipped to successfully complete their missions. A draft will not allow us to create the specialized force we require to face our current threats. That is why the all-voluntary military is working superbly, and we do not need a draft.

My Administration has maintained a consistent and firm position on this issue, and we have clearly stated that a draft is not being considered. Recruitment and retention rates remain strong, and the military has not had any problem maintaining a strong force. I am confident in the current state of the military and I have assured the Nation that the all-volunteer military is performing with great strength and valor.

Military commanders in the field tell me they have the personnel and resources they need. If they need more, I will make sure they get it. We have the resources now to meet current and potential threats. I also have great confidence in the men and women of our armed forces, and our Nation greatly appreciates their service and honors their sacrifices. My pledge to our military is that it will have what it needs to fight and get the job done. Our enemies need to know that we are determined, and any effort to test us will draw a strong response. We are transforming our military so that we can meet any test with all the might of this great country.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

The Rangel and Hollings bills not only failed to provide exemptions for college students and only children, but the bills offered no special status for conscientious objectors. Despite the House's recent resounding 402-2 defeat of the draft bills in question, the spectre of a draft remains. With candidate John Kerry calling for 150,000 more troops in Iraq, but not indicating where they will come from, and with President Bush promising endless warfare, American youth must act now to prevent forced conscription.

A back-door draft is already in place. Syndicated columnist Mark Shields recently made the point that "We do not have an all-volunteer service today. The reality is that we now have a limited military draft. But the only Americans who are subjected to the current "draft" are those who have already demonstrated their patriotism by volunteering to serve in the military and have then served honorably. The truth is that as of last month, no fewer than 44,500 American soldiers who had fulfilled their contractual obligations, completed their enlistments and made plans to return to civilian life or retirement were frozen -- by an arbitrary "stop-loss" order -- on active duty."

Coerced military service amounts to slavery, and America can stop the talk of a draft with a dual corporate and military exit from Iraq. Under a U.S. withdrawal, the United Nations should develop an international peace-keeping force from neutral nations with such experience and from Islamic countries. This peacekeeping force should be assembled immediately to replace all US troops and civilian military contractors doing many jobs the Army used to do more efficiently. Americans must support Iraqi self rule and free and fair elections. The US should provide humanitarian aid to Iraq to rebuild its infrastructure. Control over Iraqi oil and other assets should be exercised by Iraqis.

5. ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

To the candidates, you talk a lot about the importance of promoting democracy in other countries. However, I have never heard 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 without winning 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?
- A combination of 2 questions from Douglas, 19, of IA, and Jeffrey, 30, of NC

President George Bush Responds:

I signed the Help America Vote Act, which has provided $3 billion to states and local governments to help make sure the voting process is fair. The law requires jurisdictions to provide for provisional voting, provide voter information at polling places, comply with Federal rules for mail-in registration, and properly manage statewide voter registration lists. It also created the Election Assistance Commission, which is providing assistance to state and local authorities as they move forward on complying with the Act's requirements.

I was also proud to sign into law campaign finance reform, which is helping to improve the integrity of the electoral process by preventing unions and corporations from making unregulated, "soft" money contributions, increasing the influence of individuals, and creating new disclosure requirements.

Senator John Kerry Responds:

All Americans saw in the 2000 election how crucial free and fair elections are for our society. That is why I supported the election reform legislation and continue to fight for electoral reform. Voter intimidation and race-based efforts to stop people from voting are an outrage that we simply must stop. Even before I am elected, I will protect voting rights by providing teams of election observers and lawyers to monitor elections and enforce the law. And as president, I will reform our national election system to correct the problems revealed by the 2000 presidential election.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

Our democracy is in a descending crisis. Voter turnout is among the lowest in the western world. Redistricting ensures very few incumbents are at risk in one-party districts. Barriers to full participation of candidates proliferate making it very obstructive, for most third party and Independent candidates to run. Obstacles, and deliberate manipulations to undermine the right to vote, for which penalties are rarely imposed, are preventing voters from voting. New paperless voting machines are raising questions about whether we can trust that our votes are being counted as they are cast. Finally, money dominates expensive campaigns, mainly waged on television in sound bite format. The cost of campaigns creates a stranglehold making politics a game for only the rich or richly funded. Major electoral reforms are needed to ensure that every vote counts, all voters are represented through electoral reforms like instant run-off voting, abolition of the electoral college, none-of-the-above options, and proportional representation, non-major party candidates have a chance to run for office and participate in debates, and that elections are publicly financed.

The Nader/Camejo campaign favors lowering the voting age to 16 years old. Persons aged 16 work, pay taxes and more and more often are subjected to criminal laws passed that treat them like adults. Democracy in the United States needs re-invigoration. Allowing youth the right to vote will increase voter participation, not only of 16 to 18 year olds, but also in the longer term as youth are taught at an early age the importance of voting. Concurrent with this change in law, instruction in school should increase about civics, government and the importance of voting. Rather than explaining all the very good reasons for allowing the youth vote, we believe it is best to let youth speak for themselves.

6. DRUG POLICY:

I have a question about the Higher Education Act (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?
- Margaret, 20, of WI

President George Bush Responds:

A good education is the most important factor in ensuring your future success. My first legislative priority was the No Child Left Behind law, which is setting high standards and demanding results from schools so that every student completes high school prepared for the rigors of college or to enter the workforce equipped with the necessary skills.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to make available the financial resources that will help more students attend college. My 2005 budget requests a record $73.1 billion in financial aid to help nearly 10 million students attend college, an increase of $25.9 billion (55%) since I took office. My budget also increases Pell Grant funding by 47% since 2001, helping one million more low-income students. My plan also provides low-income students with the chance to receive up to $5,000 in grants to study math or science in college. I have proposed Enhanced Pell Grants to provide additional assistance to low-income students who complete challenging coursework in high school better preparing them for success.

My commitment to our Nation's students is clear. Because of the leadership of my Administration, attending college is a reality for more students - especially those struggling to pay college costs. I also want students to avoid unhealthy and often dangerous activities, such as using illegal drugs. Illegal drug use can have devastating consequences. Taking responsibility for one's actions is another important part of becoming a successful adult.

My 2005 Budget proposes to fix the drug provision of the Higher Education Act so that incoming students who have a prior drug-related conviction would be able to receive Federal student aid, and only students convicted while in college would lose their eligibility for student aid.

Senator John Kerry Responds:

Education is perhaps the best way for someone who has been involved with drugs or crime to turn their life around. If a young person has overcome past obstacles and is ready to go to college, I don't think that a nonviolent drug conviction in their past should prevent them from doing so. And the reality is that preventing them from obtaining federal loans means they won't be able to afford to go to college.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

Repeal the Higher Education Act drug provision as it applies to non-violent offenders. The drug war has failed - we spend nearly $50 billion annually on the drug war and problems related to drug abuse continue to worsen. Drug abuse is a health problem with social and economic consequences. The solutions are public health, social services and economic development and tender supportive time with addicts in our depersonalized society. Law enforcement should be at the edges of drug control not at the center. It is time to control some illegal drugs through regulation and taxation. Ending the drug war will dramatically reduce street crime, violence and homicides related to underground drug dealing.

The drug war and criminal injustice system certainly have a racially unfair impact. The facts on this are evident, according to federal surveys, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." Despite these facts, African Americans constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%. From racial profiling to discretionary decisions of prosecutors and judges, African Americans and Latinos are treated more harshly than European-Americans.

By reducing corporate welfare, cutting the military budget and taxing wealth not work, the federal government can guarantee a free higher education to all qualified people. Already more than $155 billion has been spent on the Iraq war, adding to huge Bush deficits, when critical needs are not being met at home. That $155 billion could finance four years of free public college and university tuition for all students.

7. ENVIRONMENT:

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?
- Larry, 23, of CA

Senator John Kerry Responds:

I believe that we must return to our great tradition of asking, "what if?" That is the approach that I take to energy independence. We must push our scientists and greatest thinkers to marshal a great effort to develop the new technologies that will make us energy independent. Our reliance on Mid-Eastern oil have placed a great burden on our economic security and our national security. Under my administration, we will set forward looking goals, like using renewable fuels for 20 percent of our energy by 2020 and bringing new, low-emission vehicles to our streets.

President George Bush Responds:

For too long, the Federal government has enacted patchwork solutions when an energy crisis arises, rather than addressing the root of the challenges we face. As one of my first acts in office, I proposed the first comprehensive and balanced National Energy Policy (NEP) in a generation to encourage energy efficiency and conservation, support alternative and renewable energy, increase domestic energy production, create jobs, and promote economic growth.

I have always been a strong proponent of clean, domestic renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. I have repeatedly called on Congress to enact a flexible, national renewable fuels standard that would require the use of 5 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel as motor fuel by 2012. This program will help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil, help our farm economy by creating new markets for agricultural products, and create new agricultural jobs.

To further improve our energy security, I proposed tax incentives for consumers who purchase hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. I also raised fuel economy standards for SUVs, vans, and pick-up trucks for the first time in a decade. Once fully adopted, this rule will save 343,000 barrels per day of gasoline, or about 1 billion barrels over 10 years.

In the longer term, we must pursue the transformation of America's energy infrastructure to support a more fuel-efficient, hydrogen-based economy. I announced two important measures in early 2003 that will help make a hydrogen economy possible. My budget supports $1.7 billion over five years for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and a public-private partnership, Freedom CAR, which will work to create automobiles that run on clean-burning hydrogen.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

We urge a new clean energy policy that no longer subsidizes entrenched oil, nuclear, electric and coal mining interests -- an energy policy that is efficient, sustainable and environmentally friendly. We need to invest in renewable energy because America's addiction to cheap oil is at the root of our two largest problems: the Iraqi occupation and facing up to the immediate crisis of global climate change. Future geopolitical crises involving oil resources and environmental problems will be diminished by finding alternatives to fossil fuels.

The Nader/Camejo Campaign praises the Apollo Alliance's "Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence," an overdue agenda for the country's energy future, as a welcome contrast to the shortsighted policies of the Bush Administration. In the spirit of its namesake, which galvanized the will of the American people into a national effort to put an American on the moon, the new Apollo Project advocates a full engagement of the federal government with the initiative of the American people in the service of revitalizing our country's approach to its energy plight.

Within a single decade, beginning in 2005, the Apollo Project proposes to establish a viable infrastructure to achieve American energy independence. Calling for a $313.72 billion dollar federal investment in that ten-year period, Apollo shifts the burden of American energy consumption away from fossil fuels and onto domestic renewable energy markets such as the wind, biomass, and solar energy industries.

The Apollo Alliance's Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence:

1. Promote Advanced Technology & Hybrid Cars.
2. Invest In More Efficient Factories.
3. Encourage High Performance Building.
4. Increase Use of Energy Efficient Appliances.
5. Modernize Electrical Infrastructure.
6. Expand Renewable Energy Development.
7. Improve Transportation Options.
8. Reinvest In Smart Urban Growth.
9. Plan For A Hydrogen Future.
10. Preserve Regulatory Protections.

8. EDUCATION (SEX ED):

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?
- John, 25, of KY

President George Bush Responds:

While I have maintained funding for existing "abstinence-plus" sex education programs, the fact is the number of sexually transmitted diseases in this country represents a real public health challenge. To encourage right choices, we must be willing to confront the dangers young people face - even when they are difficult to talk about. Each year, at least 3 million teenagers contract sexually-transmitted diseases that can harm them, kill them, or prevent them from ever becoming parents - and those numbers are going up. In my budget, I proposed a grassroots campaign to help inform families about these medical risks. We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases or pregnancy.

Decisions children make now can affect their health and character for the rest of their lives. All of us - parents, schools, and government - must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture and to send the right messages to our children.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

Education needs to be facts-based not dogma-based. This is true when it comes to responsible sex education. More important is civics educations. School must teach civic education and connect the classroom with the community. Getting youngsters, even as young as the fifth and sixth grades, to learn how to practice democracy, to connect knowledge to action is vital.

To help people grow up civic instead of growing up corporate is an important function of the Department of Education. Our education system is becoming too vocational and occupation-oriented, which is OK if it is not disproportionate and if it doesn't squeeze out the most important role of education, which is civic. I also would emphasize consumer education. Children are spending more and more money directly -- under 12 years of age they spent $ 12 billion last year, and they caused their parents to spend $ 150 billion. They need a consumer perspective, how to become a smart shopper.

Children's commercial television programming conveys that violence is a solution to life's problems, and pushes low-grade sensuality, from junk food and drink to pornography and addiction, as a way of life. Commercial Alert's "Parents' Bill of Rights" includes provisions that could reduce the number of pornographic and violent images children see, and potentially diminish the drive towards premature sexual behavior. The "Parents' Bill of Rights" includes provisions like the Advertising to Children Accountability Act, Commercial Free Schools Act, and the Fairness Doctrine for Parents' Act. See www.commercialalert.org for more info.

Senator John Kerry Responds:

I believe that sex education instruction should include information about both abstinence and contraception and have worked in the Senate to ensure that sex education funding is not limited to teaching abstinence education.

9. CIVIL RIGHTS:

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 (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender), and their families', lives? Are they aware that when political issues call civil rights into question that hate crimes rise exponentially?
- Amanda, 23, of IA

President George Bush Responds:

I believe that the union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring human institution. I called upon the Congress to pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. I believe that the American people, and not activist judges, should make this decision.

Senator John Kerry Responds:

I believe that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have equal rights and responsibilities and I believe that the best way to achieve that is through civil unions. I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Finally, I believe that marriage law has been the responsibility of the states for over 200 years and that is how things should remain. George Bush's effort to pass a federal marriage amendment is divisive.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

The Nader/Camejo campaign supports equal rights for gays and lesbians, including equal rights for same-sex couples. We oppose President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages as adults should be treated equally under the law. Any attempt to mandate inequality by Mr. Bush leads the country in the wrong direction.

Marie C. Wilson of the Ms. Foundation recently said: "The most important thing is really having equal rights. It's not about the marriage. It's having the same rights that you would get if you were married." Love and commitment are not exactly in surplus in America and should be encouraged. The main tragedy of marriage, what undermines marriage, is divorce, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago recently said.

We support full equal rights for gays and lesbians. While civil unions move us in the right direction, under current federal and state law they do not afford equal rights. Some 1,049 federal rights go only with marriage. At the state level, a civil union is only recognized in the state where it occurs, while marriage, and all its attendant rights, is recognized in all the states. The only way to ensure full equal rights is to recognize same-sex marriage.

During the U.S. Constitution's 228 years, there have been only 17 amendments, and in each instance (except for Alcohol Prohibition, which was repealed), the amendments extended rights and liberties to Americans, not restrict them. Civil rights were expanded by amendments that ended slavery and guaranteed people of color, young people and women the right to vote. The Federal Marriage Amendment urged by President Bush would be the only one that would single out one class of Americans for discrimination by ensuring that same-sex couples would not be granted the equal protections that marriage brings to American families.

10. HEALTH INSURANCE:

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 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?
- Christina, 28, of CO

Senator John Kerry Responds:

First of all, my health care will expand health insurance to every child in America. We should never leave our children at the whim of employers. I also believe that we must help out small businesses lower the cost of health insurance and my plan will do that by having the federal government pick up the cost of the most expensive health care costs and allow small businesses access to the same health care that members of Congress give themselves. My plan will cut health care costs by up to $1,000, making coverage more available and affordable for your family.

President George Bush Responds:

We are fortunate in America to have the best health care system in the world, but I believe we must do more to ensure that all Americans have access to quality affordable health care. People like your husband who work in small firms often face difficulties in finding affordable insurance that provides good benefits. One reason for this is that small firms lack the bargaining power that bigger employers have. They and their workers are forced to pay more for health insurance and the coverage isn't always as good as they would like for it to be. So it's no surprise that more than half the uninsured are small business employees and their families.

Small businesses should be able to obtain health insurance at an affordable price, much like large employers and unions do, so they can pass these savings along to their workers. That's why I have proposed legislation to create Association Health Plans (AHPs), giving small business access to better, more affordable coverage by banding together with other small businesses to negotiate with insurance companies on behalf of their employees and their families. Insurance offered through AHPs cannot exclude coverage of a person's pre-existing medical condition for more than six months, so it would have to cover treatment of your son's asthma. And if your husband had insurance coverage prior to going to work with a company that had insurance through an AHP, the pre-existing medical condition would be covered without any six-month waiting period.

In order to make insurance even more affordable to small businesses and individuals, I signed legislation creating health savings accounts (HSAs), which combine affordable major medical insurance with a fully portable account that you can use to pay for everyday medical expenses and to save for future health care needs. Premiums for major medical insurance generally cost thousands of dollars less than standard health insurance coverage and your husband's employer can put the savings into your family's health savings account. That account belongs to you and your husband, not to your employer, and it moves with you from job to job.

If you prefer to own your own insurance coverage rather than having it provided through your husband's employer, you might also benefit from my proposal to create refundable tax credits. These credits of up to $3,000 for a family of four phase out at $60,000 in income. They can be used to buy standard health insurance coverage or to buy high-deductible health insurance and establish an HSA.

As your income rises over the years, you will benefit from my proposed tax deduction of your health insurance premiums and for contributions that you make to your HSA.

To assure that people who buy health coverage outside the employment setting have access to affordable, high quality health coverage, I want to let private, non-profit groups - like civic organizations, charitable associations and religious groups - offer insurance coverage to their members. This will give individual purchasers the ability to buy coverage through an insurance pool formed by an organization they trust, where they can get the full benefit of volume discounts on their healthcare premiums. And I would allow those who live in states where regulations and mandates drive up the cost of health insurance to shop for health insurance across state lines, so that they can find the best health coverage at the most affordable prices.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

The U.S. is the only industrialized country without universal health care. We support a single-payer health care plan that replaces for-profit, investor-owned hospital care and removes the private health insurance industry. This national, single-payer health insurance program would be federally funded and would provide comprehensive benefits to all Americans throughout their lives. Under the current system, billing fraud, large executive salaries and excess profit costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Americans pay more than any country for health care, but receive less in services. By cutting this waste, Americans could easily fund a single-payer plan.

Of the many professional health care peer groups that support single-payer care, the Physicians for a National Health Program's proposal, at www.pnhp.org, stands out:

• Everyone would be included in a single, comprehensive public plan covering all medically necessary services, including acute, rehabilitative and long-term care, mental-health services, dental care, prescription drugs and medical supplies.
• Everyone would have access to personalized care with a local primary care physician, and free choice of doctors and hospitals. In this universal health care system, patients and doctors retain control of medical decisions, not insurance companies or the government.
• Health care sellers would stay private, and the health plan would provide for different payment schemes for health-care sellers to minimize disruption. These payment schemes should prevent profit motives from influencing physicians, so no structured incentives could recommend too much or too little care.
• A transition fund would be established for insurance-company employees whose jobs would be eliminated due to the simplicity of the single-payer system.
• A focus on prevention as a critical part of health care. A single-payer health plan that includes a prevention focus will help mitigate behaviors (i.e. smoking and consumption of fatty foods) and environmental conditions that increase health problems.

11. PERSONAL:

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.
- Jeremy, 30, of WA

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

When I first arrived in Washington, DC, one of my first meals was a hot dog. After I discovered what were in hot dogs I never ate another one. I changed my mind. When we get new facts or new information, it is foolish to continue on the same course as if the new information did not exist. The Bush administration has been among the most anti-scientific, anti-fact based administrations we've ever seen. They are willing to amend the facts in government reports in order to justify the policy choices they make. We've seen this with critically important issues like global climate change and the war in Iraq. In truth, facts matter - science matters and we need to seek it out, understand it and make decisions based on it.

Senator John Kerry Responds:

It is important for leaders to tell the truth to the American people. If the leaders get the facts wrong then they should admit it. If leaders form their opinions based on a set of facts and they learn that those facts are wrong, it is appropriate to change their position. American government works best when it works based on trust and honesty.

President George Bush Responds:

President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor

THIS NEXT QUESTION WAS ASKED AND CHOSEN BY 13-17 YEAR-OLD "FUTURE VOTERS" AS THEIR GREATEST CONCERN THAT HADN'T BEEN FULLY ANSWERED BY THE CANDIDATES:

12. TOLERANCE FOR THOSE WHO ARE DIFFERENT:

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 the 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?
- Marcy, 17, of CO

President George Bush Responds:

I have a great respect for people of all beliefs, and I am proud to live in a Nation that welcomes and respects people of diverse philosophies and backgrounds. My faith has made a big difference in both my personal life and my public life. As President, I make decisions based on what I think is best for the country. However, my faith is an integral part of my life, and I cannot separate my faith from who I am as a person.

I support the separation of church and state, but I do not believe our Founders intended for the State to discriminate against the church and banish faith from the public square. Our Nation was based on founding principles; the decisions I make as a leader are sbased on these principles and not my personal faith. Marriage, for example, has been the foundation of our society and of societies and cultures throughout history -- and it has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. I believe that the future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic process, rather than by the court orders of a few.

I also believe government should not fear faith, but welcome faith and utilize America's "armies of compassion" as they continue to transform lives. My Faith-Based and Community Initiative levels the playing field in the Federal grants process for religious organizations. I signed a law reaffirming "one Nation under God" in our Pledge and "In God we trust" as our Motto. And I support the Equal Access Act which allow religious organizations to hold voluntary meetings on public property - such as schools, because denying them that right would be unconstitutional.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

When President Bush starts talking about doing the Lord's work, when he starts taking about appealing for strength to a higher Father than his father, when he starts talking about all the quotations for the last two years that the press has reported, about his references to Providence, we are dealing here with a messianic militarist. A messianic militarist under our constitutional structure is an unstable officeholder. Talk about the separation of church and state. It is not separated at all in Bush's brain and this is extremely disturbing. We want him to make decisions as a secular president.

The whole process of how Bush made this decision to go to war in Iraq without informing Secretary of State Powell, etcetera, indicates that he has got some psychological impulse that is driving - whether it is revenge for his father or whatever or more likely a combination of distraction from domestic necessities which is the greatest beneficial fallout from the war for him politically. The danger of injecting God into the Iraq war is further angering a Muslim world that already distrusts U.S. policies and motives. Anybody with a stable approach to this would keep his mouth shut.

The continually weakening separation between church and state can also be seen in the two parties pressing for or allowing faith-based government funding. Liberals have become increasingly estranged from demands that their party incorporate these subjects as part of what it stands for. They have settled for the Democrats' saying or doing the right things on the social and cultural issues such as choice, gay and lesbian rights, church-state separation and Social Security. When considered against the deterioration of standards of living, access to justice and the dwindling power of the people vs. giant corporations, the party's offerings are grossly insufficient.

Senator John Kerry Responds:

Teresa Heinz Kerry and I are practicing and believing Catholics. If you're a person of faith as I am, faith is your guidepost, your moral compass - the sustaining force in everything you do. God's work must truly be our own and the job of a leader is to convey to people that what we do does not speak for one particular belief but bring people together around a set of values that we share as a nation.

Comments

Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ackthpt]

When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? Both sides have been accused of flip-flopping on important issues -...

President George Bush Responds:

President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor

Such a decisive leader!

Seriously, that should have been a cinch to answer, but as Nader and Kerry indicate the current administration is fond of changing facts to support their answers. Anyone who claims not to ever have made mistakes is to be met with a great degree of skepticism.

I'm looking forward to tonights final debate, which would certainly be more interesting if Nader where there to show people an alternate view, but it's still fun to watch these guys think on their feet.

BTW, was I the only one who caught that comment by Bush on Friday, regarding picking SCOTUS justices and hedging all over the place before finally saying, "besides, I want all of them to vote for me!" You don't say... like in 2000? You don't get nuggets like that without putting them on their toes before a camera, without all their helpers.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[pizza_milkshake]

President George Bush Responds:

President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor

Such a decisive leader!

indeed. at first i found it amusing, but i am troubled that gwb finds it impossible to admit a specific instance in which he made a wrong decision.

his leadership style is like that of a religious organization... no matter what, never admit you are wrong (until at least a few hundred years after the incident, if ever).

part of making decisions is making the wrong ones and being able recognize them, admit it, and learn from them going forward.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[lar]

Don't forget, the other two candidates didn't answer the question either.

Well, Nader did say he decided to never eat a hot dog again, but I don't think that quite matches the wording of the question: "Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance." Note "national importance".

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Rostin]

Uh, did you read the "answers" given by the other two candidates?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Feynman]

Seriously, that should have been a cinch to answer

Yes! Tell it Senator Kerry:

Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion . . .

Senator John Kerry Responds:

It is important for leaders to tell the truth to the American people. If the leaders get the facts wrong then they should admit it. If leaders form their opinions based on a set of facts and they learn that those facts are wrong, it is appropriate to change their position. American government works best when it works based on trust and honesty.

Nice specific answer!

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[afree87]

Ralph Nader admitted he made a mistake in eating that hot dog. In the realm politics, I think that's a pretty big apology!

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Punkrokkr]

You forgot the rest of the question: Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance.

Seems to me that Kerry avoided the question altogether as well. He just opened his mouth and let crap flow forth as normal. To me, President Bush is to be more respected in this situation.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[notwhole]

I agree to looking forwared to the debate. After that answer, I envison Bush at the podium, and when asked a difficult question, the President furrows his brow, looks decisive, and says "pass".

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been a lot made of GWB's failure to admit mistake during the second debate. While I agree that admitting mistake is a sign of wisdom and generally good thinking, I do not expect so much from a person in such a position of leadership as the presidency. We don't really want our president laying out his mistakes while in office; it's enough that he realizes them alone (not that we ever know if that's happening). The presidency is in important figurehead for our nation, and some public self-righteousness is important.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[SocietyoftheFist]

Has nothing to do with decisiveness. You can't trust somebody that won't acknowledge mistakes, it points to a fundamental dogmatic belief that their decisions are right and correct.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Jerf]

his leadership style is like that of a religious organization... no matter what, never admit you are wrong (until at least a few hundred years after the incident, if ever).

I've been thinking about this lately, and I don't think that's it. I think the problem is that we as Americans are holding all of our leaders to unreasonably high standards, in many cases exceeding even "perfection". (Which is to say, we demand the impossible, like full disclosure of military operations while demanding that our troops be kept safe.)

So, at the slightest sign of failure, we brutally punish the leader, out of any proportion to the fault (which is sometimes only perceived!).

In this environment, why should we expect anyone to ever admit mistakes, ever? That's just one more thing to pile on about. Better to deny it and hope for the best.

This is a non-partisan observation, and indeed it extends past politics; in previous eras Dan Rather would be out of a job, now he stands on his "facts" for a few weeks, mumbles a vague and unsatisfying apology, and hopes for the best, which AFAIK he is getting. Same for CEOs. We punish people for apologizing or admitting fault and reward them for bulling through until the problem just goes away.

What do you expect? Unless we have a culture shift where we acknowlegde that nobody is perfect and start holding people to more realistic standards as a whole, everybody is going to act that way. And I can imagine no way for this to occur, since people currently benefit greatly for mocking politicians dress, speaking ability, or face shape. (I mean, come on, what is a guy supposed to do about that?)

Again, this is non-partisan; anything in this message you think is directly about Bush is meant to apply broadly.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[stanmann]

Well, of the three, it was the only honest answer.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[mefus]

his leadership style is like that of a religious organization... no matter what, never admit you are wrong

Well, by Bush's own admission, God speaks through him. And God is perfect, infallible. Bush admitting he made a mistake would be a heretical position to take and he is a pious man, after all.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gambit3]

whoa, whoa, whoa...

Sen. Kerry didn't answer it either.

Sure, there was a resonse... but it was a generic, scripted response that didn't address the question at hand to list a time they had changed their mind.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gorbachev]

It's truly amazing that this president stubbornly maintains he never makes mistakes (other than in appointing people, apparently) and once he makes his mind, he never changes it.

His answer to the last audience question during the 2nd debate revealed an overbearing arrogance, unwillingness to learn from past mistakes, shame over his record during the presidency or all of the above.

In my work life, these type of people have been the absolute worst to work with. They are stubborn know-it-all types incapable of seeing other points of view and impossible to come to any sort of compromise, ever.

Proletariat of the world, unite to cast your vote against Bush

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[mefus]

Yep. I wish someone would help out here. Not someone from the Bush side of the fence, though, as they seem to believe everything Bush says about Kerry, which is mostly severe distortion of fact.

I can't imagine Kerry never made a mistake even he could see.

He's in favor of the PATRIOT act minus some provisions he hasn't stated (in a forum I've visited). I think that's a mistake but he obviously doesn't.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[abb3w]

BTW, was I the only one who caught that comment by Bush on Friday, regarding picking SCOTUS justices and hedging all over the place before finally saying, "besides, I want all of them to vote for me!"

Well, they do get to vote in the November 2nd election, just like everyone else. But yes, it will be bad if they get to vote a second time.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[mefus]

Seems to me that Kerry avoided the question altogether as well. He just opened his mouth and let crap flow forth as normal. To me, President Bush is to be more respected in this situation.

I agree he avoided the question, but I think what he says shows a lot more wisdom than anything Bush has been able to muster.

Bush declined to answer, how how do you find that a respectable position. He's effectively saying he's not answerable to anyone but God and that's simply not true.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[MacGod]

There are no mistakes and no changes to history. We are at war with Eurasia and we have always been at war with Eurasia. Any thought to the contrary will result in re-education.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Rimbo]

I did. Kerry failed to introduce a specific instance of himself changing his mind. Nader was the only one who actually answered the question... but a hot dog? Why should I care what he thinks about hot dogs?

So we have one candidate failing to give a substantive answer, one who fails to answer the question, and a third who says nothing. It's the Marx brothers, folks: Groucho (Nader), Chico (Kerry), and Harpo (Bush).

Off with their heads.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[stanmann]

No, what he has said before and is saying again is that based on what I know now about what I knew then, I made the best decisions I was able based on what I knew then and if I had the same information in front of me today I would act in the same way.

IMO this is a man of integrity. NOW I do agree with the poster who pointed at Bush's wild youth as an example of a learning mistake, but the PR people wouldn't let him bring that up as it could cause problems... IMO it would be wise for him to address those years again in this campaign, but he addressed them rather thoroughly in 2000.

If you believe honestly that you made the best decision at the time, you have nothing to apologize for. If more people lived like this, the world would be a better place. Yes, if you acted wrongly based on the information available, apologize, but if you acted correctly don't second guess yourself. move on. Press forward. IF I see a person being assaulted and I step in and break it up and call the police to find out later that the person being assaulted instigated the affair, should I refrain from stopping the next guy I see from being beaten?? no... I did the right thing based on the intelligence available.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[operagost]

No, neither of the above trolls did. I was bothered by the president's "no comment," but at least it was more honest than Kerry's non-answer and Nader's hot dog story.

This was probably the least relevant question, but all the left wing trollers here will waste page after page harping on it.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Rayonic]

> or face shape. (I mean, come on, what is a guy supposed to do about that?)

Erm... get mocked about Botox injections instead? ;-)

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Yolegoman]

Yes, both Nader's and Kerry's replies had _nothing_ to do with the question. Hot Dogs are nice and all, but certainly not of national importance. Kerry, as usual, twisted the question around and blamed Bush for some more stuff while saying nothing about himself.

Bush, instead of making a roundabout answer like the other two, decided to decline. I certainly don't see why that is "worse" than ignoring the question and blaming someone else: maybe it's even "better".

That said, I was interested in their replies to that particular question, and was diasappointed by all of them.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Atzanteol]

Wow. Gem of a comment in the middle of a pile of crap that is slashdot...

I think there is a lot to what you say here, especially with todays "Gotcha" politics. Bush could walk on water, but $diety help him should he mis-speak or have less than perfect grammar! Kerry could have marched through Vietnam naked and won the war all by himself, but $diety forgive him if he changes his mind on the color tie he wears.

Each side jumps on the others minor flaws like a pit bull. And the media just loves it.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Frobnicator]

Uh, did you read the "answers" given by the other two candidates?

Just for the record, let's get it straight:

Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance.

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

[In Washington], one of my first meals was a hot dog.

Senator John Kerry Responds:

American government works best when it works based on trust and honesty.

President George Bush Responds:

President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor

So, we can say:

• Mr. Nader thinks changing his decision on hot dogs is an issue of national significance.
• Mr. Kerry thinks trust and honesty is something that he can change his mind about.
• Mr. Bush declined to answer.

Relativly speaking, I think Mr. Bush had the smartest of the answers. But that's not saying much.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[umshaggy]

I would understand not answering a question about when you have made a mistake (in today's political environment, answering that question would be opening oneself to attack).

However, this wasn't even a question about mistakes. It was a question about changing ones mind after getting more info:

"Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance."

Note also, that he did not answer the question at all. If he truly didn't change his mind on anything (or at least believes he didn't), then it would be easy to answer "I haven't changed my mind about anything." Instead he simply didn't answer, which I feel is a show of gross disrespect to those posing a legitimate question.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Edax Rarem]

Oh come on... No one is going to crucify him for admitting what he did wrong.
Unless of course, what he did wrong was illegal. Which makes me think... If he does get charged for something like say, lying to congress about his reasons for going to war, then he will have never been on record for admitting to anything.
So, using this logic, it is brilliant (did I just call W brilliant? I must be high).
There will never be a recored of him ever admitting to anything that he has done "wrong".
So, the reason he does not respond is that he is afraid of criminal indictment. And he should be. IMHO

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[magefile]

I agree, dumb answer. But although I generally like Kerry & Nader, I thought they should have mentioned a change of heart that they themselves experienced (and no, eating hot dogs doesn't count).

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gokeln]

Sorry, but based on your sig, I would suggest you don't have a lot of credibility in assessing the President's motivations in any impartial way.

Had Mr. Bush admitted some change of heart or mind on any policy or issue of national importance, you would be pointing him out as hypocritical for calling Kerry a flip-flopper. You would be saying he talks out of both sides of his mouth. You'd be saying how the mighty have fallen. And whatever the issue was, it would be broadcast up and down the media every day between now and election day.

It was a no-win question, and all 3 candidates chose not to answer it. Only one candidate didn't try to hide behind double-speak.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Citizen of Earth]

President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor
Such a decisive leader!

Whereas Nader's issue of national importance is his choice not to eat hot dogs and Kerry's answer is not to answer but to give "and fair to every America" drivel a la Arthur Carleson on WKRP. I would say that Bush was the only candidate to actually answer the question by saying 'no comment'.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, President Bush is to be more respected in this situation.

It seems to me all three did exactly the same thing, only that Mr. Nader tried a bit more to answer. Mr. Kerry tried to think on his feet while he talked and did not find an acceptable (not very risky) answer to give, so he just mumbled. Had he been less careful, he would set the stage for Mr. Bush to come back with his "flip flop" accusations on his own answer time.

President Bush came last, and therefore could both have more time to think about what to answer (not to answer) and to look for "hooks" in the other guys answers. Because Kerry gave no good hook, and because he, like Kerry, could not find a safe honest answer to give, he declined to comment.

To me, thinking about how Bush has been using this "flip flop" accusation in the campaign, he should be *less* respected for not coming with an answer. After all, his campaign put Kerry on a careful, defensive mode about this "flip flop" issue, and should therefore have some higher ground to stand. Obviously, he had no such higher ground. What I mean is, if you criticize someone you should have some logic saying you would do different. Saying you would never be wrong (think wrong, judge wrong, know wrong) is just false, pretentious and dishonest. That is what Bush's position comes out as.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[rackhamh]

I don't know how this comment was modded insightful. If I followed the same type of reasoning, I would take the first sentence of the parent post, and ignore the rest:

"Just for the record, let's get it straight."

Sounds like a personal problem! Should've been modded off-topic!

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Shiptar]

Bush has never changed his mind, nor has he ever been wrong, he doesn't need to answer the question. However, I would argue it's a very important question.

Don't take that as support, I am a Rational Anarchist, I don't need your government, but ya'll have a grand time with it.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[TheAntiCrust]

It wasn't an answer, it was the specific lack of an answer... which is terrible.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[jd]

I was not impressed by any of the answers. Nader used an analogy. No, I don't believe he thinks hot dogs are of national importance, but I do believe he was trying to show the idea of changing views in terms that the audience would be familiar with. In other words, he believes that the average American youth isn't smart enough to handle real examples of real decision-making.

Kerry emphasised the importance of having the freedom to change one's mind and be flexible. He did not give any examples, as asked, though. A pity, as he'd made use of this very point in one of the televised debates. He had a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate th benefits of a learning administration over a rigid one.

President Bush's "answer" spoke volumes. At the very least, he could have clarified the line he has made so many time, which is that he is decisive when decisions need to be made. (Hey, it's a valid point. I don't happen to think it's a good point, but it is valid.) As with Kerry and (to a large extent Nader) he could have skipped the example bit.

That he chose to say nothing at all shows that he is well aware that there have been exceptions to his decisiveness, but cannot (or will not) find any way to rationalise the practice with the theory.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[endx7]

There was more than one thing the asker was asking in that "question".

If you read the first part, you see "When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion?" I think Nader (and Kerry up to a certain point) managed to answer that question pretty well.

The last part "Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance." nobody really answered at all (as you pointed out)

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[stanmann]

No, it is very much an answer
Just like the question
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

There are several appropriate responses to this question
1. A punch in the nose from your wife to the obnoxious being asking the question
2. I'm not going to answer that question.
3. WHAT!! I've never beaten my wife.
4. Huh?!?!?! I've never beaten my wife.

Notice that none of the responses answers the question.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gorbachev]

What's a little hypocricy after lieing through your teeth for four years.

The whole "flip-flop" issue is complete nonsense to being with. It's typical mud-slinging cooked up by some "clever" campaign strategist to make nice soundbites. It has no basis in reality once you go deeper than the soundbite.

It's kinda sad that the sitting president doesn't think he can get elected on his own merits, but has to come up with this sort of garbage to have a chance to win. It speaks volumes about what sort of a record Bush really has.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[mefus]

I don't get it. He's been caught in the lie, both he and his administration, and given the gravity of his deed, the invasion of a sovereign nation pre-empting functional investigation by the UN, against the better judgment of our strongest allies, he seeks to absolve himself of responsibility for the horrific deed (not to mention the policy of torture which was in fact legallyy investigated by Ashcroft/Rumsfeld to work around difficulties that would hold them directly accountable (and ignoring the moral terpitude of the deed)) he claims he "made the best decision he could at the time" while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the mistake in a public way! He will not face the fact he made a mistake and uses an excuse I would not accept even from a child.

He is not a man of integrity. He ignores the fact that 1. proof about WMD was not in hand, 2. The UN had a tight leash on Hussein's regime, despite all this talk of him balking at every move, and 3. He was doing everything he could to ignore any indication Iraq was not imminently capable of attacking the US.

That is not integrity, that is a bull-headed stubborn refusal to acknowledge the attack was unjustifiable.

Now pile on top of that all the "benefits" gained by the Friends of Bush and you begin to suspect what the real motives were when Bush lied to us to get us and congress to agree to attack a sovereign nation.

That is not a man of integrity, that is a man with many occult and avaricious motives.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[GooberToo]

indeed. at first i found it amusing, but i am troubled that gwb finds it impossible to admit a specific instance in which he made a wrong decision.

I'm completely amazed for completely different reasons. He is, first and foremost, a man running for re-election. You can be assured that Kerry or who ever in such a position, is not going to start bragging about past mistakes right before an election. I'm sorry, but that's the reality we live in. Ding GWB for it if you must, but you simply don't understand politics if you think you would get any other class of answer from any other man in an election year (right before election).

Simple fact is, we ALL known he's made mistakes. How dumb do you have to be to hear it from his own mouth to know he's made mistakes.

his leadership style is like that of a religious organization... no matter what, never admit you are wrong (until at least a few hundred years after the incident, if ever).

Once again, I'm forced to disagree. His leadership style is like that of a man running for re-election. Like it or not, this is what US politics and our four-year cycle has created. It's just a fact of US politics and our current election system.

part of making decisions is making the wrong ones and being able recognize them, admit it, and learn from them going forward.

Maybe for us mortals, but not for a man running for re-election. Politics is politics, and these are the answers you should expect for any politician in high office. After all, that's what makes them politicians.

If you think for even a second, you have the option of voting for a human versus a politician, then your right to vote should be taken away.

I have family that constantly sends me pro-Bush propaganda. Comments like your seem no different to me. Often, I see people in a hurry to bash the other side while forgetting that everything they are bashing one side for, is probably true for the otherside too. Granted, this election does have some wide divides, unlike what you normally see, but just stop and think if your comments hold water when applied to the other side. More often then not, you're bad talking both sides and you just don't realize it.

This is why I tell my son that this election is figuring out to vote for, "dumb or dumber". In this election, it's not like you even have an option of figuring out which is best. Rather, your objective is to figure out which one is less stupid and vote for him. Let's face it, our options suck. Nader? Ya right. That's a vote for Bush, not Nader. Yet another reason, which highlights that our 2-party system sucks.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Keebler71]

Such a decisive leader!

Right... as oppposed to Kerry who didn't answer the question and instead just said that leaders need to own up when they make a mistake, and Nader, who changed his mind about eating Hot Dogs.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[justsomebody]

You should wake your brains sometimes.

Let me translate it for you:

Naders hot dog description was ment to describe the fact that when you don't know all the facts your point of view might be different.

Kerry responded with practicaly same answer (about getting all the facts on the spot) but says that government should admit mistake in case of changing mind. Aka. Nation should be informed when and why opinion was changed.

While other candidates who answered said the same thing, Bush answered nothing.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[stanmann]

And you ignore the fact that 1. Sadaam believed he had WMDs. 2. The UN believed that Sadaam had WMDs. 3. France believed that Sadaam had WMDs. 4. France, Germany, Russia and others objected to the invasion because they were getting cash kickbacks from the food for oil deal.

Where was the mistake? There was deception somewhere since 90% of the world's population believed he had Chemical and Biological weapons and the other 10% didn't care one way or the other.

Based on the evidence 18 months ago

1. Sadaam and the rest of the world believed there were WMDs
2. 11 years of him taking potshots and taunting us was long enough and one more try wasn't going to get him to roll over and play nice.

the right decision was to get it done. and we did we have and we are.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

You just threw 'dogmatic' in there for effect, didn't you?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Shotgun]

i found it amusing, but i am troubled that gwb finds it impossible to admit a specific instance in which he made a wrong decision.

I found it equally amusing/disturbing that Nader would consider choosing the wrong entree for dinner as being within the spirit of the question.

"Damn, Bubba. You smell that! I guess beans for dinner was a mistake. I woulda've et corn, if'n I'd've known that it would smell like that!"

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[danheskett]

The problem is, let's say Bush does admit a mistake. Let's say he says appointing person X to post Y was a big mistake.

That person has to live with that! And he/she has to still attempt to a job when given a hugely public vote-of-no-confidence by the most powerful man in the world!

Talk about pressure.

Admitting a mistake is a worthless execise in this context. I am sure when you get Bush out of office he'll talk it up like Clinton et all have done: things that went right, wrong, and all over the place.

The bottom line is that him not detailing mistakes is not proof of "points to a fundamental dogmatic belief that their decisions are right and correct", but rather, a realization that anything he says affects policy, and affects real people.

There is a time and place for this business about admitting mistakes, but this isn't it.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[d34thm0nk3y]

um...he was obviously refering to his original stance on Iraq.

If leaders form their opinions based on a set of facts and they learn that those facts are wrong, it is appropriate to change their position.

Get it: Iraq has WMD. Attack! Oops, they got nothing. Maybe this war wasn't such a great idea then huh?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[FrankHaynes]

What's all this carping about?

Let me give you folks a clue: you can always tell when a politician is lying because his lips are moving.

They say whatever it takes to get elected, then they will do whatever they bloody well please once in office. In four years, they know that our short attention spans will have forgotten what they did longer than 15 minutes prior.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[mefus]

And you ignore the fact that 1. Sadaam believed he had WMDs. 2. The UN believed that Sadaam had WMDs. 3. France believed that Sadaam had WMDs.

No I'm not ignoring it. Belief is based on what evidence you can muster to support your suspicion.

Please replace "suspect" for every player outside of Saddam (since suspicion has a negative connotation that I don't think attributable to Saddam given the circumstances.)

Suspicion is an insufficient motive for the invasion of a sovereign nation, and a nation that does attack and invade another nation merely based on suspicion will quickly find itself in a very hostile world. Verification is more important than Bush's "belief".

If Bush really wanted to put Saddam's toes to the fire he had everything he needed within the context of UN involvement in Iraq to ensure that no WMD would be created and any WMD found would be removed.

He chose to act alone. And now he desires to escape responsibility for this folly. And he wants us to do it some more. No.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[User 956]

Bush has never changed his mind, nor has he ever been wrong, he doesn't need to answer the question. (sarcasm)

Seriously, take the following Bush quote: "I support the death penalty for heinous crimes, but only where the process is fair and guilt is certain."

Because as we all know, executing the retarded is "fair". Apparently, Bush's answer to "What would Jesus Do?" is "Execute people that don't deserve it, of course!"

Juxtapose this with his view on religion: "However, my faith is an integral part of my life, and I cannot separate my faith from who I am as a person."

Disturbing lack of separation between church and state aside, it becomes fairly obvious that he's either a huge liar, a huge hypocrite, or the biggest flip-flopper this race has seen. I've never understood how someone can be against abortion because it "violates the sanctity of life", but be pro-death-penalty; Or be against stem cell research, while supporting fertility clinics that routinely destroy thousands of embryos.

How does the man not go insane from mind-shattering cognitive dissonance?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Darby]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I don't think that's it. I think the problem is that we as Americans are holding all of our leaders to unreasonably high standards, in many cases exceeding even "perfection".

That has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Bush has made many extremely serious errors while in office. Everybody knows it, and they are completely out in the open. He has nothing to lose by admitting the simple facts that everybody knows and much to lose (like any credibility he had left).

This is a non-partisan observation, and indeed it extends past politics; in previous eras Dan Rather would be out of a job, now he stands on his "facts" for a few weeks, mumbles a vague and unsatisfying apology, and hopes for the best, which AFAIK he is getting.

The really sickening thing about this issue is how it has ended up being about Dan Rather. He made an error in saying the exact copy that he had of the memo was the actual one.
What has been completely lost in the ruckus over that is that regardless of the origin of that particular piece of paper, is that what was reported was absolutely factual, and has been backed up by the people who would know.
In fact it was backed up by the person who typed the freaking real memo originally.

I suppose you missed Rather's interview with the secretary who stated that she did not type the memo? He asked her if she typed similar ones: YES.
Heasked her if she types ones identical in content: YES.

So the facts are not in any way in dispute. Bush deserted his unit and failed to show up for duty. The president of the United States has proven himself to be untrustworthy. He has proven himself incapable of fulfilling an oath. He has proven himself to be a coward.

Yes, but it's really a much bigger story that a reporter had the wrong piece of paper with the smae things written on it as the right piece of paper.

That's just so symptomatic of how truly diseased this country is.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Jerf]

Kerry could have marched through Vietnam naked and won the war all by himself

Now that's an image! ("Run for your life! It's Lt. Col. John Kerry, and he's naked! We surrender! Unconditionally!")

Anyone up for a "slash" campaign ad parody? (In the right hands this could actually be pretty funny...) Or got pointers to one? :-)

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[geekpolitico]

I strongly disagree with this. Americans have shown themselves to be pretty forgiving in the past. If you make a mistake and ask for forgiveness, it tends to blow over.

Look at Lewinskygate. 40% of the electorate thought it was dumb. 40% hated Clinton no matter what. 20% thought Clinton was being an ass. After he apologized 60% of the electorate moved on, and the 40% that already hated Clinton hated him more. Of course, there was nothing on Earth he could have done to change their minds .. short of shooting a homosexual immigrant with an assault rifle.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[greg_barton]

Sen. Kerry didn't answer it either.

Bullshit. He said leaders should admit their mistakes and can change their views when new facts come to light. His answer had positive information content. That means he answered it.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ViolentGreen]

indeed. at first i found it amusing, but i am troubled that gwb finds it impossible to admit a specific instance in which he made a wrong decision.

Well in Debate#2, that was a trap question; an attempt to get him to provide Kerry with some ammuntion.

If I remember correctly, Kerry had a trap question too (or maybe it was Edwards.) I thought they were both a little unappropriate for the debates. It's like the "What's your greatest weakness" question that gets asked during job interviews.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ViolentGreen]

With Bush being the current president, anything specific he says can and will be used against him as a failure of the administration. I think whoever wrote his responses decided just to cut their losses.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ViolentGreen]

That's just politics. Everyone of opposing parties is looking for weakness or an opportunity to exploit.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[damiam]

Well, their "answers" are understandable. If Kerry admitted a flip-flop on a "topic of national importance", the Bush campaign would have the quote in a swing-state ad slamming him within a few hours. And Nader has never really had to make any decisions of national importance (except maybe deciding to run in 2000), so he doesn't really have any mistakes to admit.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Misinformed]

I'm perplexed you say "Kerry, as usual, twisted the question around" because when I read the text, Kerry seemed to give straightforward short answers, Nader liked the opportunity to talk and Bush read like a generic discursive essay application typical of Harvard/Yale applications.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ViolentGreen]

That's just so symptomatic of how truly diseased this country is.

Go ahead and jump ship then. No country is perfect. Any country you go to will have pleanty of things for you to complain about on slashdot.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Remlik]

I disagree with you, I think Bush answered that question exactly how I would have.

It was the last question of the debate, it was loaded, and designed to allow Kerry to end the debate with an attack on Bush. Kerry isn't in office and wouldn't have to answer with three of his own mistakes, instead he used his two minutes to further trash Bush. Thats bull shit, and dirty pool if you ask me. The question itself is legit, but needed to be worded better, and honestly should have opened the debate, not closed it.

Bush did what he had to do, which was say "Ah, you almost got me on that one, but tell you what, why don't you just sit down and I'll see you next wed."

Nice sig BTW: It always makes me chuckle when I hear someone say "anyone but Bush" hatred breeds only evil.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[mOdQuArK!]

I can't imagine Kerry never made a mistake even he could see.

I'm sure Kerry could privately admit mistakes, but if he actually described some in a public forum, the neo-con disinfo machine would have it out of context & spread all over the airwaves & in blogs in an hour or two.

Similarly, if Bush says anything that could be slightly interpreted as a way to call him a moron or out-of-touch, _his_ opponents would be jumping on it like a starving dog on fresh red meat.

Unless you have a candidate with bulletproof skin, you're not going to get _anything_ personal out of them.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Jerf]

He has nothing to lose by admitting the simple facts that everybody knows and much to lose (like any credibility he had left).

You obviously live in a much different America than I do. In fact, from the tone of your post, you would be one of the first people to jump all over the President if he actually did admit an error, and rapidly interpret the admission and extend the admission into ways the President would not have meant.

Now you can't do that, only make vague claims that he should, and even borderline lie by claiming he'd increase his "credibility" (presumably with you, since that's the only person you can talk about) by doing so. Like hell he would. You wouldn't consider him any more credible if he did come clean. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

(For a lot of people, most likely including you though I can't be 100% on this, he could come out with proof positive of everything he has said, and produce unassailable proof that he could not release this info earlier or troops would have died, and you still would not consider him credible. Your mind is made up.)

He made an error in saying the exact copy that he had of the memo was the actual one.

In years past, that would be enough. None of the rest of what you say would erase that. Especially after he stuck to his guns and insulted nearly the entire rest of the country in the process for questioning him.

See, Dan Rather is right 95% of the time and it's "disgusting" that people attack him. Bush is right 95% of the time, and by golly, get him the hell out of here. (Don't bother quibbling with the exact numbers, they don't matter. Let me save you time: They are both wrong numbers.) Partisan, partisan, partisan. You're exactly the kind of person I'm writing about, you're just too close to see it.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[skraps]

You don't get nuggets like that without putting them on their toes before a camera, without all their helpers.

Took me about 5 passes to read that correctly. I kept trying to figure out why you want there to be nuggets on someone's toes. (nuggets of what?!)

I'm going back to sleep.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood how someone can be against abortion because it "violates the sanctity of life", but be pro-death-penalty; Or be against stem cell research, while supporting fertility clinics that routinely destroy thousands of embryos.

He doesn't share your your beliefs. This is why he doesn't go insane. That you lack an understanding for his position shows that you are lacking in empathy. You are not alone though. This is the prime reason for the current polarized nature of the USA(of course, this is not just confined to the USA).

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[SocietyoftheFist]

He made a mistake with his claims about WMDs. He had advisors saying the aluminum tubes were for rockets. The yellowcake claims were proven false. Supposed vehicles for use in WMD production were just firetrucks. Which of the following statements are true?

"The fact that he tried to kill my father and my wife shows the nature of the man: He's cold-blooded, he's a dictator, and he's a tyrant," Bush told reporters on March 3, 2003. "The decision I'm making and have made to disarm Saddam Hussein is based on the security of the American people."

I didn't realize that Iraq had attacked us or was harbouring terrorists or had harbored terrorists that attacked us. It was personal, and no amount of revisionist lying will change that. Saddam was a bad guy(to put it mildly) but peopel in North Korea are starving under a dictator with the capability to hit Cities on our west coast. Iraq wasn't a threat, it was flat out lying to act like they were the next source of terror for us. The worst part of this whole situation is the only real alternative(given American voting patterns) isn't one I want either. For the second election in a row I really don't like either of the major canidates.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it does not. Failure to admit a mistake does not indicate that that the subject believes that no mistake was committed. Similarly, admitting a mistake does not indicate that the subject believes he was mistaken.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[bofkentucky]

You really believe that Kerry/Edwards wouldn't run a 30 second loop of Bush saying "I fucked up" if they could get it on tape. They would be idiots not to.

I've got some beachfront property in New Mexico just for you, I'll even throw in a big ass bridge, a gmail invite, and an ipod

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[_anomaly_]

Yet another reason, which highlights that our 2-party system sucks.

Here here!
That's been my major gripe since the last Presidential election.
I'd like to hear someone, whether it be presidential candidates, a congressman, whomever talk about campaign finance reform seriously in such a way that the goal is to give other parties a voice as loud as the 2 major parties.

I concede that it may be somewhat of a matter of walking on thin ice in so much that we wouldn't want a political field saturated with 100 parties; that would be practically impossible to wade through. However, something really needs to be done, we're just one less candidate shy of a dictatorship.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

While one can say that Bush did not answer the question, the same could be said about both other candidates. When confronted with "Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance." Kerry spouts a canned response which looks like it was written by someone in primary school. Governments shouldn't lie, we should be honest. While addressing the question better than his competitors, Nader tells us about a hot dog he had many years ago. I was hoping for something with substance, not something with chicken lips.

For all who were disappointed with Bush's replies, there IS a glimmer of Bush's own hand in response to the first question. "and I see no reason to change that statue." Last I checked were talking about federal law, not lawn gnomes.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[fiannaFailMan]

Nader used the hot-dog example to explain how it's perfectly okay to change one's mind when new facts come to light. Bush's silence on this one is deafening. Hell, even Tony Blair has the balls to admit that his people had gotten their facts wrong. When is dubya ever going to own up to the cock-ups in his administration?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[GooberToo]

we're just one less candidate shy of a dictatorship.

Now that's an awesome zinger and hella insightful! I honestly can say, I've never thought of it on such terms and yet, there it is! Man, I seriously hope someone mods you up!

+1 Insightful and/of sad/funny :)

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

...short of shooting a homosexual immigrant with an assault rifle.

How about threatening an immigrant child with an assult rifle?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[MConlon]

Actually, both Kerry and Nader answer "part one" of the question, which is "when are you allowed to change your mind?" Read the first sentence of the question!

EVERYBODY ignores "part two" of the question which is "please give one example."

Frankly I think Kerry's answer to "part one" is decent: when you're wrong, admit it, i.e., change your mind.

Nader gives the same general answer to "part one" but it's very mean spirited, and used more to attack than state facts. And his answer to "part two" is so laughable I'd have preferred he'd kept his mouth shut. How he saw the light and changed his hot-dog eating ways doesn't matter to me IN THE LEAST.

So... I rank the responses differently. Kerry wins, because he answered part of the question and not the other. I'll pretend he missed the last sentence. Bush comes in second, because I'll pretend he felt the question was a personal attack. Nader comes last because he turned the question INTO a personal attack, and then indicated that his hot-dog eating was at the same level of decision making as all of the stuff he proceeded to slam Bush for. That's a huge disconnect, IMO. I'd rather he'd have let "part two" slide, like Kerry did.

MJC

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Edax Rarem]

Well, I suppose _they_ would. They even have in fact, with the whole "We underestimated what we would need in Iraq quote".
But... at least the American public would know that this guy has some humility (and is smart enough to remember that he had in fact made a few mistakes:(http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp. asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326).
A rare quality in today's politics, unless you count Richard Clark, who admitted his mistake/s.

Oh.. btw, _my_ gmail invite worked. ;-p

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ZB Mowrey]

You might notice that none of the three answered the question. Two of them gave us noise, none of the three gave us signal.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

Had Mr. Bush admitted some change of heart or mind on any policy or issue of national importance, you would be pointing him out as hypocritical for calling Kerry a flip-flopper.

Damn straight. He shouldn't have called Kerry a "flip-flopper". So should he pretend he never makes mistakes to cover up that hypocrisy?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uhhh, he acknowledged mistakes, just not the issues that I thought were mistakes!"

It's not that he doesn't make mistakes (as he has acknowledged on numerous occasions), it is that the decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and the creation of the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption (summarized in: "We shall make no distinction between terrorists and the regimes that harbor them" and "You are either with us or you are with th terrorists") were not mistakes.

Your liberal hand-wringing litmus test that somehow he define those points as mistakes doesn't qualify as him as "stubbornly maintain[ing] he never makes mistakes" it qualifies you as stubbornly maintaining that you can't accept his position.

(Score:-5, Conservative)

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Slime-dogg]

This looks like it's supposed to be a joke, albeit unfunny. How the hell does something like this get modded "Insightful?" It's about as insightful as my left ass-cheek.

Then again, leave it to the left-leaning ass-cheek moderators to mod up a troll as "insightful," even though it doesn't address the rather thoughtful gp.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[MConlon]

Simple fact is, we ALL known he's made mistakes. How dumb do you have to be to hear it from his own mouth to know he's made mistakes.

I think the reason people want that is because it indicates a certain level of humility. GWB tries to do the whole "man of the people" thing... this stubbornness makes him look like a cock. Would you accept this sort of behaviour from one of your friends?

I realize it's a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" situation, but right now it's crushing him. It comes off as arrogance, and that clashes with the "regular guy" image which resonated well enough that people made him president.

He's got a very strong guy-I'd-like-to-go-fishing-with likability, and this is eroding it FAST.

MJC

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Slime-dogg]

I'm completely amazed for completely different reasons. He is, first and foremost, a man running for re-election. You can be assured that Kerry or who ever in such a position, is not going to start bragging about past mistakes right before an election. I'm sorry, but that's the reality we live in. Ding GWB for it if you must, but you simply don't understand politics if you think you would get any other class of answer from any other man in an election year (right before election).

If I were running, I would try to honestly answer the question with a meaningful (ahem, Nader) answer. It's not because I would wish to crucify myself in front of all Americans, but to make myself more personable. It's a lot easier to identify with someone who aknowledges that they make mistakes, it's easier to feel sorry for them, and it's easier for them to feel that they are voting for a real person. When you have someone that is extremely uptight about their appearance, the general response is rejection. It's inhuman to be perfect.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gokeln]

Substantiate your claim. Name a "lie." Keep in mind the definition of the word:

to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

In other words, for it to be a lie, he had to know it was false at the time he made the statement. Now, we may now realize that some of the information given about Iraq was inaccurate. But this was not known with any certainty at the time. Some expressed doubt, others expressed belief. Someone's gotta make the call when those things happen, and I will give benefit of doubt (to a Democrat or Republican) in these situations.
Flip-flopping, or rather giving such nuanced answers as to say one thing but preserve the ability to say, "I meant something else" is a very important issue. People need to be able to understand and trust their President. If he appears to be saying one thing, while actually meaning something else, then how can you ever believe a word coming out of his mouth? Most of us know how to use the word "is" and have no problem determining what is meant when it is used. However, you can create your own definitions or use words in such an obscure way as to say one thing and mean something else entirely.

I know exactly what Bush meant when he said misunderestimated, and it is pretty funny. But figuring out Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" is pretty hard. Though, I think I've finally figured out that he meant it to be a protest vote (he knew it would pass anyway), because so many of his constituents were against the war.

All politicians sell their good points and point out what they see as flaws in their competition. There's nothing sad about it. What's sad is when a person is so clouded by partisan arguments as to be unable to realise the faults in their own candidate.

Bush is flawed. Kerry's a fraud.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[E_elven]

You know what's sad? The one who actually admits to having made a mistake (for preference one that was since rectified) would get a landslide of votes.

I can't understand why the advisers are not jumping on this.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Slime-dogg]

Bullshit.

The question called for a specific instance of a time when they changed their mind. Kerry didn't supply the necessary specificity for the answer to be correct. Instead, he tries to spin the question into an assualt on Bush. He's full of shit.

At least Bush didn't make himself look like an ass with a non-answer, or a shitty answer.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[rackhamh]

It wasn't meant to be funny at all. The OP selected the first sentence from each candidate's response and extrapolated meaning while completely ignoring the rest. I was merely illustrating the complete and utter IDIOCY of that type of reasoning.

You know, it kind of reminds me of grade school, where if you said "asinine", the kids would all go, "Ooooh! You said ASS!!!" I guess some people never grew up, huh?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[dkellis]

I think you've just contradicted yourself. Bush passed on the question (option two in your analogy), which you stated does not answer the question. Therefore, it may be an answer, but it's not an answer to the question posed, and as such can be considered not to be an answer in this situation.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Carewolf]

No, it just had a positive spin to it. He didn't answer the questions. If you go through the list of questions, you will see that the two main candidates only in 2 and 2½ instances actually answered the question.

Even the "honest" Nader dodged half of the questions (although much much fewer than the two others).

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[stanmann]

Ok, you are right it is an appropriate response not a direct answer.

And when you find yourself sitting down playing a no-win game, the only winning move (paraphrasing wargames) is not to play.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[E_elven]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear.

Americans hold their leaders to incredibly low standards.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[greg_barton]

At least Bush didn't make himself look like an ass with a non-answer

Hello! He didn't answer the question! You can't get more of a non-ansewr than NOT ANSWERING.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it not a lie if you just plain don't care whether it's true or not?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ZB Mowrey]

Bullshit. He ran his mouth, but didn't answer a damned thing. And Nader is no better for his 'nationally important' hot dog. The question specifically, very plainly, asked for an example of a mistaken viewpoint, on a nationally-relevant topic, which had later been changed. None of the three answered. Read it again.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[greg_barton]

Instead, he tries to spin the question into an assualt on Bush. He's full of shit.

Funny, Kerry never mentioned Bush in his answer. Interesting that you'd interpret it as an attack on Bush.

Reminds me of Bush's answer to the same question during the last debate:

Question: President Bush, you've made thousands of hard decisions in the last four years. Could you give three examples of decisions you might have made differently?

Bush: Iraq wasn't a mistake!!

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[dkellis]

Except that in this case, "declined to answer" can mean a lot of things.

I'm unimpressed with the other two candidates' answers, but I do wish the editor would have left in Bush's exact response. If Bush had completely ignored the question or deemed it beneath his notice, then it would have been akin to option one of your analogy, or at least a slap in the face to the people who asked the question. As it is, we can only guess what he had intended by his refusal to answer.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Darby]

You obviously live in a much different America than I do. In fact, from the tone of your post, you would be one of the first people to jump all over the President if he actually did admit an error, and rapidly interpret the admission and extend the admission into ways the President would not have meant.

That's crazy. The tone of my post is based on the fact that he has repeatedly been unable to come up with a single error he has ever made.
Any normal sane human being will, when faced with new information, take this into their analysis of a given situation. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that various things Bush stated as absolutely proven facts not only aren't true, but weren't even believable at the time given the information he had at his disposal.

Were he able to change his mind based on new evidence, that would certainly elevate my opinion of him somewhat.
Instead, he refuses to change his mind even theough the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that he was absolutely wrong.


Now you can't do that, only make vague claims that he should, and even borderline lie by claiming he'd increase his "credibility" (presumably with you, since that's the only person you can talk about) by doing so. Like hell he would. You wouldn't consider him any more credible if he did come clean. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Again, see what I said above.
It's truly bizarre that you think you know what I think, how I think it, and how I would react to any given situation.
"Borderline lie" what the fuck is wrong with you?


(For a lot of people, most likely including you though I can't be 100% on this, he could come out with proof positive of everything he has said, and produce unassailable proof that he could not release this info earlier or troops would have died, and you still would not consider him credible. Your mind is made up.)

Now, you're just creating fantasy situations. I would certainly consider him more credible than I do now were this to happen. The thing your missing out on is that it isn't even theoretically possible.
Unassailable proof is already here that he was wrong, that he knew full well he was wrong at the time he said it and that he did it anyway.
You seem to feel that the simple basic facts of the situation should be ignored in the interests of... What. I don't know some deluded idea of impartiality.

Here's a hot litte tip for you.
Facts are not biased.
Facts are not partisan.

My mind is made up based on the facts of the situation.
The facts are not going to change.


He made an error in saying the exact copy that he had of the memo was the actual one.

In years past, that would be enough. None of the rest of what you say would erase that. Especially after he stuck to his guns and insulted nearly the entire rest of the country in the process for questioning him.

In years past, there wouldn't even have been need of a memo.
In years past, reporters wrote stories that they had proven to their own satisfaction were true.
That is nearly the entire advantage of having a free press. They do not have to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt in a court of law.

See, Dan Rather is right 95% of the time and it's "disgusting" that people attack him.

You're being delusional again.
I said that it was disgusting that a reporter having an identical copy of an actual document proving various extremely critical and relevant facts about the President of the United States lack of fitness is more of a story than the actual facts presented due to the fact that it was a different piece of paper.

Bush is right 95% of the time, and by golly, get him the hell out of here.

Bush made up a bunch of lies that have led to 10s of thousands of deaths and the greatest debt this country has ever seen. He has repeatedlydone everything in his power to destroy the transparancy upon which a free society absolutely depends (FOIA

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[dkellis]

Funny, the guy in the picture doesn't resemble Clinton.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[dkellis]

I get the feeling that this is a version of the Prisoner's Dilemma Game.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[CapnGib]

See, Dan Rather is right 95% of the time and it's "disgusting" that people attack him. Bush is right 95% of the time, and by golly, get him the hell out of here.

When Dan Rather is wrong, nobody dies.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[User 956]

He doesn't share your your beliefs. This is why he doesn't go insane. That you lack an understanding for his position shows that you are lacking in empathy.

LOL. The reason his position(s) are not capable of being understood by a rational person is my fault? That's a new one. If you can explain it, go ahead. You can start with the stem cell research bit:

Bush: Research on embryonic stem cells also raises profound ethical questions because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys the potential for life.

But then, fertility clinics, by law, are required to dispose of thousands of these same embryos.

If Bush really gives a shit about destroying embryos, why doesn't he pull federal support for these fertility clinics? Why doesn't he ban invitro fertilization? How many people like Christopher Reeve have to beg, plead, and die before Bush removes his head from his ass on this issue?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Yolegoman]

You make a very good point, but I would think that the reason most people are "ignoring" part 1 is that the real part they were interested in the 2nd one.

I was _very_ interested in their replies to this question, and I'm somewhat upset that none of them really answered the 2nd part.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[User 956]

Nation should be informed when and why opinion was changed. While other candidates who answered said the same thing, Bush answered nothing.

Obviously, because Bush doesn't believe the nation should be informed. About anything. Uninformed people are what keep him in office.

(or, after he loses on Nov.02, maybe that should read "Uniformed people are what keep him in office")

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gorbachev]

Again, he wasn't asked if the war on Iraq was a mistake. He was asked about ANY mistakes.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[SkyWalk423]

Do fertility clinics get federal funds? It's an honest question, not a setup.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gokeln]

Pointing out Kerry's flip-flops does qualify as an issue of national importance. I'll give you that. But, it certainly isn't a mistake. Politically, it's the right thing to do to expose your opponent's flaws: use of double-talk, nuanced answers, etc.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[GarryOwen]

If you believe in the death penalty, what is wrong with executing a mildly retarded person? Oliver Cruz had enough mental capacity (IQ between 63-83 according to the article you site) to commit the kidnapping, rape, and murder of 24-yr airwoman, he also had enough mental capacity to ask for forgiveness(aka he knew what he did is wrong). Cruz deserved to die. In fact I would say he got off pretty easy, as his death was painless other than the prick of the needle.
It really pisses me off to hear people cry for criminal, and completely forget how evil, barbaric, and without mercy the criminal acted to their victims.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gokeln]

Maybe, maybe not. How would you know? I think you're willing to believe the worst about someone simply because he's your opponent on unrelated partisan issues.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello!, they are our leaders. They have stood up and said "I'm an outstadning person capabable of making decisions that will affect the lives fo millions of other people.". If we don't hold them to high standards then who the hell should we hold to high standards.

When the average person makes a mistake someone doesn't die or lose their job becuase of it. When a world leader makes a mistake some can.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Atzanteol]

Umn. The point was quite the opposite. How do you figure 'low' standards?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[chitownIrish]

"But figuring out Kerry's 'I voted for it before I voted against it' is pretty hard."

Only because noone takes the time to figure out the real story behind that vote. And Kerry, to his detriment, does not come out and explain it himself.

Kerry sponsored an amendment to the $87billion bill that would have rolled back the tax cuts by an equal amount. The Republicans voted this version down over Kerrys first vote. The original version then passed over kerry's 'No' vote.

Everyone in the Senate who voted against the version of the bill with the amendment has two votes on this issue on their record, and many, if not all, of those voted for passage on the second vote.

So they all have contradicting votes on this bill, only they "voted against it before they voted for it".

The difference is that they voted to borrow the money from our children rather than pay for it up front.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[User 956]

Do fertility clinics get federal funds? It's an honest question, not a setup.

Why would it be a setup? Of course they get federal funds:

"The federal government through DHHS may fund IVF programs and provide Medicaid reimbursement for IVF"

Bush's logical disconnect with regards to fertilization and stem-cell research is fucking insane. The man is stubborn to a fault; He'd rather let people like Reagan and Michael J Fox die than cede the issue.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have a political field saturated with 100 parties, it's just that most of them are jokes and get no money or attention. It wouldn't really take that much to expand the political field without openning it up to what would amount to a denial of service attack. All we need is a sane way of electing people. I mean really, highest percentage wins? What group of people from 200 years ago thought that one up? Seriously, why are we still sticking to this braindead, backwards system? Would you trust Bell to run your phone system today? Would you let Franklin do the wiring in your home? Of course not! So why do we trust our very freedom and government with people who weren't even at the head of the class 200 years ago?
We need to have runoff elections like other nations do. Hell, even San Francisco has runoff elections. Look at what happened when they elected their last mayor. It came down to the Green candidate and the Democrat. The people of San Francisco had two candidates that reflected their values. Nowhere in the mix was a republican! You know why? It would've been a waste of time and effort. By giving people two chances to pick a president, you would open the field.
First round, all the players are in the running. People vote for who they WANT, not who they think is a safe bet. Next round, we just get the top two candidates, and then, if the person you didn't WANT isn't there, you can vote for the safe bet. It works.
"How democratic is the American constitution" should be required reading in civics classes.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gokeln]

Thank you for explaining this. It's the first time I had a cogent explanation. My question is then why should I have to go to such lengths to understand the public policy decisions of a man running for president. The "flip-flop" issue is really this: if the man cannot communicate the reasons for his decisions in a clear manner, so that the average Joe can figure it out, then why should I support him? Surely, the Democrats had better communicators among their candidates. I think Kerry was a big mistake for them. Gephart? Lieberman? They're excellent communicators. I haven't had such trouble understanding their positions. And, I find Bush pretty transparent, too, if a little bumbling over his words at times.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Breakfast Pants]

Now if Kerry would admit to his awful grammar mistake in the first sentence out of his mouth: "We are a can-do country, I am filled with optimism and hope by our nation's young people." Comma instead of a semi-colon.. tisk tisk.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ChrisPee]

I think the problem is that we as Americans are holding all of our leaders to unreasonably high standards.

The US presidency is the most powerful job in the world. Average people need not apply.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[killjoe]

"How does the man not go insane from mind-shattering cognitive dissonance?"

He really doesn't think about it that much. Gos speaks to him and he does what God tells him to do.

I know this because he said so. He never questions what God is telling him to do. If you have a problem you should take it up with his God. He is simply a servant of God. Oh and God speaks though him too.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Hellsau]

"Bush admitting he made a mistake would be a heretical position to take and he is a pious man, after all." Huh, I've always thought of "pious" as an insult... M-w.com kind of supports this: 1 a : marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship b : marked by conspicuous religiosity 4 a : marked by sham or hypocrisy b : marked by self-conscious virtue : VIRTUOUS Cough, religious hypocrites, are they the worst?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'know, I think Bush would be done with abortion, and there would not be a legal abortion anywhere, anytime, if he had the choice.

Thus is the nature of politics. The "leftist republicans" and "liberals" realize that begging the question on the moral value of fetus's life, versus the life of it's mother is asinine; and they won't hear of any legislation to totally ban abortions.

And that's Bush's plan (likewise, the rest of his evangelical movement)... To slowly turn us all into christo-zombie-sheep, to the point that we all agree with him and his chronies, and they can fully assfuck everyone in any way they chose.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[superyooser]

Bush has made many extremely serious errors while in office. Everybody knows it,

"extremely serious errors" = things YOU disagree with

Get off your arrogant high horse. Everybody doesn't share your opinion.

You people can't accuse Bush of being divisive, and then claim that the country is a monolith against him. If that were true, what would be the point of these debates?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[mefus]

You seem to be ignoring 1a. in the list of meanings. That is the primary meaning. The others are colored by a need to describe the likes of Bush.

I have:
1. Of or pertaining to piety; exhibiting piety; reverential; dutiful; religious; devout; godly. "Pious hearts."

2. Practiced under the pretext of religion; prompted by mistaken piety; as, pious errors; pious frauds.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you're high, I think that your observation is very astute, and I have shared similar observations on his actions throughout his term.

I also think Bush is brilliant, to be honest... In the crazy megalomaniac sort of way. He's smart as a fox, and a thousand times the actor. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing, and I'll be damned if he didn't learn to "baaah" as well or better than the rest of the country in his fancy university.

The sad thing is, despite his megalomania, he ***IS*** the most powerful person on this planet.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

You saw Bush thinking? Feet or not? When? I must have missed that part.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[snol]

I believe he might be speaking of the standard set by our current leader, for whom, on election day, almost half the votes for president will be cast.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[WhiteBandit]

When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? Both sides have been accused of flip-flopping on important issues -...

President George Bush Responds:

President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor

--

Such a decisive leader!

Seriously, that should have been a cinch to answer, but as Nader and Kerry indicate the current administration is fond of changing facts to support their answers. Anyone who claims not to ever have made mistakes is to be met with a great degree of skepticism.

To be fair, none of the candidates addressed that question at all. While it is somewhat odd that Bush didn't even attempt to answer the question, both Nader's and Kerry's answers were verbal diarrhea.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[danheskett]

Okay, well, that's great. A nice rant, really.

Doesn't change a bit of what I said. If Bush comes out and says the whole Iraq thing was a lie and mistake, then what? You have massive troop defections in Iraq, and the country falls apart even more. Plus to boot the US military is completely hamstrung by troop loyalty problems. Great.

That's my point. He cant just come out and say obvious/relevant things on this type of question.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[upsidedown_duck]

How does the man not go insane from mind-shattering cognitive dissonance?

He is so good natured that he doesn't let little things like logical fallacies bother him.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Rimbo]

"Nader used the hot-dog example to explain how it's perfectly okay to change one's mind when new facts come to light."

If you are right, then Nader, too, failed to answer the question. The question was, "When is it okay to change your mind?" Since the accusation of flip-flopping is used with issues more substantive than one's choice of lunchmeat, I assume the author is looking for just such an example.

I can give an example: I opposed our invasion of Yugoslavia. When I learned that the concentration camps and stories of horror were real, I changed my tune.

Kerry failed to give the obvious answer. Bush failed to give any answer. And Nader knows what he can do with those hot dogs he's not eating.

Off with their heads.

^--- (I'm putting text below this so that people know that I'm repeating this for emphasis, not a .sig.)

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Rimbo]

Son of a bitch, my brain broke, and I hit the fucking "Submit" button anyway. The question she gave was, for them to give an example of changing their mind, not "When is it okay to change your mind?" I'm such a fucking loon.

Off with my head...

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[mattACK]

He has admitted to making a mistake about how he spoke about his votes. Does that count?

not a troll, and not intended only at you

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Darby]

"extremely serious errors" = things YOU disagree with

Holy shit the pigheaded delusional ignorance of you freedom hating Bush supporters is un fucking believable.

He said that Saddam had mass quantities of WMDs that he knew exactly where were.
He said Saddam was a grave and imminent threat to us.
These have been proven to be lies.
It has been proven that he knew they were lies when he said them.
The fucking CIA told him not to spew the lies he spewed in his state of the union because they knew they were not true.

It's not a question of agreement or disagreement you ignorant fuckhole.
It is a fact the he lied his god damned ass off.

It is a fact that he pulled our assetts off of terrorism to fight pornography and dirty words on the radio and then we were attacked.
If you don't know that that was a mistake, then you have such a fucked sense of priorities it's unbelievable.

You people can't accuse Bush of being divisive, and then claim that the country is a monolith against him. If that were true, what would be the point of these debates?

I never said that he was divisive, although after lying about being a uniter, he proceeded to do everything in his power to divide the nation.
I never claimed the nation was a monolith against him. I said that everybody knows he made mistakes.
Is this untrue.
Are you going to claim that he is perfect and has made no mistakes?

What was your point exactly?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

> When Dan Rather is wrong, nobody dies.

If he gets Kerry elected they do.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

The fetus hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.

That's the difference.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[PatientZero]

It's like the "What's your greatest weakness" question that gets asked during job interviews.

And that's a very good question for a job interview. If you cannot recognize your own faults and challenges, you have absolutely no hope of overcoming them.

And if you recognize them privately but refuse to admit them publicly when appropriate, then you are a fool to think others don't already know about them.

Either way you don't belong in a leadership position.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

The fetus hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.
That's the difference.

What about retarded fetuses? Are they truly guilty if they lack the cognitive ability to recognize the consequence of what they have been convicted?

Are you saying it's OK to sentence guilty fetuses to death? Like a fetus that's guilty of "conspiring to kill it's mother if birthed"?

Sigh.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

If ONLY we could have him tortured in public. We could have had him in the stocks somewhere publicly for a while, like a mall. Then we could have him drawn and quartered after a football game. That way, the fucking retard could have really known the pain and suffering that you so JUSTLY wish upon him... plus it would really drive up ratings!

Imagine the product endorsements that could go along with televised mutilation and execution! The mind REELS.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[MrNally]

Kerry didn't answer the question either. He spoke in general terms and we were all supposed to be thinking of GWB as he replied. (Were you?).

In fact, the question asked for a specific case where they themselves had changed their minds. Look for that in Kerry's answer.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[David Rolfe]

This is a non-partisan observation, and indeed it extends past politics; in previous eras Dan Rather would be out of a job, now he stands on his "facts" for a few weeks, mumbles a vague and unsatisfying apology, and hopes for the best, which AFAIK he is getting. Same for CEOs. We punish people for apologizing or admitting fault and reward them for bulling through until the problem just goes away.

To me it's a little backwards that you think Dan Rather should get fired for one mistake (i.e. disregard his entire career for one transgression) and then turn around in the NEXT PARAGRAPH to say that '[we] should hold people to a more realistic standard'.

So which is it: Punish people absurdly for one mistake OR hold fallible humans to realistic standards?

How young are you? In previous eras Mr. Rather could have apologized and the pundits wouldn't even be around to put this moratorium over his and his institutions head. I think it's bizarre that people are slinging the term "Rather-gate" around like this is even remotely near the same caliber as Watergate.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[wazerface]

I personally think that Jeremy's question was great in that it caught all 3 candidates off guard.
You really get to know them better with questions like that.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[fossa]

Let's face it, our options suck. Nader? Ya right. That's a vote for Bush, not Nader.

The sooner you realize that the single vote under your direct control has essentially zero effect on the election as a whole (what would the outcome of the last election be if you had voted differently or not at all?), the sooner we can begin to repair the 2-party system that "sucks".

Note that in Florida 2000, the closest thing to an election coming down to a single vote that I've ever heard of, we proved that our voting system does not even have sufficient resolution to determine the outcome in the (next to impossible) event that the election does indeed come down to a single vote.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[SocietyoftheFist]

He should act correctly in the first place. Surely you aren't aruging that the President of the United States isn't personally accountable because of what might happen.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said there should be no abortions allowed in cases of medical necessity.

(In case that wasn't sarcasm, I was saying there's a difference between executing someone who has been tried by their peers and executing a fetus that hasn't even had a chance to do anything - not that I agree with the death penalty either)

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

People will make mistakes. Nobody is perfect. It's extremely unfortunate when it happens, but no matter who is in charge, huge mistakes will occasionally be made.

I'm holding off the judgement on Iraq for another five or so years, though. Democracy doesn't happen over night, but it seems to be heading there.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Mycroft_VIII]

Because it's not true. Sure on face value we may say we like someone who can admit an honest mistake, but in the long run no-one rembers anything but the mistake. Say sorry to much and people don't see you as honest, or considerate or polite, they see you as a continual fuck-up, even if it's false.
Think hard on what you've seen in the real world, not in places where they're supposedly teaching you how to behave like a primary school, or your parents when growing up) and start comparing the people who always owned up to thier mistakes vs those who 'spun' things to make it look like the mistake was eigther unavoidable or someone elses fault.

Mycroft.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Eravau]

The questions was: Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance.

To which Nader replied that he changed his mind about hot dogs. That is obvioudly of "national importance". He then went on to compain about Bush's decisions.

Kerry gave a nice answer...but not to the question that was asked.

None of them answered the given question. Bush was just the only one that didn't try to hide that fact.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[chitownIrish]

I think Kerry communicates plenty well, but their silience on this issue baffles me.

The only thing I can figure is that it's a strategic decision; they don't want to get on the slippery slope of wasting all their time responding to the other guys' attacks.

I think it didn't work for them, either on the $87 billion vote or the Swift Boat ads. They left both of these issues alone, apparently thinking they would go away, but they didn't. And it cost them.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Kwil]

I tend to think you're wrong.

I think the problem is more that American politicians believe that is the case.

I think if Americans had a President who, on the occasion he screwed up, actually called a press conferences and said, "Ladies and Gentlemen. We screwed up. We thought it was going to be good but turned out to be wrong. We apologize for it, we've learned from it, and we're taking steps not only to fix what we've done, but to make sure it doesn't happen again," you'd wind up with one of the most popular Presidents in history.

Americans love the hooker with the heart of gold story. The sinner who's turned to the light, the unlucky who made good etc. They eat that shit up.
Give them one of those as the President? They'd make it a kingship for him.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood how someone can be against abortion because it "violates the sanctity of life", but be pro-death-penalty;

Ya, hard to see the difference between killing hardened criminals bent on the distruction of peace and security, and killing innocent babies. I see your point there.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[flubbergust]

"extremely serious errors" = things YOU disagree with

The fact that Saddam wasnt working with Al Qaeda and the fact that Saddam didnt have any WMDs is extremly serious errors that it doesnt matter if I agree with them or not. Its facts and not fiction. Thousands of people have died because of this. That is what makes them extremly serious. So get off your arrogant high horse.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Vintermann]

I suspect the reason for the dissonance is that most people don't know very much of what happens at fertility clinics. Bush's core voters oppose stem cell research, but accept IFV because they don't know that it implies the same thing. Bush (probably) knows, but he's better of playing safe with an inconsistent view than to try to explain something to his voters.
(If he did that, he'd probably be rejected as a baby-killer and a flip-flop from all those who don't understand the facts, and they may be significantly many)

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say off with your head for the claim that there was evidence for the allegations offered before the war in Yugoslavia.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[sigaar]

'Because as we all know, executing the retarded is "fair".'

And from the linked article:

"The American Bar Association urged Texas Gov. George W. Bush to block Cruz's execution because he has been diagnosed as being mentally retarded with an IQ of 63."

Bush probalbly thought "gee, compared to me this guy's a genius - he should have known better"

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[superyooser]

The fact that Saddam wasn't working with Al Qaeda

Ever heard of Salman Pak? It was a terrorist training camp in Baghdad where Arabs were trained to hijack planes and blow things up. I guess Saddam didn't notice. And we know that Saddam had personally corresponded with Osama bin Laden, but I guess that's coincidental hogwash, too.

and the fact that Saddam didn't have any WMDs

Do you understand the nature of high-level decision-making? You should take a college management course.

Leaders don't have the luxury of being Monday-morning/armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight. The preponderance of evidence in the eyes of the whole world was that Saddam had WMD. That was why the U.N. Security Council leveled 17 resolutions against his regime. Saddam had waged genocide with chemical warfare before, and he would've used WMD again. The national and international objections to the liberation had nothing to do with the "question" of Iraqi possession of WMD, because there were no significant disputes about that issue.

Even if Saddam didn't have them, do you know what preemption means? I'm not going to fight this again. Read this thread.

The bottom line is: we are better off with Saddam gone. Our allies (our true allies) are better off with Saddam gone. Iraq is better off with Saddam gone.

The only people in the world who are not better off (in the short term) are countries like France, Germany, and Russia who were illegally raking in billions of dollars by abusing the U.N. Oil-for-Food program and selling weapons to Saddam.

Increasing our security is not an error. Abolishing dictatorships is not an error. Liberating millions of people is not an error. Incapacitating those who fund and aid terrorists is not an error. Fighting ideology of hate is not an error. Spreading democracy is not an error.

Why can't you people celebrate??? Unite with us and share in our joy. Why are you so angry? The United States has made fantastically wonderful, inspiring, historic achievements in advancing peace and liberty! What we've done is nothing short of miraculous (thanks be to the Lord Almighty). The results are great for the country and great for the world. This is success, not failure. There is nothing for Bush to apologize for.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[whovian]

Bush: Research on embryonic stem cells also raises profound ethical questions because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys the potential for life.

But then, fertility clinics, by law, are required to dispose of thousands of these same embryos.

By the National Center for Health's own statistics, one in tenwomen is incapable of bearing children. Plus, I have heard on the radio yesterday that something like only 50-75% of eggs, unfertilized or not, are reabsorbed before reaching the uterus.

I get two big points out of this:
1. Nature isn't so concerned that every egg must become a fetus.
2. Nature deems some women unfit to bear offspring.
3. Since Bush is a man of God, why support methods that alter Nature's/God's way (in vitro fertilization)? At least the partial ban on stem cell research is consistent with the "natural" way of things.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[nanoakron]

>>How does the man not go insane from mind-shattering cognitive dissonance?

Because of the blissful release of bigotry, the opiate of religion and a pinch of idiocy.

-Nano.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[GooberToo]

I think you make some wonderful points. Just the same, where you said, "I realize it's a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" situation, but right now it's crushing him. It comes off as arrogance, ..." IMO, there are two camps, there are ignorant people that think this makes his arrogant and then there are those that understands he's a politician, first and foremost. He's never going to make stupid people happy without pissing off the people that got him where he is today.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[GooberToo]

In many states, a mass of votes means absoluetely nothing, let along a single vote. While in other states, a single vote makes the difference. It's all about what state you're in. This exactly relates to laws in different states which determine how electorial votes are cast.

On the other hand, this isn't a situation of our two party system is broken, let's fix it. Rather, this is a case of our two party system is broken and has been for a very long time (half a century?). The two party system is fundimentally flawed. As one insightful poster offered, the two party system is one candidate away from a dictatorship. And frankly, the offerings being provided by both of the parties pretty much suck. Bluntly, the two party system is completely broken and will never be fixed...unless... campaign finance laws are significantly changed, which more or less opens the door third parties. In otherwords, the only way to repair the two party system is to pass laws which directly or indirectly allow third party participation. IMO, until you see a third party (or more) on ballots in every state, which receive simular federal dollars, we are screwed without regard to whether or not your vote counts.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[flubbergust]

I said "wasnt working together with" and that is true. Saddam wasnt working together with Al Queda as Bush said he did. I didnt say anything about that Saddam didnt train his own terrorist. You even qouted me yourself on this. There wasnt a connection between Saddam and Al Queda. Other than a few meetings there wasnt a collaboration between them.

It was a fact before Bush attacked Iraq that there wasnt any WMDs in Iraq. Yet Bush said he did. This is what my point is.
I knew perfectly well what high-level decision-making is and how it works so you dont have to try and insult me. I didnt try to insult you.
But that wasnt my point. The point is that everything pointed to the opposit of what Bush said and yet he rushed into war without support of those who could have helped him the best to create a new stable democracy. Now you got caos in Iraq.

Oh yes, always this "the world is a better place without Saddam". What the hell am I going to say to those "You stopped beating your wife?" kind of questions? Ofcourse its better without him but yet it should have done differently.

Iraq were no threat to USA. Not in the same capacity as Iran and North Korea is and those countries Bush havent done anything about (and if you want to find the terrorist that helped attack USA on the 9/11, you can find them in Iran). USA is much more unsecure today than it was before. The terrorist threat is greater today than ever before.

Iraq would have been much much better off if Bush had attacked with the UN's help than without. There is so many things that USA done wrong and could have been done better and I think that is why people are most upset. It should have been done better but Bush wanted to control the oil and really give a rats ass about anything else.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[TheAntiCrust]

It should be pretty easy to guess. We can assume he would have answered if he thought he had something to say that would make people want him to be president. So he must have had nothing good to say, which in this case is pretty bad.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[EvilCowzGoMoo]

See, Dan Rather is right 95% of the time and it's "disgusting" that people attack him. Bush is right 95% of the time, and by golly, get him the hell out of here.

Its not a question of "right" Bush KNEW that he was wrong and he flat out LIED to the american people, the UN, and the world about Iraq's nuclear weapons programs. Every top nuclear expert and the Department of Energy wrote several reports stating the tubes would not be suitable for centrifuges. The tubes actualy very closly matched the specifications the US uses for its own rockets right down to the same type of aluminum used!

Based on these lies we went to war and over 1000 troops have died.

Flame me if you want, or mod this troll, but when Clinton lied, the only thing on the line was his personal dignity, and the public demanded impeachment!

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

These have been proven to be lies. It has been proven that he knew they were lies when he said them. The fucking CIA told him not to spew the lies he spewed in his state of the union because they knew they were not true. It's not a question of agreement or disagreement you ignorant fuckhole. It is a fact the he lied his god damned ass off.

You want to talk about ignorant fuckhole? This is all conspiracy bullshit. There is no proof of anything you just claimed.
Unless you consider the little embellishments Michael Moore creates as "proof", and even he knows his stuff is trumped up.
And you want to talk about hatemongering ?? I've never seen such hatemongering and political venom in my entire life as I've seen from the left wingers these past few years. Just listen to yourself. You are seething in hatred. And you're irrational.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I don't think that's it. I think the problem is that we as Americans are holding all of our leaders to unreasonably high standards, in many cases exceeding even "perfection"

Which is why the US impeached and tried to remove a President for lying about his private life. Besides the distraction of Kosovo, this affected nobody's life other than him, his wife, the woman involved, and maybe his family.

Then again, the US has done nothing about GWB's administration going to war on facts it knew were faulty or, at best, outdated. This affect nobody's life except the 1000+ military personnel who have died in Iraq, the countless civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all their families.

Admittedly, the US is expecting GWB to end the Iraq issue with free, fair, and open elections, with opposition to US-led occupation disarming in order to participate in the elections.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ahdeoz]

Mr. Kerry said that he swore off eating hot dogs, but then was photographed eating a hotdog at a Red Sox game. When asked whether he was still against eating hot dogs he replied that he did not actually eat the hotdog, but merely posed for the picture as if he were eating the hotdog. When it was pointed out that there was mustard on his face, so he must have eaten the hotdog, he denied it, saying that it was ketchup, and asked who would not pose with ketchup on his face if their current wife's former husband bequeathed to her a billion dollar fortune made selling ketchup.

The next week at a Yankees game, Kerry cheered on the Brooklyn team and declared it un-American to not eat hot dogs at baseball games. That same evening at a vegetarian fundraiser, he said that the hotdog industry should be more regulated due to health concerns about their packing (citing Upton Sinclair's documentary about the current state of the industry, 'Aerosmith'.) Although Kerry voted against a bill that would toughen restrictions on meat packing.

He also proposed that vegetarian hot dogs should be required to made available at all ball parks where meat franks are available. This legislation would even affect little league games and potentially prohibit many locales from offering the tasty, allegedly offal-contaminated foods.

In other statements Kerry has both affirmed his love for hot dogs and decried them as unhealthy.

A flip-flop isn't about making a mistake or changing your mind.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[hesiod]

> He'd rather let people like Reagan and Michael J Fox die than cede the issue.

Everyone dies. They probably would have died at the same time, in the same way even if Bush had "allowed" the research. And those two have the same importance as about anyone else in the world.

This doesn't mean I agree with his decisions... any of them, but that particular statement falls along the lines of trying to affect someone's decision based solely on emotion and not on any rational thought.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ahdeoz]

You know that retard he didn't pardon only started using coloring crayons once his lawyers told him it might get him off the death penalty. Now, the reason that retard got the death penalty was because a woman he killed was the sister of a famous football player. Should a governor pardon every murderer whose guilt is certain just because they have famous relatives which might have influence the prosecution to more vigorously perform their job? There are lots of legitimate retards who manage to spend their lives not committing multiple murders and rape? Are they all to be denigrated by being lumped in with this degenerate who claims to be retarded but somehow was aware enough of his crimes to try to cover them up? What's wrong with killing people who definitely committed rape and murder, definitely were aware of both their actions and the conseqeuences, but possibly have a IQ below 100?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ahdeoz]

Reagan is dead. Reeve is dead. Fox will die. So will you and I. "Embryonic Stem Cell" Research won't save any of us. It won't cure Alzheimer's or Diabetes, a broken spine, cancer, or old age. Ever. Maybe it will lead to some interesting discoveries, maybe it won't. The question is, is it worth creating a market for abortions just to further the research? Yes, there are enough aborted embryos to provide stem cells for research. But do we want to experiment with cloning? Do we want to discover something that may lead to a market for mass deaths? If embryonic stem cells do lead to a cure for the common cold or the ability to enlarge your penis, do you really think poor black women should be forced to get pregnant and abort their fetuses just to make rent so you rich bastards with small dicks can feel good about yourselves while you jack off.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[russeljns]

Nader was the only one who actually answered the question... but a hot dog? Why should I care what he thinks about hot dogs?

I think Nader is being self-centered more than ducking the question - he assumes the audience is aware of his role in exposing toxic ingredients used in hotdogs.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ahdeoz]

So does Kerry support the war in Iraq or not? That's what all the "Knowing what you know now..." questions are about. Does anyone know? I know Kerry supporters who don't. I know Bush supporters who think they do, though it contradicts some of Kerry's most recent statements.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ahdeoz]

The aluminum tubes were for centrifuges. It's possible they could have been used for something else, but I haven't heard any reasonable suggestions. The same tubes were sold by the same manufacturer for nuclear enrichment by others. Anyway, they didn't make it to Iraq. We stopped the shipment. The claims that the yellowcake claims were false were proven to be false. Joe Wilson lied. His wife, a bureaucrat at the CIA, not an operative, had him appointed to do a job which he did not do. Iraqi agents did visit Nigeria and ask about purchasing raw Uranium. The "firetrucks" had rooms inside them and had recently been washed with ammonia, a substance that would prevent detection of biological weapons cultures. Iraq used chemical weapons, both mustard and nerve gases against both the Iranians as well as Kurds inside Iraq. Warheads and containers (both not significant stockpiles) were found with traces of both agents. Saddam declared he had x amount of chemical weapons stores as part of the ceasefire agreement in 1991 and agreed to dispose of them and have the disposal verified by inspectors. The inspectors did not verify the disposal of all declared chemical weapons and was prevented form verifying the lack of biological and nuclear weapons programs. Where did the chemical weapons that Saddam himself declared to have -- and was known to have used in the past --- go? Unless Saddam did destroy all his chemical weapons and then lied about it and refused to allow inspectors to verify it, those weapons still exist somewhere. You can hide enough chemical weapons to kill a million people in one truck. One such truck was found in Jordan full of chemical weapons, manned by terrorists on their way to Amman. There's no proof that those weapons came from Iraq, but no other regime in the area is known to have produced chemical weapons.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Minna Kirai]

um...he was obviously refering to his original stance on Iraq.

Kerry's stance on Iraq didn't change in the past 3 years.

He voted to give Bush the authority he asked for, based on Bush's promise to use it "to enforce the demands of the UN Security Council".

The UN-supported mission Bush asked for is what Kerry approved. What Bush did, though, was something totally different.

Get it: Iraq has WMD. Attack! Oops, they got nothing. Maybe this war wasn't such a great idea then huh?

Kerry has specifically said that his knowledge of Iraq's WMD would not have changed his vote on the war.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ahdeoz]

Saddam had chemical weapons. Many of them were destroyed. Not all of them. The question is what happened to the rest? There are three possibilities: 1) They were destroyed without the knowledge of the UN weapons inspectors. 2) They did not, in fact, exist. However, Saddam prevented the UN weapons inspectors from verifying this. 3) They still exist but have not been found. Under which circumstance was removing Saddm Hussein from power a mistake?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Minna Kirai]

Substantiate your claim. Name a "lie."

For example, take two lines from this speech:

1. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands.
2. 
   ...
   We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail.

That's full of lies. He didn't use the authority to "enforce UN Security Council demands"; he used it in direct opposition to the demands of 3/5ths of that Council.

He didn't plan carefully. He didn't use the full power of the US military (instead allowing Rumsfeld to use a "lighter, agile force"). Acting with "allies" at our side is a real stretch too.

For another fun lie, look at his campaign promise not to use US troops for nation building.

In other words, for it to be a lie, he had to know it was false at the time he made the statement.

This is the Idiot Defense: "I can't possibly have been lying, because I'm too stupid to know what the truth is". And it's true; Bush is quite possibly too dumb to lie effectively. We can't tell whether he's dishonest or stupid.

But it doesn't make any practical difference- either condition disqualifies him for office.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Darby]

Dude. It was widely reported and admitted that the CIA did not agree with the threat assessment.

Are you seriously trying to claim that never happened?
Insane.

've never seen such hatemongering and political venom in my entire life as I've seen from the left wingers these past few years.

Let's see.
The right has been increasingly attacking anybody who disagrees with them as traitors, criminals and terrorist sympathisers. They own talk radio and all of the major media, so there is no hint of a centrist viewpoint to be heard on the news.

They are committing treason on a massive scale (stolen elections, wars started on completely made up pretenses, attempting for the first time in history to pass an amendment to create greater discrimination and restrict freedom, passing the Patriot act which outlaws patriotism and just for the hell of it prevents parents for suing a company if their fucking products give their children autism)

The simple fact is that hating the right wing slime is the only possible position of a patriot.
They are cowards and they are traitors.

Try and refute that simple fact without your lies, and with some actual facts at your disposal you ignorant fuckhole.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Minna Kirai]

It won't cure Alzheimer's or Diabetes, a broken spine, cancer, or old age. Ever.

Yes it will! That research is a critical step to allowing every Merkian Citizen to have a personal farm of brainless clones, ready to accept a brain-transplate every 20 years to finally release mankind from the shadow of age-based mortality.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Minna Kirai]

So, at the slightest sign of failure, we brutally punish the leader,

Wrong. Even today, everyone loves Ronald Regan. But as early as his first term, he displayed strong signs of not only stupidity (or senility) but also dishonesty (he ran on an anti-deficit platform, and you know what happened with that!)

Likewise G W Bush has shown more than a "slightest sign" of failing, but he's been relatively unpunished, and is unlikely to get less than 47% of the vote (in his worst possibility). A brutal punishment would've had him impeached by now.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[ahdeoz]

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

That statement is equivalent to:

"I can verify that I have heard nothing specific about an imminent invasion by aliens from Jupiter in the southern hemisphere next Wednesday in order to procure bananas"

Deciphering such newspeak is difficult, but if you heard it stated seriously, you couldn't help but believe the statement is trying to disguise a partial truth.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Minna Kirai]

And Nader has never really had to make any decisions of national importance

He decided to remove the chrome spikes from dashboards- although there's no way to interpret that as a mistake.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gokeln]

Sorry, none of those qualify as lies, by the definition I gave. Try again & good luck.

I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands.

He did ask Congress for exactly this. What you seem to be concerned with is whether he followed through on it, and to what degree. If he did more than was proposed, this was not a lie, it was an omission of information. Talk with Mr. Clinton if you can't tell the difference. He's our guiding example, isn't he?

He didn't plan carefully.

How do you know? Even Kasparov loses a game now and then, because there are unforeseen actions planned by his adversary.

He didn't use the full power of the US military

How do you know he did not intend to do exactly this at the time the statement was made? You are assuming the worst, probably because you disagree with him on some partisan issues. But, we must not make the mistake of assuming the worst about people simply because we disagree with some things they believe and do.

Acting with "allies" at our side is a real stretch too.

Two allies counts. Say, Australia & Britain. Or, Poland & Spain? Shall I go on?

This is the Idiot Defense: "I can't possibly have been lying, because I'm too stupid to know what the truth is"....We can't tell whether he's dishonest or stupid.

There are many reasons people do not at one time know the whole truth. You again have assumed the worst in an area about which you can know very little: another persons inner motivations. If we ever hope to work together to solve our common problems, we must try to assume the best motivations in our fellow citizens, until proven otherwise. The proof you offered is severely lacking.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Minna Kirai]

It was the last question of the debate, it was loaded,

Wrong. It was not the last question. The actual last question was a puffball, designed to end things on a comfy note.

Kerry isn't in office and wouldn't have to answer with three of his own mistakes

Wrong. Kerry is in office. Notice the word "Senator" they keep using before his name? That's his office. As a senator, he makes decisions with nationwide impact, and has plenty of opportunity to make mistakes.

instead he used his two minutes to further trash Bush

If Bush has actually answered that question and given a mistake, then Kerry would've been obliged to answer too, with his own mistake.

Bush did what he had to do, which was say

Correct. Bush does need to evade and mislead if he wants to get a 2nd term.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Minna Kirai]

If he did more than was proposed, this was not a lie, it was an omission of information.

No, it wasn't a "omission". At best, it was a broken promise. I have been lumping intentional promise-breaking in the same category as lying, but if you think it's less immoral, then that's up to you.

Here's a test:

1. I will give you $50.

Was that a lie? The only way to find out it wait and see.

How do you know? Even Kasparov loses a game now and then, because there are unforeseen actions planned by his adversary.

Nothing about what's happening in Iraq now is unforseen. It was predicted 11 years ago, in fact.

The USA already had a nation-building project going on in Afganistan, so they had a good idea of the level of effort required. Why, then, did they only give Iraq 1/7th the security force? That's just stupid.

How do you know he did not intend to do exactly this at the time the statement was made?

His lying statement was not "I intend to", but "I will". If he only wanted to state intent, he could've said so at the time. Instead he claimed "I will", which has been proven to be false, thus making him a liar.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[SkyWalk423]

Is there any source that states that fertility clinics DO currently get federal funds? The source you cited says that they MAY get federal funds, but I'm afraid I can't use that in a debate against anyone with a functioning brain (it would stump the hell out of Dubya though). I'm going to spend the weekend with a house full of Bush backers, and i'll need a stronger argument than this.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[gokeln]

At best, it was a broken promise

No, at worst it was a broken promise, which I do consider immoral, but perhaps less so than a bald-faced, finger-wagging lie. You again confuse assuming the best motivations with assuming the worst motivations in the people you don't agree with. At best, it was an omission of complete information. When I say to my spouse I will take out the trash, and I do so, but also wash out the trash can, and repair its lid, I neither lied nor mislead nor broke a promise.

If you say "I will give you $50", and then circumstances change such that it is impossible or unreasonable or inappropriate, I do not call you a liar. (The intent was expressed by the statement "I will." If a meteor struck and killed us both, it would not make you a liar.) Instead, I say, "Well, he intended to give me $50", and I consider the circumstances and try to put myself in his shoes to understand why he may have chosen to act differently. I doing so, I try to assume the best motives that are reasonable. If instead he had made the statement "I will give you $50", and then drop a bank statement showing he owes $200,000 and does not have a dime to his name, then I know he was intentionally misleading me-- this is a lie.

Nothing about what's happening in Iraq now is unforseen.

That's a little strong. I'd say "Much of what's happening in Iraq now was foreseen." In addition, I'd say that much in Iraq is going as planned-- Terrorists are being hunted, captured and killed, and the threat of the Baathists giving WMD to international terrorists is reduced from what it was, because those WMD were either hidden, shipped to Syria, lost, or destroyed. And, those Baathists have much fewer resources with which to fight than before.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

When ever a post like this is followed with IMHO, it rarely has much "H" involved.

Basically, this whole lied to Congress B.S. is crazy. If you are president, and the CIA tells you something, you pretty damn well believe it. The Congressional intelligence committee's had the same info the President had, and Congress authorized force. Period.

Kerry voted for the authorization of force in Iraq and now wants to say that this is all Bush's doing. While Bush certainly doesn't smell rosey, criminal indictment is unlikely and the implication of the President needing to "worry" about it is ridiculous.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Minna Kirai]

At best, it was an omission of complete information. When I say to my spouse I will take out the trash, and I do so, but also wash out the trash can, and repair its lid, I neither lied nor mislead nor broke a promise.

An invalid analogy. Your garbage-carrier is doing more than he promised; Bush did less.

He said "I want authority, to enforce UN demands". He didn't do that, he did something else entirely.

Since you like analogies, consider a lad who asks Mum, "May I have $50 to buy any supplies needed for science class?", and then, when the teacher doesn't suggest any supplies at all, he goes gets an electric car to race on the sidewalk.

If you say "I will give you $50", and then circumstances change such that it is impossible or unreasonable or inappropriate, I do not call you a liar.

As I already said, no circumstances changed between the time Bush made the promise and broke it. No new information was learned, no discoveries or unforseen setbacks occured. Anyone who thinks that new info was actually acquired was simply insufficiently informed in the begining.

It was obvious at the time of his speech that the UN Security Council wouldn't change their minds inside in just 20 days. Following his promise would've meant working to convince them; and, if after several months of increasing pressure that still fails, returning to Congress for an unconditional declaration of war.

Members of his administration have revealed that he was fully committed to the Iraq invasion timetable beforehand. At the time he said he wanted an option to use an invasion as a last resort, he was lying, because he had already made up his mind.

and the threat of the Baathists giving WMD to international terrorists is reduced from what it was, because those WMD were either hidden, shipped to Syria, lost, or destroyed.

Huh? That's complete nonsense. Any WMD that was shipped to Syria has already been given to international terrorists. (Syria and Iraq, you see, are different "nations")

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[fucksl4shd0t]

Personally, I think it's perfectly ok to have a penalty that represents ejecting someone from society because they have proven themselves unable to live in it responsibly. It's a little more specific, and actually allows for the death penalty, but reaches for a better solution. The fact is, no matter how dumb someone is, there is a limit on how much we can do to help them. Sooner or later, if they can't exist peacefully in society, they have to be ejected. I'm not interested in making society pay for that ejection, either, so I'm not at all interested in just locking them up in prison for life. OTOH, where in the world can we send them? Sending them out of the country would invite additional problems we don't need. So that leaves execution.

I'd love to see a better solution, but until we have one, I think the death penalty is perfectly ok. As for executing kids? Let's lift the double-standard on recognition of adulthood. You can't drink until you're 21, but you can be executed for crimes before you even have the right to vote on who makes the laws. If we're going ot have a death penalty, it should only be administered to people who have a say in the laws that are passed. I don't mind locking the kid up until he's old enough to vote, then setting him free and telling him "Next time, you'll be eligible for the death penalty".

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[fucksl4shd0t]

Um, the way I understand it, embyonic stem cell research's biggest potential is in the ability to grow perfect replacement parts. In that case, it would cure a broken spine, provided the surgical techniques are in place to install the new part.

As for Alzheimer's, I don't know enough about it to even guess, but I'm definitely on the "embryonic stem cell research will fix all our problems" bandwagon. The ability to transplant parts has already been demonstrated, and only time is needed before we'll have the ability to install any arbitrary body part. The ability to grow new ones would be the missing link to make this a Truly Useful ability.

Lost your arm in a car accident? We'll grow a new one! (Hand, pick up the ball! Pick up the ball! *whack*)

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[fucksl4shd0t]

Saddam had chemical weapons. Many of them were destroyed. Not all of them. The question is what happened to the rest? There are three possibilities: 1) They were destroyed without the knowledge of the UN weapons inspectors. 2) They did not, in fact, exist. However, Saddam prevented the UN weapons inspectors from verifying this. 3) They still exist but have not been found. Under which circumstance was removing Saddm Hussein from power a mistake?

1) Bush was talking about going to war with Iraq long before 9/11. 2) Bush told us that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11, which means that either he actually knew something was coming, or he made up a link after 9/11 so he could have his war. 3) The UN didn't say "We won't go to war", they said "let's try some more diplomacy first, and if it doesn't work, then we'll go to war"

The circumstance under which it was wrong for us to go to war is the circumstance under which we didn't have the international support we needed. Iraq was no threat, and as other posters have pointed out, Bush knew it. He could have waited, played along with the UN, and then still had his war in Iraq. This isn't hindsight except in the sense that we can easily look back and see that Bush knew these things before we went to Iraq.

Bush likes to say "Kerry will let Paris decide when America needs defending". But he hasn't been able to show, with facts, how invading Iraq constitutes defending America. He had international support for going into Afghanistan. He also had international support for essentially conquering Pakistan if necessary to make it to Afghanistan. He had facts to back it up, facts that could be and were verified by neutral parties (that is to say, people who are not America). He did not have that for Iraq.

Yes, it's true that Iraq had the weapons at one point and they were never able to show that they were destroyed. Perhaps Saddam had sold them? Maybe they were stolen? Maybe they weren't in Iraq anymore to be found? In that case, the inspectors would never have turned them up, and Bush could invade all he wanted to and still wind up looking like an idiot.

Saddam won the contest. He won because he made Bush look like an idiot. He easily manipulated the man into making this foolish invasion, and what do we have to show for it? Someone else probably has the weapons we were looking for, and we don't know who.

Of course, people think I'm loony because I think Al-qaeda won over 9/11. America is scared shitless of terrorists now, and that's what they wanted. Now we're jumping in the dark at any noise we hear. Our biggest threats are in front of us, and we are now exposed to the most threatening situation we've ever been in: being eaten alive from the inside because we're just too scared. How much longer until the terrorists can claim a complete victory? Will it be under Kerry, Bush, or someone else?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[fucksl4shd0t]

I concede that it may be somewhat of a matter of walking on thin ice in so much that we wouldn't want a political field saturated with 100 parties; that would be practically impossible to wade through. However, something really needs to be done, we're just one less candidate shy of a dictatorship.

Realistically, it won't happen. I'll tell you why. :)

To get re-elected, the candidate must be partisan. That means your Republican has to do Republican things and your Democrat has to do Democrat things. So they can't run on a platform that says "I'll make these changes so other parties can become just as powerful as my own". That won't get them a nomination, which means they won't get a first term. It won't get them a second term, they'd either lose to the other side or their party would withdraw support and field a different candidate anyway. So the only time we can reasonably say the president can do this is in his second term.

At that point, he would be somewhat betraying the party that put him in power. Some would consider it highly unethical to turn sides like that when you owe your position to these people.

So at what point can a President do something along those lines? When it would weaken the other party and not his own. Since most of the third parties are actually farther right-sided than the Republicans, you'd think it would be the case. However, the two strongest 3rd parties lean to the left, so I tend to think that it would actually weaken the Republicans more than the Democrats. We'd wind up with say 3/4 of our representatives being left-leaning which would make anything the Republicans ever try to do impossible.

I'm afraid that revolution is the only solution left, but things have to get a whole lot worse before it'll become a viable option.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Remlik]

Ok, so I don't know if you are just dumb or blinded by your misplaced hatred for a very good president.

I just re-read the transcript of the town hall debate.

Here is the question: "GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you."

Note, the town hall style does not require each candidate to answer the question. Only the candidate asked has to answer directly. The other candidate has 1.5 minutes to either answer or rebutt what was said. Here is how Kerry started his answer: "KERRY: I believe the president made a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake, not to live up to his own standard, which was: build a true global coalition, give the inspectors time to finish their job and go through the U.N."

Typical Iraq rehetoric from Kerry, never does he try to point out three of his own mistakes.

After another set of 30 second rebuttals from each candidate we have gibson saying "GIBSON: That's going to conclude the questioning. We're going to go now to closing statements, two minutes from each candidate."

And thus it was the end of the debate.

I was modded troll for my post (because I dissented from popular opinion) even though I was exactly correct.

Kerry was NEVER obliged to answer the question such is the format of the town hall debate, nor would he have even if Bush had laid out three answers.

It was a bull shit question. CNN, CNBC and every major news paper in this country point out what they believe to be the presidents mistakes every day. The reality is that we cannot possibly know the entire internal workings of the white house and its foreign policy. Decisions are made based on many global, unseen, and even secret circumstances.

There was no puff ball ending, you either watched a different debate, or are too stupid to properly defend your candidate.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[thegnu]

I would be so VERY pleased if my president would honor my questions with an "answer"

The fact that GWB can't even muster an "answer" is pretty fucking scary.

How's THAT for an "answer"?

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[peter]

> Why can't you people celebrate??? Unite with us and share in our joy. Why are you so angry?

All that's been accomplished has come at a terrible cost in human suffering. Not a very inspiring cause for celebration. I agree that the world is probably a better place without Saddam in power, but the means to that end caused a lot of harm. With all the effort that went into that, a _lot_ of good could have been done in other ways.

I'm glad to see the beginnings of democracy, but it's not very impressive in Iraq or Afghanistan. Esp. Iraq is being shaped as a client state of the US. There can't be rich people without poor people for comparison, multinationals need to continue their growth rates just to stay in the same place (Alice in Wonderland, anyone?), etc.

It seems like the US is happy once a free-market privatized economy that can consumer their goods develops. They don't seem to mind if warlords still wield a ton of power.

BTW, one of Bush's answers said something about not needing to shape other nations in the image of the US, but he obviously sees no problem with doing that. Iraq used to have pretty good social programs (unless you caught Saddam's attention; I'm not saying it was overall a good place to live!). Now everything's being deregulated and privatized, just like in the US and Canada :(.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

Every twenty years? Nah, if I had access to renewable clones, I'd be wearing out bodies several times a year.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

Ralph Nader implied that his decision to stop eating hot dogs is a topic of national importance. I prefer Kerry's non-answer and Bush's lack of answer to Nader's idiocy.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[GenSolo]

We'd wind up with say 3/4 of our representatives being left-leaning which would make anything the Republicans ever try to do impossible.
That's not necessarily true.

We'd most likely have as many left-leaning representatives as we do now. They would simply be divided among the left-leaning parties instead of all being Democrats. These would form a caucus in Congress and essentially act as a coalition as in other multiparty systems. The status quo would, of course, be maintained. This is a perfect time for the Republicans to do this though because while power in Congress would be retained by the left with respect to the right, the power of the left-leaning parties would be diminished and solidarity would be unlikely, strengthening the Republican party in Presidential politics.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[GenSolo]

In the world of politics, there is a significant difference between a non-answer and a lack of answer. When someone asks Colin Powell if he will serve as Secretary of State in a second Bush term and he responds that he serves at the pleasure of the President, that is a non-answer. It is a diplomatic response to the question designed to brush it aside without actually supplying the information requested and yet without explicitly refusing to supply said information. Most politicians give non-answers when asked questions that they don't like. Many times, these non-answers are used to segue into some canned blabbering they want to push at the time.

A lack of an answer comes in two forms. In an active refusal to answer, the questioned person simply states that they won't answer. This is common in court in the form of "taking the fifth". In politics, "operational security" is a big excuse for active refusal to answer a question, and a general blanket of "national security" and "protecting assets"(intelligence community) are often used.

A passive refusal to answer, on the other hand, is a completely un-diplomatic thing that doesn't happen very often in the political world. It tends to come as a bit of a figurative slap in the face since there's no attempt at all to explain oneself or to placate the questioner.

Now, as to making oneself look like an ass, a non-answer makes you look like an ass, an active refusal to answer is often rather dignified and comes accross as honest and genuine, and a passive refusal to answer either makes you look offended (refusal to dignify the question with any response) or like an arrogant ass. Whether Bush's lack of answer was active or passive is unknown because all we have is an editorial comment that he declined to answer. At any rate, I hope this helps with understanding the grandparent's comment that "At least Bush didn't make himself look like an ass with a non-answer".

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[greg_barton]

Whether Bush's lack of answer was active or passive is unknown...

It took you that long to say, "dunno, it matters what your biases are."

I, uh, already knew that.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[GenSolo]

He didn't use the authority to "enforce UN Security Council demands"; he used it in direct opposition to the demands of 3/5ths of that Council.
Actually, he did use the authority to "enforce UN Security Council demands" in the form of enforcing the "serious consequences" clause of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. That he did so in direct opposition to the demands of 3/5ths of that Council is another issue entirely. He was merely selective in his enforcement, and he never said which demands he would enforce. Therefore, it was an omission and not a lie.

He didn't plan carefully.
You don't know that, and I find it rather idiotic that you'd assume this. Actually, I would say very careful plans were laid for the invasion. If anything, his careful planning was insufficient in scope. That is, he may have planned the invasion without sufficient planning for the long-term occupation based on the faulty assumption that the military would be greeted as liberators instead of being fought by insurgents for months. Again, this is, at worst, an omission and not a lie. At best, it was probably a faulty assumption which he should've admitted as a mistake when asked (except that it would be a diplomatic mistake to do so because it could be misconstrued by the Iraqi government to claim that they're not trying hard enough).

He didn't use the full power of the US military (instead allowing Rumsfeld to use a "lighter, agile force").
For this to be a lie, you would have to have intent to deceive. Firstly, everyone with any knowledge of what the full power of the US military really means would know that he didn't intend to use it, and if he had intended to use it, voting for that authorization would have been vastly irresponsible. The full power of the US military includes our vast nuclear arsenal, including the Minuteman and Peacekeeper missiles. A Peacekeeper missile is an ICBM with thirty independent nuclear warheads. Using a single Peacekeeper missile would have essentially annihilated the entire country, and using our entire arsenal would've (probably) condemned the world to an ice age.

Now that I've addressed what you said, I'll try to address what I think you meant because I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you don't think Congress voted to allow the President to end the world. Basically, by using a "lighter, agile force", you seem to think that we didn't use the full power of the parts of our conventional arms. In a sense, this is accurate as in the actual physics of it, we could've used more bombs, more tanks, more rockets, etc. and generated more power (change in energy per unit of time). On the other hand, a smaller but more agile force can be more effective than a larger (and more powerful in terms of firepower) force. So, by "power", do you mean firepower, or do you mean effectiveness? I'd guess that most people, when they say "the full power of the US military", mean effectiveness. As long as there are multiple connotations possible, and we don't really know which was intended, it's impossible to declare definitively that he lied. I would say, rather than that he lied, that he made an overly-vague and therefore ambiguous statement. This is another omission as he should've specified the intended connotation (or just used a more specific term).

Acting with "allies" at our side is a real stretch too.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, two is sufficient for the statement to be true, and all parties admit the participation of the UK and Australia. Therefore, the failure to give a number of allies may be an omission, but it is not a lie.

For another fun lie, look at his campaign promise not to use US troops for nation building.
Actually, this was the response he should've given to the question in this /. article. He's responded to it before though. Basically, he's said that 9/11 changed everything for him, and in a post-9/11 world, we have to take pre-emp

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

And he responded that he made mistakes in appointments but declined to give names because it would be undiplomatic and unPresidential to do so. Furthermore, to give those names could compromise national security because we don't know exactly what these appointments were. If they were intelligence appointments or state department appointments or something along those lines, we probably don't need to know who it was because it gives unnecessary insight to the enemy (like, "billy bob was a bad CIA appointment" tells the enemy that we're going to try to clean up and reverse whatever billy bob did, which they may or may not know.. or they may even have not know billy bob was even a spy, but now they do, and that could compromise his agents/assets).

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[goatan]

How many people like Christopher Reeve have to beg, plead, and die before Bush removes his head from his ass on this issue?

I think it's abvious now that bush enjoys watching people beg plead and die.

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Minna Kirai]

He was merely selective in his enforcement,

So a police officer can swear "to uphold the law", and then go around shooting unauthorized immigrants on sight, and that's just "selective enforcement".

You don't know that, and I find it rather idiotic that you'd assume this.

Since I work for the Pentagon as a military planner, I actually do know this pretty well. But you can prove it yourself without any special insider knowledge.

The fact that the Pentagon and State Department were not asked to plan for post-war Iraq has been well documented in the USA's media.

Firstly, everyone with any knowledge of what the full power of the US military really means

That's a freakishly wrong interpretation. You think using "full power" means "all powers", when it really just means "all powers that would be useful towards achieving a goal". Since in that same speech Bush said his goal was not merely the defeat of Iraq or the destruction of Saddam's power, but the "liberation" of a hidden Iraqi democracy, turning it into a nuclear wasteland would've been directly counterproductive.

Your complaint is equivalent to arguing that I didn't use my AK-47 when I was trying to fix your computer.

I'll try to address what I think you meant because I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you don't think Congress voted to allow the President to end the world.

No, you're giving the President the benefit of the doubt.

So, by "power", do you mean firepower, or do you mean effectiveness?

I mean DIs. Grount troops. Sentries. Patrollers. "Boots"

You know, those people that were entirely too scarce after Saddam's collapse... which, if they had been there, could've helped get things off to a positive start.

Again, this was a case of changing his mind under new conditions rather than a lie.

There are no new conditions, except in his mind. The USA was vulnerable to attacks before, and it still is. Anyone too stupid to notice the possibility of terrorism without a gigantic example doesn't deserve to be President, regardless of such an example actually having been provided.

Furthermore, since he didn't learn the lesson of September 11th (that threats come not only from nations, but non-state organizations), he's got an even stronger disqualifaction. ("New Afgani government replacing the Taliban? Check. Al Quaida destroyed? Nevermind, moving right along to Iraq...")

Re:Hello Pinocchio, Nice Nose

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I don't think that's it. I think the problem is that we as Americans are holding all of our leaders to unreasonably high standards, in many cases exceeding even "perfection". (Which is to say, we demand the impossible, like full disclosure of military operations while demanding that our troops be kept safe.)

Is it perfection to request that we not spend Billions upon Billions on a war against a country that hasn't attacked us while we backburner the need to locate a small (relationally speaking) group of rebels who did?

Not good

[erick99]

Well crafted answers by the three candidates. I doubt that they sat down and wrote out the answers by themselves, you can see the speech writers hands in this as well as the "handlers." Well, Nader might have written his responses, he gets quite weird in places. Anyway, I was hoping for responses that would be a bit more informal in tone, especially since the audience is suppose to be youth. But, none of the candidates can afford to make even the tiniest slip, or even to be human. I am a republican but even I will admit that Bush does not talk the way these responses are written. And, Kerry, rather than saying "Theresa and I" or "my wife and I," gets quite formal with "Teresa Heinz Kerry and I are practicing and believing Catholics." Why so formal? There are better and warmer ways to honor your wife and show respect for her independence. These responses, from the three candidates, are disappointing.

Re:Not good

[Liselle]

Another clue is that they avoided the only question I was really interested in hearing: the issue of instant-runoff voting. Nader is the only one who even touched it. Kerry and Bush's "responses" talked about campaign finance reform (what? the question didn't even mention money)!

I will admit I didn't expect them to actually answer the question, but I am still angry that they didn't. This article is worthless to me.

Re:Not good

[Anonymous Coward]

Man. Reading these answers by "George W. Bush" is just ridiculous. If you've ever heard him speaking somewhere - it's just totally unfathomable that he could understand well what those responses say, much less write (haha?) them himself.

Re:Not good

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that they sat down and wrote out the answers by themselves

Are you kidding? Ralph Nader, at least, could have written his answers without even bothering to look at reference materials. He's been writing reams of this stuff for DECADES. He's famous because of a book he wrote, y'kow.

Kerry is a lawyer. Given that even the flakiest law school in the country is no picnic--reading and writing volumes is par for the course--I'm sure he could have written his answers solo, as well. In fact, given how convoluted most of them are, I'd have to say he darn sure did write his own answers. As to how he referred to his wife: no kidding! Further proof that his law school trained and 20 years honed in the Senate mind was responsible for such atrocious prose.
As for W's answers.... well, he certainly had someone check to make sure he'd copied/pasted from his campaign literature correctly.

Re:Not good

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry may have written that himself.. (on the back of a coctail napkin).
For being such a chatter box in public, he was very short online. I was disapointed with the quality of his answers.

Re:Not good

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't ask questions like this to politicians and expect honest answers. It's just a waste of time trying and the question space should have been used for something more intesting.

Both of these politicians are obviously going to oppose anything that threatens their cosy two-party status-quo. Nader of course is in the opposite position, and only when someone like him wins, and is forced to carry through his promises, can the system change.

Re:Not good

[daemous]

After reading the responses it seems like Kerry did in fact answer the questions himself. Almost as if he did it on a plane or bus or something w/o much sleep.

But Bush's responses don't sound like him at all. They don't even sound like his main-line speech writers. I get the impression this was handed-off to the second or third string folks.

Re:Not good

[zurab]

I will admit I didn't expect them to actually answer the question, but I am still angry that they didn't.

They answered the question by not answering it, meaning Bush and Kerry have NO plan whatsoever for creating a truly multi-party (and independent) democratic system and elections. They are happy as is - sucking millions of dollars out of corporations and labor unions and returning favors manyfold at the expense of the public and the voters once elected.

Re:Not good

[FirstTimeCaller]

I will admit I didn't expect them to actually answer the question, but I am still angry that they didn't. This article is worthless to me.

And yet taught you something, it has.

Re:Not good

[Anonymous Coward]

Instant runoff voting is no good.

The link is currently down so I'll try to sum up briefly:

1) It 'works' fine if the 3rd party candidate has no chance of beating a candidate from the other two parties, but then who cares?

2) Let's say a third party does arise, and you end up with a situation like this (the letters below signify political parties and are of course random):

33%: G, D, R ("Behold the G revolution!")
14%: D, G, R ("Anyone but R, but D before G!")
18%: D, R, G ("We sober judges prefer R to G")
35%: R, D, G ("Pluralities should win")

IRV decides D is bumped (with 32%), then G (with 47%): so party R wins by 6% with 53%. What a clear mandate. But hark! Some small sect of the G electorate really despises R and decides that they can shift their vote to "D, G, R". So now it is:

31%: G, D, R ("IRV would never betray us!")
16%: D, G, R ("We feel so bolstered/dirty!")
18%: D, R, G ("We're still more important than DGR, right?")
35%: R, D, G ("No no, vote your conscience")

Now, G is eliminated first (with 31%), and then R (with only 35%) leaving D as the winner with 65% of the electorate, a 30-point victory! A mega-landslide!

Do you see the problem? Putting aside how 2% of the population engineered a 36 point swing in the tally, the bottom line is that even with IRV you still should worry about electability and how to vote strategically if you really want your preferences respected.

Re:Not good

[mindriot]

Did anyone else think that Kerry(*) is shooting himself in the foot by consistently providing the shortest, least specific answers? I mean, I'm definitely not someone who would vote for Bush, but can Kerry really think that his one-line or one-paragraph answers can do any good to his campaign? This weighs in even more when you consider that Bush's(*) answers were relatively long and attempted to explain his government's policy. So at least, in a way, they were -real- answers.

Question 11 was especially interesting. Nader(*) kind-of answered the question, but Kerry just pasted some general blurb. And it's even more interesting (and revealing?) that Bush declined to answer this one...

(*) or their respective ghostwriters of course :)

Re:Not good

[timjdot]

yeah, and nothing about the dead that vote or the non-existent that vote. And about the voting mahcines that they will disable in any precinct they don't want to vote. It's a mess.

By design.

Re:Not good

[danalien]

I think Kerry's 'shorter' answers are more appealing to 'us youngsters' ... I mean, politics is bad enough (from the youghts POV) ... but politics with mile-long answers is like ...[after the third sentence] *em ok, next canditate please*

and it looks like the kerry-ppl took consideration to this, and tried to keep themself 'as short as possible'.

Re:Not good

[killjoe]

Same with drugs. He was the only one willing to call the war on a drugs a failure.

The Bush comments especially seemed out of character except the ones about faith. Unfortunately they were the scariest answers of the bunch. Nader did slam him pretty good though on his zealotry.

Re:Not good

[Minna Kirai]

Nader(*) kind-of answered the question

Yeah, a real answer:
Q: What's a national-scale mistake you've made?
A: Once, I ate a hot dog.

Hmm, is that the most important error he's ever made? What about the time he made G.W.Bush the USA's president?

umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

hands up who thinks bush wrote that.

Re:umm...

[trevdak]

Me.
Proof:
"Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed, and I see no reason to change that statue."

Re:umm...

[SocietyoftheFist]

OK, so the guy that writes his speeches and Allawi's speeches makes the occasional spelling error.

Re:umm...

[jmccay]

I think Bush wrote that because it is simpler to write somethign than to stand up in front of a crowd and talk. You can edit your responces, and have your buddies read your responces before you actually commit to having the public read it.
You cannot do that when you are in a real debate. The only thing a real debate shows is that you can think on your feet. It doesn't take into account the people you surround yourself with and their combine intelligence and experience.

Re:umm...

[md358]

Too true. You can't graduate Yale/Harvard and not be able to string a couple of sentences together. Whether you're a football star or the dean's son, you still gotta be literate. Now, if W. was a compsci or engineering grad...

Re:umm...

[micromoog]

Kerryisms: "We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."

John Kerry didn't say that.

Re:umm...

[jmccay]

A friend who is here on slashdot pointed me to that site. I looked at (pop-up hell). I stand by my statement because they have offered no real proof that he didn't say it. They just said he didn't say it, and that doesn't mean anything without proof.

Re:umm...

[micromoog]

"That site" has been the de-facto authority on debunking urban legends for many years. For better proof, simply copy and paste the quotation into Google and scan through the results. In fact, I'll make it easy.

If you now continue to spread your disinformation despite the overwhelming likelihood that you are wrong, then you are an enemy of truth.

By your logic, I could go around saying "George W. Bush molests children", and stand by it as long as no one could prove otherwise.

Re:umm...

[dcam]

How do you end up with a 5 digit UID and not know what snopes is? Have you hijacked someon't account?

Re:umm...

[dq5 studios]

I'm more concerned with him having pop-ups and a 5 digit UID.

Re:umm...

[dcam]

I'm seeing a connection here.

Republican voter .... hasn't heard of snopes ... doesn't know how to avoid getting pop-ups.

The only anomaly is the low UID.

Re:umm...

[Temporal]

Dude. Even if you honestly haven't heard of Snopes (huh?)... Everyone and their mom has seen that list of quotes. Four years ago. Attributed to Al Gore. Or sometimes Bush. And even then everyone knew they were just old Quayle quotes, because everyone saw them years before that, AS QUAYLE QUOTES. I remember passing these things around in middle school in the mid-90's. As someone else already suggested, do a Google search for your own damned quote.

I honestly can't believe people are still attributing those quotes to whatever politician they don't like today, considering how many times the exact same quotes have gone around in previous elections.

Also, get a browser than blocks pop-ups.

Re:umm...

[Temporal]

Bush could have written his own responses. However, it is highly unlikely that he did. Frankly, the man has more important things to do. In a political campaign, any time you can get away with delegating such work to a subbordinate, not only will most politicians do it, but they should do it, in order to get as much done as possible.

I similarly highly doubt Kerry's responses were actually written by Kerry. (Although, I'd have to say, Kerry's responses seemed a lot less like canned statements copy-pasted from some collection.) Nader's responses could very well have been written by him as I imagine he doesn't have quite so much else to do with his time.

Re:umm...

[Temporal]

Also note his e-mail address.

Re:umm...

[ZooDog]

According to this site, your Kerryisms is attributed to Dan Quayle, who apparently said it on 11/30/88.

Re:umm...

[jmccay]

Republican and proud of it. I don't read 2-bit hack news sources--especially ones I get from liberals (my friend). I have found such news sources to be full of so-called truths which are usually distorted.
As for my email, I get the account for free from a relative--which is good for my current budget. I also have a yahoo email and should have a gmail account soon if all goes well both of which I will not post here for obvious reasons.

Re:umm...

[dcam]

Republican and proud of it. I don't read 2-bit hack news sources--especially ones I get from liberals (my friend). I have found such news sources to be full of so-called truths which are usually distorted.

Well as an outsider to US politics (no I'm not French, or even European, my country is one of the few that has supported yours in the "War on Terror", Geography question: Which country am I from?), it appears to me that all American news comes from 2-bit hack sources. The New York times is OK, but that is about it.

I've said it before, but I question the sanity of anyone who supports GWB. The only other explanation is that you have been brainwashed by the partisan "news sources" of the US.

Explain to me how George's war in Iraq is a good thing.
1. No WMD
2. No Al-Quaeda link (indeed no significant terrorist links)

Over this war George has alienated all of his allies, and he is even proud of it? What kind of logic is that! He has broken international Law. He has lied to the American people. By invading he has ensured that generations of arabs will have one more reason to hate America, he has sown dragons teeth.

Tell me again why George is a good man? Can you even tell me he is a Christian?

Before you write me off as some wacky liberal, note a few things that might surprise you:
1. I am a faithful, evangelical, bible believing Christian. My oposition of GWB comes directly from my beliefs as a Christian.
2. My entire family, of whom 5/6 of us are Christians, has the same views
3. We live the conservative heartland of my country, in a wealthy area. The area we have lived in is one of the safest conservative seats in parliment.

We all think GWB should go.

In fact in a recent coordinated survery around the world this view was confirmed by all countries except Israel (for obvious reasons).

Re:umm...

[Temporal]

so-called truths which are usually distorted.

You mean like your sig, which I note you still haven't changed in the face of overwhelming evidence that Kerry did not say it?

Re:umm...

[jmccay]

Explain to me how George's war in Iraq is a good thing.
1. No WMD
2. No Al-Quaeda link (indeed no significant terrorist links)


One, we know he had WMD. He used them on his own people. A very big report (the name is illuding me at the moment) recently released says that yes there was no WMD found, but it also says that Sadam was dirverting money form the Oil for Food Program for several reasons. The first was to restart is WMD program where he left off. More money was being used to payoff France, Germany, Russia, China, and the main guy at the UN to go against all that America did.
Evidence has been foung to prove this. Sadam himself admited that he was just buyign time until the sanctions were lifted. He said he had no WMDs, but he also said nobody new this--even his own generals. All of his posturing was meant to be aimed at Iran whom France had been help achieve Nuclear technology, and he was very surprised that America too notice. To him, Iran with Nuclear technology was a threat.

Actually there are at least two links to terrorists and Al-Quaeda. Right before the war in Afghanistan, Sadam sent Bin Laden an invitation to allow him to stay there. Sadam also released some Al-Quaeda prisoners he was holding.

Over this war George has alienated all of his allies, and he is even proud of it? What kind of logic is that! He has broken international Law. He has lied to the American people. By invading he has ensured that generations of arabs will have one more reason to hate America, he has sown dragons teeth.

No he hasn't alienated his allies. There are allies in Iraq. Besides, I think France, Germany, and Russia did alienated America by excepting bribe money from Sadam. Sadam wanted sancitons to be eased, and if I remember correctly, France and Germany were trying to bring that to the table.
Bush hasn't broken international law. The UN did actually sanction force. Several times! How many years and resolutions do you need? No country has ever stayed free with out a strong military, and the world has entered a time when we cannot wait for the first attack to happen to us. By that time happens, the attack could be a mushroom cloud or bio-weapon! Bush acted to defend America.
I got news for you. The arabs who hate America now hated us before the war, and those that didn't would have hated us anyways. Muslim religous schools in the Middle East teach hatred of America, so Bush has done nothing that would not have happened anyways.
Bush also achieved a another major acomplishment. He got Lybia to to give up its WMD program, and they turned (they say everything) over to the United States. Not a shot fired in Lybia! That is something no other world leader has achieved with Lybia! To reward him, the United States opened up diplomatic relations with Lybia again.
If these are not enough, ask the people who were tortured regularly if they think Sadam should still be in power! Ask the parents of the children who were imprisoned! Got visit the mass graves of people killed by Sadam where they are attempting to identify family members using advanced techniques. Ask the four guys who got new prosthetics (advanced prosthetics) from the kindness of an American who saw a video of them having their limbs cut off and determined to track them down and help them out. Sure it's not perfect, but changing things take time. Change took time (to the tune of several years) in Japan (slightly different case) and Germany, and it will take time for Iraq to change.
In Afghanistan, they recently had elections for the first time in their long history. Women also voted. Women are no longer be surpressed. Yes, there are some areas that still repress women, but change takes time.
Speaking of women, women are not being tortured ad raped by Sadam any more.

Before you write me off as some wacky liberal, note a few things that might surprise you:
1. I am a faithful, evangelical, bible beli

Re:umm...

[Temporal]

Name one way Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. One way. Seriously. Just because Bush says he is does not make it fact. Kerry is pretty moderate; he's one of few Democrats that has consistently supported a balanced budget, for example.

Cutting taxes when you have a deficit is a stupid idea. The resulting rise in interest rates and inflation will hurt the economy more than the tax cut helps. Ask any economist. In fact, the resulting inflation from deficit spending will cancel out the savings you get from reduced taxes, so the tax cuts won't actually help you at all. Reducing spending to match tax cuts would be a great idea, but Bush's plans call for increased spending.

We would be stronger in Iraq if we had support from the world. If our cause is good, we should have been able to obtain such support. Bush, unfortunately, chose to snub the rest of the world, essentially telling them that we did not care what they thought, and that we would attack Iraq regardless. He went to the UN and asked for their help, but not before telling them that we weren't interested in their opinions. This is not the way to get world support. By doing this, he alienated our potential allies and undermined the effort. I strongly believe that the world could have been convinced to assist us in doing something about Iraq, but there is not even any way to know if I am right because Bush did not make the effort necessary to find out. His wreckless, arrogant cowboy diplomacy -- which you no doubt think of as "strength" -- has only served to turn the world against us.

The grandparent poster was likely Australian. You could have picked up on that if you had read the clues he gave at the beginning of his post.

Finally, I once again remind you that your sig is undeniably false. By choosing to retain it you are not only lying (I thought Christians believed that was a sin), but you are implying that there is no honest way to support your candidate. After all, if you could effectively support Bush with honesty, why would you choose to be dishonest? Just FYI.

I don't know why I bother writing this. The gaps in your reasoning are already so profound that I doubt any amount of reasoning on my part will affect your opinion. Oh well; now that it's written I might as well post.

Re:umm...

[dcam]

On your first points:

1. There *were no WMD*. Intent is not the same as the crime. I cannot be prosecuted for crimes I have not committed. If desire to have WMD is a reason for invasion then you'd better get ready to invade the rest of the world.
2. A fair bit of the use of WMD on his population was using weapons supplied by the US, while Saddam was friends with the US. Get off the high horse.

Actually there are at least two links to terrorists and Al-Quaeda. Right before the war in Afghanistan, Sadam sent Bin Laden an invitation to allow him to stay there. Sadam also released some Al-Quaeda prisoners he was holding.

I'd like a link for both. This is certainly the first I've heard of it. You do realise that at one point Osama bin Laden was proposing to go to war with Iraq because it was too secular? Besides which, neither of the things you have proposed are signifigant links.

There are allies in Iraq

There are only three that count. Britian, Italy and Autralia. The rest are in there for the money. Is this a real coalition? Effectively the rest of the world is against it! That is what I call a coalition. Remember after 9/11 Chirac said "We are all Americans"? That was support. That support has be tossed on the garbage heap.

Oil for food is a scandal that has come *after* the alienation of allies.

Bush hasn't broken international law

He did. Kofi Annan gave a speech recently saying exactly that. The ground used to justify the invasion was shaky, to attempt to justfy the invasion you needed to cobble together all the resolutions to date and come up with someone that was not intended.

No country has ever stayed free with out a strong military, and the world has entered a time when we cannot wait for the first attack to happen to us

Europe has stayed pretty free for the past 50 years. Australia has been free for the past 200 hundred years (albeit with some support from Britian).

Besides that, I don't think you realise the implications of the docrtine of pre-emptive strike. It means that Nth Korea is justified in levelling Sth Korea *right now* because it fears an attack. It means that France is justified in attacking America becuase it fears an attack. The doctrine of pre-emptive strike is criminal, plain an simple. The law judges people on what they have done, now what they might do. The doctrine of pre-emptive strike effectively means might is right. Do you want that if the US declines on power? I think not.

Just to comment on the rest of your stuff:

Saddam was an evil man, no question. However weight Saddam in power, with what has happened now. Iraq is close to a civil war. Around 15,000 Iraqi civilians have died *at the hands of America*. Services (water, electricity) in the country are not as reliable as in Saddam's time. Did Saddam kill that many people each year? No.

Afghanistan is a different issue. The US did have reason to invade (even if it wasn't terribly well managed). I do hope that there is some success there, but I don't think it is likely. The country is still effectively divided up into areas of control by warlords. Opium production has soared, I believe that 70% of all opium is being produced out of Afghanistan.

He is a Christian, and he proudly lets his religous beliefs be known

He is a lawbreaker, a liar and has taken away civil liberties in America. We have had serious discussions around our family table as to whether he may be the man of lawlessness referred to in the bible. This is because there are two features that match: That he disregards the law and that he aims to gain power. Both fit to a T. Consider that for a moment.

He is against the murder of the innocent unborn children

I'm against that too. Indeed it see it as one of the most apalling scandals of our time. However I don't think you are going to see any changes on this one, no matter who gets in.

Then there are the other reasons li

Re:umm...

[dcam]

You are a pretty contemptible piece of work. You fail to defend your position when you run up against serious opposition.

If you hold a position you must be willing to defend it. If you hunt through my comment history (you'll need to be a subscriber to see all of it) you'll see me defending my views on Abortion, a powder keg if ever there is one. Yet you canot even defend your candidate of choice.

Hard Work

[CGP314]

I don't think bush wrote that:

Clue One: Bush didn't mention Hard Work once.
Clue Two: It wasn't written in purple crayon.


-Colin

Re:Hard Work

[cybrthng]

3. He would have claimed it was "long winded" and not too the point.

Re:Hard Work

[Kenja]

"I don't think bush wrote that"

Digs at GWB aside, the responses dont match his normal speech patterns. It does indeed seem unlike something he would write.

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. Yet another vapid insult marked "Insightful".

Clue Three: None of them wrote their answers.

Re:Hard Work

[ackthpt]

I don't think bush wrote that:
...
It wasn't written in purple crayon.

Look for an upcoming slashdot book review on My Pet Goat

Re:Hard Work

[CGP314]

Meh. Yet another vapid insult marked "Insightful". Clue Three: None of them wrote their answers.

I'll bet Kerry is at least capable of writing his responces and that Nader really wrote his. Nader's answers at least sound the way he speaks. My point is that I don't think that Bush would be able to write anything decent without tremendious help from others.


-Colin

Re:Hard Work

[DAldredge]

I, and almost every one I know, talk rather different than the way they write.

Don't you?

Re:Hard Work

[TheFlyingGoat]

I disagree. I know that my writing style isn't anything like my public speaking style.

However, I would guess that both Bush and Kerry's responses were written by their staff and revised/approved by the candidate, as is commonly done with most written responses during a campaign.

Re:Hard Work

[cybrthng]

His talking is completely different than this writing - not just in style - but in opinions.

Bush believes in his stance, simplicity and simple logic - not long winded answers.

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh what a typically clever democratic response. Moron.

Re:Hard Work

[DAldredge]

I would love to find something about about John Kerry but he will not let me know it.

I would like to know why he will not sign from 180, why he pays less than 13% federal income tax and why he didn't check the check box on his MASS state tax return to pay the higher rate.

IOW, I want to know why he takes advantage of things he considers wrong.

Re:Hard Work

[droid_rage]

Is it possible that he's just a very poor public speaker, but given the chance to sit down and think over his answers, can provide at least coherent responses? That's my guess.

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Same old tired material.. ooo, and now even with claims of telepathic-grade certitude!

Since you seemed to have missed it the last time:

Meh. Grow up.

Re:Hard Work

[cybrthng]

I'm not sure where you see that.. according to 2003 tax return: (looks good to me..) and nowhere near 13%

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Michael Meehan of John Kerry for President, 202-712-3000; http://www.johnkerry.com

WASHINGTON, April 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Sen. John Kerry has made public his 2003 income tax returns, as he has for past 20 years.

In 2003, Sen. John Kerry had $395,000 in taxable income and paid $90,575 in federal income taxes. Kerry had $43,735 in charitable contributions.

Last year, Kerry wrote "A Call to Service," of which had $89,000 in proceeds. Kerry is paying the taxes on the proceeds from the book and is donating the balance to charity.

The tax return also shows $175,000 in capital gains, from the sale of one-half interest of a painting, which was reported last year.

For a copy of the tax return, email Adam Abrams at aabrams@johnkerry.com

Re:Hard Work

[justforaday]

Well, he did say he wouldn't change the statue... : p

"...and I see no reason to change that statue."

Re:Hard Work

[Zak3056]

Digs at GWB aside, the responses dont match his normal speech patterns. It does indeed seem unlike something he would write.

I believe Bush has some sort of speech impediment and a difficulty speaking extemporaneously. Given that, I'm not surprised that his speeches and his writing would differ.

That said, I think you also have to realize that even assuming that Bush and Kerry wrote their own responses (I'm assuming Nader actually did, he seems to be that sort of candidate) those responses have been checked by numerous advisers and changes to the wording suggested to, and likely made by, the candidates.

Re:Hard Work

[hanssprudel]

My point is that I don't think that Bush would be able to write anything decent without tremendious help from others.

People said the same thing about Ronald Reagan, and yet since his presidency they have turned out to be completely wrong.

Re:Hard Work

[stanmann]

How much of his income did he manage to deduct into non-taxable status? Why don't you just post a link, and let us evaluate it for ourselves, since I don't want john kery sending me e-mail.

Re:Hard Work

[slashrogue]

When you turned in an essay at school, did you use the same language patterns as you do while speaking?

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, some common sense on /.

Re:Hard Work

[RangerRick98]

I don't think that Bush would be able to write anything decent without tremendious help from others.

Would you like some help with your /. posts, by chance? :)

Re:Hard Work

[cybrthng]

his taxes are right there.. 90k+ I'm not sure what you are asking. Email that dude and ask for a copy.. Democrats don't bite. His tax bracket looks to be 25% or so and thats not bad considering his donations/contributions and the fact his big asset selloff would have been taxed at BUSH's dividend tax (since it was considered an investment)

Re:Hard Work

[DAldredge]

Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Monday: "According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.... "Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one- tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%. ...

"Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000." The Kerrys "have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. ... So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?"

BTW, you didn't address most of the questions I asked. Why?

Re:Hard Work

[DuckDodgers]

The parent poster was probably thinking of Kerry's wife, who has the Heinz fortune but pays a relatively small percentage of tax given her income level. See A Washington Post Article.

I really don't care, since she also donated more than $4 million to charity last year. If you hunt around online, John and Theresa Kerry track financial assets separately per the terms of their prenuptual agreement. In fact, John Kerry mortgaged the only house they jointly own to help finance his election bid.

Re:Hard Work

[NanoGator]

"Digs at GWB aside, the responses dont match his normal speech patterns. It does indeed seem unlike something he would write."

And everybody here writes exactly like they talk? Please. If you read my emails you'd think I was an eloquent speaker.

I'm not defending Bush or even saying he personally wrote those responses. Rather, I'm saying this point isn't very indicative of anything. Just recently I recieved an email from my boss. I was late a couple of times and he wanted to make sure it didn't become a regular problem. My response to him was well crafted and diplomatic, and everything was smoothed over. If he had discussed it with me in person, being put on the spot, I don't think my response would have worded very well. (no no, not saying I would have been hostile, just saying that in email I was able to phrase my response a lot better.) I really don't think anybody could have read that email, or any of my others really, and thought "oh, hey, that was NanoGator. I can tell because he talks just like that!"

On a side note, it is a mistake to judge one's IQ over how they express themselves. One of the most gifted people I know would throw any spell checker into confusion.

Re:Hard Work

[cybrthng]

What are you talking about? I posted John Kerry's tax return - what you are talking about is Heinz's tax return. Because her stuff is all investments its probably only taxed at capital gains and thanks to GWB that is only capped at 15%

Her taxes will probably be even LOWER this year.. i'm sorry that GWB's tax custs only helps the rich and i'm sorry you don't realize that.

Re:Hard Work

[CGP314]

I'm not running for pezident of 'merika : )

Re:Hard Work

[the morgawr]

I believe Bush has some sort of speech impediment and a difficulty speaking extemporaneously.

One on one, he's a great guy. I'd say he gets nervous and uncomfortable in front of a room full of people.

Re:Hard Work

[DAldredge]

Reread the post you responded to. It had three questions about kerry. You only answered one of them.

Re:Hard Work

[cybrthng]

Yeah, in his rebutal he finally said Heinz... she makes alot of money but like you said, she donates a lot and she also works within the tax system GWB created.

Re:Hard Work

[operagost]

Does anyone here write exactly the same way they speak? I doubt it. Well, maybe the ones that sound like JeffyK.

Re:Hard Work

[cybrthng]

Dude, your asking the wrong person. I stated what i know about from the PRNeswire release and there is that email address you can contact.

i>I would like to know why he will not sign from 180, why he pays less than 13% federal income tax and why he didn't check the check box on his MASS state tax return to pay the higher rate.

John kerry files on his own - so his wifes assets aren't his liabilities. To answer your questions again most of her stuff is capital gains and taxed at GWB's rate and as far as state returns i have no idea what your talking about and i've never seen GWB's state returns either so its not much interest to me.

thank you.. drive through..

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Bush has some sort of speech impediment and a difficulty speaking extemporaneously.

Yeah. He's say "extempourously."

Re:Hard Work

[toastyman]

Some people seem to think that this is a relatively new "speech impediment".

I don't know either way about this, but here's a video I mirrored before the site hosting it went belly up. It claims to show the difference between Bush's speaking patterns from 10 years ago to today. I'm sure they picked the best examples of each side they could find, but it's still interesting.

Coral Cache
My overloaded server

Re:Hard Work

[eclectic4]

I would just like to ask, who gives a flying fuck? Kerry didn't write the tax code, did he?

Jeez.

Re:Hard Work

[LetterJ]

If it really bugs you that bad, just get a disposable email address ask the damn question and delete the address.

People demand answers and, when they aren't packaged the way they want, claim the answer hasn't been delivered.

You asked about his taxes, were given a perfectly reasonable way to obtain the forms and yet are still upset. That's like saying "I'm thirsty", getting a bottle of water and being upset because you have a thing about drinking straight from the bottle and would prefer a straw.

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Warren Buffet pays about 3% tax. He is also on record as saying that it's absurd that someone as rich as him should have to pay such a small fraction of his income in tax.

His tax bill is so low, as the law exempts most of his dividend income from taxation. Why? Because the law is an ass.

Re:Hard Work

[James Turpin]

If he's donating the balance to charity, why does he need to pay taxes on it in the first place? Are these non-tax-deductible charities? Political campaigns, perhaps? Oh well... if he's donating it all to charity, I suppose he doesn't care much whether or not the IRS get their share.

Re:Hard Work

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

I would just like to ask are you a stupid shit or just trying to be ironic with your question of "Kerry didn't write the tax code, did he?" b/c the answer to that question is as a member of the U.S. Senate, he most certainly had a hand in crafting the tax code for the last 20 years.

Re:Hard Work

[Politburo]

Nervous? Check out his 1994 debates. Didn't sound nervous there. Something's happened to the man.

Re:Hard Work

[pyros]

why he pays less than 13% federal income tax and why he didn't check the check box on his MASS state tax return to pay the higher rate.

Because he's not dumb. Do you pay more taxes than you are legally required to? I know I don't, and wouldn't start doing so if I started makeing a dalary in the hundreds of thousands.

Re:Hard Work

[Keebler71]

I don't know why I bother replying to this, since your anti-Kerry post will be moderated into oblivion but here is speculation as to why he won't sign the form 180. Granted, it is from a conservative publication, but there seem to be lots of good names and dates that someone more motivated than myself can follow up on. The implication is that Kerry originally received an "other than honerable" discharge from the Navy, which was later changed to "Honorable" during the Carter administration in conjunction with his pardon of draft dodgers and war protestors. Is this going to be the GOP's "October Surprise?"

Re:Hard Work

[d34thm0nk3y]

hehe, not to mention that they used a couple big words I am pretty sure Bush doesn't know the meaning of.

Re:Hard Work

[DAldredge]

I don't know how to respond as I am laughing so hard.

HINT, Look what Kerrys current job is and then research what people with that job do.

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, everyone knows W uses a red crayon.

Re:Hard Work

[SamSeaborn]

I'm one of the apparent few that thinks Dubya is a good, effective speaker.

Most politicians lose my attention five seconds into their answer, rambling on with same-old rhetorics. Dubya may have his share of rhetoric at times, but I never get tired or bored listening to his answers.

For me, there's a genuine sincerity in Dubya that rings true.

Just saying,

Sam "A.D.D." Seaborn

Re:Hard Work

[mOdQuArK!]

Maybe because of this?

Re:Hard Work

[rev063]

According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%...

the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20%

Well, that's not exactly a fair comparison, is it? Payroll tax is paid by the employer, not the employee, and so doesn't count towards income. Granted, any payroll tax paid by Kerry's employer (does the US govt even pay payroll tax?) isn't going to make a big dent in Kerry's effective taxation rate even if you did count it, but still...

Re:Hard Work

[micromoog]

Facing an atrocious record on every single issue can make a debate seem daunting. I suspect that for the 2nd debate he had a little sumpn' sumpn' to take the edge off.

Re:Hard Work

[patches]

Actually if you do the math 90575 / 395000 == 13.7%....

Re:Hard Work

[patches]

'm not sure where you see that.. according to 2003 tax return: (looks good to me..) and nowhere near 13%

Did you even try to calculate the percentage he pays???? I wouldn't exactly call 13.7% nowhere near 13%

Patrick

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Where did you learn math? The "W" school?

bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
scale=3
90575/395000 .229

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

If saddam and Milosevic both donated money to charity would that make them alright? Even if it was only for the write off?

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, there's a genuine sincerity in Dubya that rings true.

Me too. I think he's honestly that dumb.

Re:Hard Work

[The-Bus]

They don't have time to write it. A friend who went to my colleague's high school wrote one of the recent Bush speechers. He did a bone outline, then it was filled in by the speechwriters. Then Bush or Kerry make sure that it sounds like what they want to say.

Re:Hard Work

[althalus]

Considering her net worth is estimated at over one billion dollars, $4 million sure isnt' that much. Heck, my last years charitable donations were higher than her taxes in terms of percentage.

Re:Hard Work

[rhakka]

I see this $1000 number a lot lately. does *anyone* know a middle class family that saved that much from the tax credit? Every single person I know got $300 or less. Perhaps they are not considered "middle class".

Re:Hard Work

[Dirtside]

Clue Two: It wasn't written in purple crayon.

To be fair, there's no "purple crayon" tag in HTML, but I would have at least expected Bush to use the blink tag. Just seems like something he'd do.

Re:Hard Work

[DuckDodgers]

You let me know when Theresa Kerry starts ordering the death of innocents.

Re:Hard Work

[DuckDodgers]

It's a federal income tax, not a property tax. She's worth 3+ billion, but her income was much less than $100 million.

Your charitable donations were almost certainly higher than hers as a percentage of your net worth - unless you're moderately wealthy or stingy. But it's not likely they were higher as a percentage of your income.

Re:Hard Work

[killjoe]

" The parent poster was probably thinking of Kerry's wife, who has the Heinz fortune but pays a relatively small percentage of tax given her income level. "

Probably due the fact that almost all of her income is capital gains. The irony is that if Bush gets re-elected and cuts capital gains tax even more then she will be paying even less taxes.

Re:Hard Work

[killjoe]

Nice bit of lying there. Very clever of you to add up the incomes of Kerry and His wife and then average them out. Kerry only made about 400K of that 6.8 million. The rest was all Theresa and was capital gains so therefore was taxed at very low rates.

Bush is for reducing the capital gains taxes even more. If he wins the kerry's will pay even less taxes. More tax cuts for the Rich!.

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Payroll taxes are split between the employee and the employer. Most low-income earners pay considerable amounts of payroll tax while paying no actual income tax. Self-employed people are also responsible for the full amount. Payroll taxes have a cap on the amount of income that they are applied to (that is it is essentially a regressive tax on low-mid income earners) and even though Kerry pays his share, it's a practically irrelevant amount compared to what his income tax liability would be sans accounting tricks.

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

He could pay more. The treasury would happily accept any and all contributions Warren Buffet would liketo send them.

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Depending how acceptable pauses are in discussion I will use as much consideration as is necessary to formulate oral responses. If a pause is warrantless, for instance if casual discussion is afoot, then of course neither the content nor the form would be similar to that of an essay. What exactly, though is your point? Is it your position that the numerous speaking engagements that the President attends in which he demonstrates an inability to speak with much lucidity are equivalent to casual discussions, or are they more in line with the sort of formal speaking engagement where articulate speech is expected?

Re:Hard Work

[Guppy06]

As if anybody on Slashdot could possibly relate...

Re:Hard Work

[knodi]

I agree with the parent, it is entirely possible that the man is slower on his feet than when he's at a desk. But I CRACKED UP when I saw this was modded +5 Funny.

Re:Hard Work

[Keebler71]

As if we needed more proof that the moderators moderate based on personal views and not content of discussion.

I simply provided a possible answer to the man's question... clearly noting that it was pure speculation as well as the dubiousness of the source. But I guess the moderators didn't want anyone followng my link.

Re:Hard Work

[snol]

Yeah, I saw a compilation video that was trying to say he had gotten some brain disease over the past ten years. I'm sure they picked the best speeches from his 1994 debates (the dumb stuff from recently all sounded pretty much like par) but they do have a point. Can one be THAT dumb while getting C's at Yale? before the era of grade inflation?

Re:Hard Work

[dcam]

I believe Bush has some sort of speech impediment and a difficulty speaking extemporaneously. Given that, I'm not surprised that his speeches and his writing would differ.

Not having a brain tends to do that to people...

Re:Hard Work

[Atario]

Re:Hard Work (Score:5, Funny)
by droid_rage (535157) on 11:16 AM -- Wednesday October 13 2004 (#10515296)
Is it possible that he's just a very poor public speaker, but given the chance to sit down and think over his answers, can provide at least coherent responses? That's my guess.

Oh man. I wish I could metamod that moderation itself as "Funny".

Re:Hard Work

[PatientZero]

Is it possible that he's just a very poor public speaker, but given the chance to sit down and think over his answers, can provide at least coherent responses?

Sure, I suppose anything's possible. But then why didn't he do that with his responses here? ;)

Re:Hard Work

[Shillo]

> I believe Bush has some sort of speech impediment and a difficulty speaking extemporaneously.

Yes, I could agree that he would have great difficulties saying 'extemporaneously'.

--

Re:Hard Work

[droid_rage]

So did I. To bad I can never be funny when I'm actually trying.

Re:Hard Work

[mink]

Did something happen to Karl Rove?

Re:Hard Work

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just like to ask, who gives a flying fuck? Kerry didn't write the tax code, did he?
Right, because it's not like with 20 years in the Senate he ever got the chance to do just that. He could've worked with Bill Clinton for 8 years to modify the tax code in any way they wanted to modify it!

Obvious question

[MikeXpop]

Why aren't Cobb, Badnarik, Brown, and others shown? I find their answers are much more interesting, as they aren't afraid to alienate voters with different opinions (AKA no John Kerry-esque 'For votes who don't agree with it, I don't agree with it either. But for those who do, I'll still enforce it. Vote for me please!')

Re:Obvious question

[FortKnox]

I agree. The only thing 3rd parties can hope for is that their opinions are at least heard!

Re:Obvious question

[Valegor]

The TWO party system is quite possibly the worst thing that could have ever happened to the US political system. This was not what the founding fathers intended and though they were not perfect and did make mistakes on this issue they were correct. George Washington on his way out noticed the formation of political parties and stated that it was the worst thing that could happen to the country. I agree. Both parties at the moment are mirror images of each other. Their values and possitions on some issues are different, but they behave in the same manor. I for one am tired of voting for the lesser of evils and as long as we have a two party system that is what a majority of Americans will have to do. The independant, Libertarian, or green party candidates would get my vote but most of them are no better and would just create another mirror of the current parties.

Re:Obvious question

[Jsprat23]

From the original text:

"[Please note: All candidates who met the criteria detailed in The Appleseed Citizens' Task Force on Fair Debates were invited to participate.]"

This was in response to Nader saying he was the first minor party candidate to be asked to participate.

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

Why aren't Cobb, Badnarik, Brown, and others shown?

Because they are not viable candidates at this point in time. They have no conceivable chance of winning.

You act like there is no cost associated with turning this into a book. Well, there is: If the answers from George W. Bush (Republican), John F. Kerry (Democrat), Stanford E. "Andy" Andress (Independent), Lawson M. Bone (Write-In), David C. Byrne (Write-In), John Joseph Kennedy (Write-In), James Alexander Pace (Write-In), Tom Trancredo (Write-In), Thomas J. Harens (Christian Freedom Party), Deborah Elaine Allen (Write-In), Andrew J. Falk (Write-In), Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party), Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party), Walter F. "Walt" Brown (Socialist Party), Roger Calero (Socialist Workers Party), David Keith Cobb (Green Party), Earl F. Dodge (Prohibition Party), Charles Jay (Personal Choice Party), Ralph Nader (Reform Party), John Parker (Workers World Party), Leonard J. Peltier (Peace & Freedom Party), Michael A. "Mike" Peroutka (Constitution Party), and Bill Van Auken (Socialist Equality Party) were all included, then the resultant tome would become too much of a burden for 99% of people to read. That means a less, not more, informed electorate.

Re:Obvious question

[jmccay]

We do not have a two party system. We have a mulitparty system where only two parties have a message that have attracked a large chunk of people. The others are statically zero percent (or near it). Google for other parties and join one if you want. I listed a few in another post.

Re:Obvious question

[wtcards]

Based on the fact that the Commission on Presidential Debates is an entirely partisan organization founded by the Dems and Repubs (www.debate.org - they are the 501c3 that controls the televised debates) The Appleseed Task Force for the Citizens' Debate Commission set the requirements for a new, more open version. The benchmarks for this debate are 5% in a national media poll conducted by www.opendebates.org or 50 percent of a national poll that shows people want whatever candidate in the televised debates. The Libertarian candidate claims that the opendebates poll that put Ralph into the Appleseed debates used poor question wording. It remains open to debate, but, at least they got a third candidate into it.

Re:Obvious question

[ChristTrekker]

Self-fulfilling prophecy. If the media and the pollsters decide that ahead of time, and don't even bother to include third parties, well of course that's what will happen. The Democrats weren't confused by having 6 candidates in their primary debates. I don't see why we can't include all 6 candidates (with a mathematical possibility of winning) now.

Re:Obvious question

[magefile]

If you read the site, they invited all the parties who met the Appleseed Citizens' Taskforce on Fair Debates' criteria. I'm not sure who that was this year, but in 2000 that was the two major party candidates plus Nader & Buchanan. This year, I would guess it was Kerry, Bush, Nader, and possibly Cobb & Badnarik.

Re:Obvious question

[Valegor]

I mentioned some other parties in my post as well. We have two Parties in power though. Most of the other parties are mirror copies of the ones in power. I see very little difference between the Green Party and the Democrats for example. The Libertarians are considerably different, but I have my issues with them as well. I am an independant voter that has no desire to join any party. Adding more parties though does not fix the problem, it just spreads it between more groups.

Re:Obvious question

[Czernobog]

At the point where you decide that someone's voice or opinion, a presidential candidate's no less, is less important than someone else's, it's game over.
You've just given Judas's kiss to democracy...
And before you give me bullshit about the expense or effort involved in the production of, or having to read the manifestos of all the candidates, may I remind you this is not a KDE/Gnome/Insert shitty piece of software kind of choice, but something that actually means something.

Re:Obvious question

[jmccay]

Actually, the green party might be a little of both bepending on where you are in the country. One of the problems with a lot of the third parties is they only have official platforms for a few issues, and the rest is left up to the candidates. This means candidates in these 3rd parties can differ from region to region.

Re:Obvious question

[mystyc]

"Why aren't Cobb, Badnarik, Brown, and others shown?"

I'll answer that with 'Who?'

Re:Obvious question

[Nachtfellen]

Because they are not viable candidates at this point in time. They have no conceivable chance of winning.

How is Nader more viable than Badnarik? Nader is only on the ballot in 34 states vs. Badnarik's 48 states.

Re:Obvious question

[Unordained]

What level of information is appropriate, then? Three candidates is already too many for most people, and I know plenty who'd be just as happy with only one. The fewer the candidates, the less reading to do, the less thinking -- and eventually none. Would four candidates have been acceptable to you? Five? Perhaps rather than dictating to people how many candidates have a chance and therefore matter, we could just provide them with the book/tome and expect them to do their civic duty and read up as much as they can? I'm darned sure they won't, but should we make that decision for them? We shape the minds of electors every time we make this kind of editorial decision, we can't avoid increasing bias so long as we remain in an editorial position. (It's not quite censorship -- this sort of action only blocks communication along one channel, not all.)

As to having a chance of winning -- Dean had a chance of winning for a while, until something was said to the contrary (was it his "temper" that magically threw him out of the realm of acceptability? I don't even remember anymore. That's how quickly his star fell.) Because our voting system forces us to vote out of fear rather than hope, the issue of who is a "viable candidate" is extremely important. Simply saying "he has no chance of winning" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. None of us want to vote for someone without a chance, because we're too afraid of the possible outcomes of doing so.

Re:Obvious question

[sybert]

Experience. There are many people with no government experience who have run for Governor, the Senate, the House, and other elected office and won, and many who have done a good job. But for THE President of the United States of America, it is best to have a leader with elected experience and a record to judge how they might act as President. Otherwise, we might as well have a reality show to choose the president.

One of the above was able to refer to their record many times to back up his answers. Another has served in the Senate but only referred to it once, "have worked in the Senate to ensure that...", on the sexed question. The other responder and all of the candidates excluded have no significant Government experience.

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

How is Nader more viable than Badnarik? Nader is only on the ballot in 34 states vs. Badnarik's 48 states.

Because polls show that a lot more people intend to vote for Nader than Badnarik. That said, I'd have preferred to see Nader left out of this.

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

The Democrats weren't confused by having 6 candidates in their primary debates. I don't see why we can't include all 6 candidates (with a mathematical possibility of winning) now.

I wasn't confused, but neither was I particularly informed by those debates. They served as a great way to weed out those who lacked the right stuff, but they did not leave me with an in-depth knowledge of where each candidate stood on the important issues.

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

At the point where you decide that someone's voice or opinion, a presidential candidate's no less, is less important than someone else's, it's game over.

Now that's funny, in an ironic way: 'Everyone's voices and opinions are equally important, and presidential candidates are even more important than that!'

You've just given Judas's kiss to democracy...

No, we've just seen democracy in action. All of the candidates spent months trying to get our support and the polls now decide which ones are still participating in this discussion. If polls showed Badnarik at 10% or more, his answers would have been here.

And before you give me bullshit about the expense or effort involved in the production of, or having to read the manifestos of all the candidates, may I remind you this is not a KDE/Gnome/Insert shitty piece of software kind of choice, but something that actually means something.

Yes, it is damned important and I want to see voters who are informed -- and you don't get informed voters by publishing things that are so long that no one reads them.

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

Would four candidates have been acceptable to you? Five?

If ten candidates were each polling at 7-15% of the vote, then ten would be the right number. If two are polling at 40-50%, then two is the right number.

Perhaps rather than dictating to people how many candidates have a chance and therefore matter, we could just provide them with the book/tome and expect them to do their civic duty and read up as much as they can?

You are sadly mistaken if you think that people do their civic duty. Most of them would sooner watch Fear Factor or The Apprentice than watch the Presidential debates. Most Americans (including Dick Cheney) believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Because our voting system forces us to vote out of fear rather than hope, the issue of who is a "viable candidate" is extremely important. Simply saying "he has no chance of winning" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. None of us want to vote for someone without a chance, because we're too afraid of the possible outcomes of doing so.

We need a system where each person gets to rank their top-three candidates and the winner is determined by score. Your top choice is three points, your second place is two, and your third place is one. Total it at the end and pick that way. I'd bet that 95% of the Nader voters would have put Gore as their second choice and he'd be President now. Instead, we have a system where two liberal candidates could garner 60% of the vote and a conservative can win with 35%. That's broken.

(Note: 60%, 35% figures were hypothetical, not historical)

Re:Obvious question

[Valegor]

That is true. I have read up on some Green Party candidates that I do like. It is just Nader that I find to be a loon.

Re:Obvious question

[ChristTrekker]

That may have been due to the nature of the debates (primary vs general) themselves. It's a single party, all the candidates are going to have very similar views - that's why they chose to belong to the same party after all. Primary debates are more about finding who can deliver the message in the best (most lucid, most eloquent, most charismatic) way. But the fact that there were 6 candidates wasn't a problem hindering the process there, and I don't think it would be in the general election campaign either. The recent 4-way debate at Cornell lasted only an hour, yet everyone got to air their views on important and relevant subjects, and it was much more lively than the Duopoly's joint press conference was.

Re:Obvious question

[Debillitatus]

So why is Nader in it?

Insightful? Please.

Re:Obvious question

[Czernobog]

Funny and ironic how you ignore the fact that your opinion and mine are not to be debated whereas even the most insignificant candidate's, from the point of view of popularity, is.
As far as the democracy in action comment. That's not democracy. Democracy is open dialogue of everyone's position. The moment you exclude someone, you stop talking about democracy. The moment you even accept the concept of silencing someon based on some Pop Idol rules enforced by the media then you are no longer worthy of democracy and deserve everything you get.

Re:Obvious question

[Redchrome]

I'll answer that with 'Who?'

Exactly. The Commision on Presidential Debates is refusing to allow anyone but the two major candidates to get the media exposure of the major debates; despite the fact that a majority of Americans, when asked, want to hear what other candidates want to say.

http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/

They even work to keep other candidates out of the debate when those candidates would be on the ballot. (i.e. several thousand people have signed a petition to get a candidate on the ballot... which is how candidates get their name on the ballot)

http://badnarik.org/

Re:Obvious question

[Money for Nothin']

Because they are not viable candidates at this point in time. They have no conceivable chance of winning.

What, and Nader does?

Badnarik is polling as high as 3-5% in 1 or 2 states (don't know nationally). He may be a "fringe" candidate, but that's certainly a respectable figure given that Nader is polling about 1% nationally. I would venture a guesstimate that Badnarik is polling 0.5-1.0% nationally, because historically, that's about where the Libertarian Party's candidates have come out in popular elections...

Re:Obvious question

[Stochio]

"If polls showed Badnarik at 10% or more, his answers would have been here"
How do you get a car with a dead battery started without a jump start?

Re:Obvious question

[Vintermann]

"We need a system where each person gets to rank their top-three candidates and the winner is determined by score. Your top choice is three points, your second place is two, and your third place is one."

That's Borda. It has big flaws of it own, largely the same flaws as the current system. And why should it be exactly three candidates?

No, Approve approval voting today.

When generalizing the standard voting procedure (biggest one wins) from two candidates to three or more, to preserve the good attributes we must allow all candidates to say "yes" or "no" to _each candidate in turn_. It's just obvious - it's what we actually do in a two-candidate election, only there, when we have stated our opinion of one candidate, our opinion of the other one is implied, and not necessary to specify.

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

And why should it be exactly three candidates?

Memory and cognitive abilities. People generally have trouble ranking favorites in lists with more than three members. There is also the issue of remembering, correctly, the names of, say, a dozen candidates.

Approval voting is reasonable also, so long as one can opt-out for candidates with whom they are not familiar. Borda voting does have its problems, but it's a lot better than the system we now use.

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

So why is Nader in it?

I didn't put him in it or defend him being in it. Were it up to me, he would not be in it.

Insightful? Please.

Yes, it was insightful. That you fail to recognize it is a poor reflection on you, not me.

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

What, and Nader does?

No, he does not. Were it up to me, his answers would not have been included.

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

Funny and ironic how you ignore the fact that your opinion and mine are not to be debated whereas even the most insignificant candidate's, from the point of view of popularity, is.

We are debating right here, so I don't know what you are talking about.

As far as the democracy in action comment. That's not democracy. Democracy is open dialogue of everyone's position. The moment you exclude someone, you stop talking about democracy.

No, democracy is about everyone casting votes. It's not about giving the stage to every person in the U.S. who declares that they are running for President.

The moment you even accept the concept of silencing someon based on some Pop Idol rules enforced by the media then you are no longer worthy of democracy and deserve everything you get.

No one is silencing anyone. But don't expect to get to debate on national television just because you got .000003% of the U.S. citizens to sign petitions for your candidacy.

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

"If polls showed Badnarik at 10% or more, his answers would have been here"
How do you get a car with a dead battery started without a jump start?

John Kerry didn't rely on televised debates to make him a contender. He relied on campaigning. He relied on television ads, radio ads, and public rallies.

You mistake cause and effect: John Kerry participated in debates because polls show him to be a leading contender. He didn't become a contender because of being in the debates.

Re:Obvious question

[Stochio]

What you say would be more correct if polls were open ended. Why do so many polls contain the phrase "Kerry or Bush"? Instead ask "If an election were held today, whom would you vote for?"
And don't bother to point me to links that ask that NOW. Point me to polls that asked that 6 months ago. And also show me that no polls were leading SINCE then. Of course, I'm asking you to do something next to impossible. I'm not trying to debate you to show that Badnarik would pull 15% in a poll. All I'm asking you to do is open your mind to the possibility that the idea of solely 2 contenders is perpertuated by the media and our public education system. In fact, the whole idea of the spectrum as "Left to Right" excludes people like Libertarians. To characterize Libertarians as "more right" displays a fundamental lack of their principles. Let me ask this, what is your main gripe with the Libertarian platform?

Re:Obvious question

[MulluskO]

They're welcome to come and post their responses AC.

Actually, I think slashdot needs more 'Authenticated' users with real names like 'John Carmack.'

Re:Obvious question

[fmaxwell]

Let me ask this, what is your main gripe with the Libertarian platform?

Their belief that unregulated free-market capitalism is the answer to virtually all of our problems and that government is inherently "bad" and should be minimized, and that reducing taxes should is paramount.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[erick99]

Catholics aren't Christians? I'm Catholic and consider myself a Christian.

Isn't this always the case?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm seriously not trolling, but don't most tax cuts in the U.S. benefit the richer and not the poorer? If that's the case, why do we need to cut taxes like Bush has done? It shifted economic burdens to many states (ie budget crises) which personally haven't helped me at all being state employee who hasn't gotten a raise in over two years. I'm pretty sure I lost more money due to no raises than these crappy tax cuts.

Bush:

"As your income rises over the years, you will benefit from my proposed tax deduction of your health insurance premiums and for contributions that you make to your HSA."

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[boomgopher]

I'm seriously not trolling, but don't most tax cuts in the U.S. benefit the richer and not the poorer?

My biggest grief against Democrats/Liberals in regards to taxes is this:

When they say the "rich", it sounds as if they're talking about multi-millionaires. However, they're actually talking about about anyone in the highest tax-brackets. My wife are I are in this catagory, although we are FAR from rich (i.e. I can't even afford a house/condo on what we make). So the thought of any tax increases are fucking ludicrous to me, as I make an effort to NOT be a burden on anyone else, as well as planning for the future without counting on Social Security. More of the services they propose to fund with tax increases will give me no benefit.

If they'd talk straight about taxes, I'd be more willing to vote for them.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[scaaven]

My wife are I are in this catagory, although we are FAR from rich

cry me a river. go tell that to the single mom raising 5 kids and barely able to make rent.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Austerity Empowers]

I think you should find the facts for this yourself. /. is not the place to get unbiased facts about Bush and his tax cuts.

Regardless of my opinion on his other policies, my taxes are lower now than with Clinton. But then I, as with most graduated (and employed) slashdotters make well over the national medan income. I live in an apartment, drive a 6 year old ford, am in middle management hell, and do not play tennis or golf. Rich I am not, but neither am I poor.

As for raises, your point may be taken, but I am not sure there is a relation ebtween tax cuts and raises. It would be fair to say that Bush has done nothing to stop job outsourcing, and regrettably NO candidate is willing to deal with that issue as it woudl turn corporate funding against them. Sad, as far as I'm concerned Kerry and Bush are equivalent on every issue. This would turn my favor to either one that I thought could do it.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because proportionately that person is paying more than the poorer person is

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[boomgopher]

cry me a river. go tell that to the single mom raising 5 kids and barely able to make rent.

*sniff*

Hate to say it, but nearly all of the women I've met like this jumped head-first into these situations.
I.e. they latch on to some obvious loser deadbeat, screw him, move in with him, have kids, have more kids, etc.
And when he bails, they act like "I can't believe this has happened to me!"

Sorry, I do my best to help the women I know who are on this path; but there comes a point when they have to take responsibility for their actions. I need to raise kids myself.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[gurps_npc]

You are wrong. Period. Like most people, you are believing what the Republicans tell Kerry is saying, instead of actually listening to what he says.

Generally when Kerry refers to the rich, he is refering to the people in the top 1%. That means making over one million US dollars a year.

If you are making more than $1,000,000 a year, you are NOT in the "just in the highest tax bracket". If you make that kind of cash, you are rich.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must live in California. There's few other places in the world where 200K a year (the number Kerry talks about) wouldn't be enough to be able to afford a house or condo.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Austerity Empowers]

$1,000,000 is not the highest tax bracket, and never has been. My combined household income, whatever that is, pays the highest tax %.

Put another way, Bush's tax cut benefits me. Kerry wants to re-instate Clinton's tax plan. That would hurt me.

I can get over that to be honest, in 10 years I will be able to afford a house, and I'm only 28. I want to understand how the tax money is being useful, and I am not seeing that.

So on this particular issue I give Kerry 0, Bush 0. Bush is bleeding money and going to stick us with the bill. Kerry wants to tax me more, spend more, and plug the hole a little. Bah I say.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[stinerman]

Well it all depends on where you live.

I could see someone having a problem with 33% of their income taxed if they lived in suburban California. $100,000/yr isn't exactly high-class around there. Where I am from (rural Ohio), the "rich" people in town make $50,000/yr. It was always funny to hear people whose parents made six figures complain about being poor when the median income in my town was approximately $30,000/yr.

I think there should be credits for those people who have a much higher cost of living than those of us that don't.

As far as tax brackets are concerned, you are correct. Someone who makes $120,000 (or whatever the highest bracket starts at) shouldn't be subjected to the same tax rate as George Soros or Bill Gates.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[boomgopher]

You must live in California

Bingo

And to the people who say "it's time to move", well, easier said than done. And I sure the heck wouldn't move just to be able to pay more in taxes.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Uzbek]

In fact most taxes in US are paid by upper middle class (range $150K-$300K income). Once you make over $500K tax burden goes down.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_income_ taxation.htm
Last paragraphs illustrate that.

Regards,
Uzbek.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[njfuzzy]

So the only definition of "rich" that you like is one that doesn't include you? I imagine when people talk about raising taxes for the rich, everyone would take the same stance-- but it's not a very consistent principle.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost of living should be figured into the taxes somehow. It doesn't tend to affect the rest of the country much, but it would still be more equitable. And when you do come to California, where the cost of living is so ridiculously out of whack, it would be a real life saver.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[TellarHK]

The people Kerry is talking about would be people making more than $200,000 per year. That's over sixteen thousand dollars per month. (pre-taxed income) If you have a hard time making ends meet and can't afford a house or a condo on that kind of cash, you have major, major, MAJOR financial responsibility issues. If you aren't making over $200,000 per year he is -not- talking about you when he refers to his tax cuts. Generally, when he does talk about the -rich- he is referring to people making far more than the $200,000 level.

I live in Manchester, New Hampshire in the shadow of the Boston metro area. My rent costs me $959 per month for a 2 bedroom place of medium quality. I make around $35,000 per year (pre-taxed) and the Bush tax plan didn't do fuck-all for me. I definitely agree that the tax burden is something that needs to be addressed on a local level when it comes to dealing with expenses needed to live on, but the truth is that the local area is where the -local- governments need to address the problem. Federal tax in CA too high for you with all the expenses that come from living in SF, LA, SD, or even Sacramento? Fine, make your city spend less, need less from the state, and cut your state taxes.

Even in those areas, though, $200,000 is -not- poor.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[jmccay]

When have you ever gotten a job from a poor person?

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[corngrower]

Well, therein may be the problem. Taxes should be levied on wealth, and taxes on income reduced. Take a look at Ralph Nader's stance on taxes. You'll find it interesting, if nothing else.

The republican tax policies have the effect of transferring taxes from the wealthy to taxing the middle class wage earner. Your federal taxes have been reduced, and the federal aid to highways, schools, and social programs dramatically cut. The state and local authorities have to pick up this slack somehow, so property and state sales taxes go up.

Now the wealthy have their money tied up in companies and stocks. Guess what the Republicans want to do? That's right, eliminate taxes on dividends, and reduce corporate taxes. Net result: less taxes on the wealthy so they can become wealthier. A veritable two class economic system.

Guess which class you're in?

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[gurps_npc]

Kerry's plan is NOT to raise taxes on everyone in the highest tax bracket. Besides, even if it was to do that, there is no way a republican controlled congress would let him get away with it.

Kerry's plan is to create a new tax bracket, that will be for people who are in the top 1%.

Stop beliveing the lies the Republicans are saying about what Kerry's tax plan is and actually listen to what Kerry says.

The following is a chart that the Wall Street Journal did, for married people. This is the WSJ,not a liberal rag.

Taxpayers Income Current Law Kerry Plan Difference Married* $190,000 $30,500 $30,500 0 Single $275,000 $59,800 $62,300 $2,500 Married $500,000 $111,350 $118,450 $7,100 Married $750,000 $167,250 $190,450 $23,200 Married $1 million $215,250 $250,100 $34,850

Be honest. Look at that chart. Tell me that you would pay more money, but are not "rich". OK. So, is your combined income less than 190,00

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[EastCoastSurfer]

I have 2 words for that mom:

Personal Accountability

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Kombat]

don't most tax cuts in the U.S. benefit the richer and not the poorer?

I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, yes, most tax cuts benefit the middle-to-upper classes, but it's for one simple reason: poor people don't pay any taxes. In Canada, if you make less than $20,000 a year, you will pay virtually nothing in income tax. Well, it may come off your paycheck, but you will get almost all of it back come tax season. How do you give someone like that a "tax break" when they're already paying practically nothing into the tax system?

That is where this rhetoric about "tax cuts not helping the poor" come from.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you have 10+ children, a serious gambling/alcohol addiction, or a ridiculous amount of debt there is no way you and your wife can't afford a house or a condo. I am 23 yrs old and I ALONE pull in a meager $56k (meager compared to the salary you must command to be in the "high" tax bracket you claim). I have owned my own home for over year. My house was built in 1998, and is only a few miles outside of a major metro area. Were I to have another income coming my way (roommate and/or wife) I would be able to live a very comfortable life, not that I don't right now. You have no reason to be whining about taxes...

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[mobby_6kl]

>If they'd talk straight about taxes, I'd be more willing to vote for them.

Aren't Badnarik/Campagna and the LP talking about taxes enough? They clearly say that they would lower taxes and let you keep more money, just watch/listen any of the debates with Michael, read about the LP at badnarik.org or take the shortest political quiz

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[boomgopher]

there is no way you and your wife can't afford a house or a condo. I am 23 yrs old and I ALONE pull in a meager $56k (meager compared to the salary you must command to be in the "high" tax bracket you claim). I have owned my own home for over year. My house was built in 1998, and is only a few miles outside of a major metro area.

Well, that's dandy for you. I take it we are not neighbors - as the average cost of a home in my town is $1,000,000 dollars. Condos range 500K+
These are not mansions or even new homes, mind you, these are 30-40 year old tract homes in average nothing-special neighborhoods.

Yes, maybe I should move - but I'd also assume that you didn't move from out of state just to be able to afford your swell place. You're also single, which is less restricting.

(and no, I make nowhere near 200K but I'm in one of the highest brackets)

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[cayenne8]

Well, kinda of depends. I'm middle class...and I definitely saw a tax cut. Anyone who pays taxes, got a cut. People that are poor and don't pay taxes...didn't get a cut, but, that is by definition.

Some might say that the cuts to taxes on capitol gains would benefit the wealthy...but, with more and more of the US working class putting money in the markets via 401K's or direct investment...well, more and more are getting that break, and it encourages people TO invest.

I need to research more on it...but, it appears indeed (again, I've not researched this fully), that proposed Kerry tax raises targeted to impact the more wealthy, might hit the small business person. I recently formed a subchapter "S" corporation to contract myself through, and start other businesses...hopefully to allow me in the future, to become 100% independant. This corp allows you to funnel revenues through the corp to your personal taxes...makes it simpler for small business taxes...and allows you to not to have to pay SE taxes on EVERYTHING...

The new taxes might hit a person like that....even though a lot of the money was for business, etc...would look like you made a ton, but, not take into consideration all the business expenses...etc. I'll have to look into this more.

Frankly, I wish the US Gov would STOP taking so much money from the states, and redistributing it back out...I'm for letting the states keep more of their dollars...and regain more independence.

Finally...I like cutting taxes across the board on all wage earners....not targeted tax breaks to 'families' and those with 'kids'. Why should a single person end up paying more for others? If you earn a wage...you should get a break. I have nothing about taxes going towards schools and such....but, in the taking of the dollars...everyone should benefit...the tax system should NOT be used as a wealth redistribution system.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Bryan Gividen]

I will "cry you a river" but at the same time, that's why I make contributions to charitable organizations who can take care of that. I don't need the government to tax me so I'm moral. I choose to be moral.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[nanojath]

(and no, I make nowhere near 200K but I'm in one of the highest brackets)

Okay, so you just admitted that your initial premise is invalid:

"Deloitte analysts estimate that Sen. Kerry would raise taxes for married couples filing jointly with adjusted gross incomes of about $225,000 or higher, and for single taxpayers with an income of $185,000 or higher. These estimates are based on representative taxpayers with typical itemized deductions."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-tax0830 04 ,0,5373621.story

I'm sorry you live in a locale where housing prices are disproportionate to your income. That would be difficult. But are you seriously claiming that your tax burden is causing this situation? That the continued presidency of George Bush is going to make it easier for you to buy a house, or that A Kerry presidency would make it more difficult?

I don't mind people having a firm stance on lowering taxes but my problem with the current administration is their habit of LOWERING revenues while RAISING expenses resulting in RECORD DEFICITS. I was under the impression that conservatives valued something called "fiscal conservatism?" I'm having a hard time figuring that one out in the current administration.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Schweg]

I think you do need to move, if owning a home matters to you. I bought a historic (circa 1870) 3-story Victorian home just outside of Philadelphia for about $230k.

Philadelphia is not the most expensive area for housing for the nation, but it's far from the cheapest. $1M for an average home cost is insane.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[geekpolitico]

It's true, it is tough to afford a 2 Bedroom in SoHo if you only make $312,000 a year.

I'm sorry if you don't feel that the rest of America feels your pain.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Carewolf]

Taxes on wealth makes people spend their wealth. That is only healtly as very short term tax, but could kick-start an economic upturn. It is generally frowned upon because of its long-term effects, and because everyone knowns taxes have a hard time going away once introduced.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[DigiShaman]

People that make $200,000 fall under owners of small business...THE engine of the US ecconomy. You think unemployment is bad now, wait till Kerry has his way with taxes.

But that's ok, you would rather cut off your face to spite your noise huh?

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[multimed]

Taxes should be levied on wealth, and taxes on income reduced

Taxes should be levied on money spent, not income and sure as hell not wealth. Since you don't have any support I won't bother either.

Your federal taxes have been reduced, and the federal aid to highways, schools, and social programs dramatically cut.

If that's true, then why did the deficit explode? Taxes were reduced, revenues dropped with the downturn in the economy, and government spending wasn't cut. I think that must be what he meant by "compassionate conservative"--he cut taxes like a conservative and was too compassionate to cut any spending. Saying Bush cut federal funding to education is an outright lie. You can certainly argue that the requirements in No Child Left Behind will cost some school districts more to meet than the amount of federal funding they receive--the unfunded mandate charge is justified for some schools, especially the most underperforming ones. But Bush's education bill was the largest federal funding of education in history. Department of Education funding increased 58% during his first 3 years which was a bigger increase than the entire 8 years of Clinton's presidency.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[TellarHK]

I work for a small business, one that's struggling like crazy to keep up. And you know what hurts us the most? Healthcare. We're one of those rare things - a small business that actually provides full medical coverage to employees. We're not even a tech company, as we do water conditioning and purification work. When tax time rolls around, we get a little bit stressed about it, but then we knuckle under and get it done. When workers comp insurance comes around, THAT is where small business gets its ass kicked. Sure, I know there are a lot of "small business" geeks out there that're a corporation of one in order to get tax breaks, but the real small businesses that hurt the most are ones like mine, and a Kerry presidency would have a far greater chance of making sure our medical premiums were manageable.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[DigiShaman]

General medical care is so expensive thanks to all the blood-sucking lawers and the frivalous lawsuits aimed at them. So naturally it's going to be expensive thangs to the high medical mal-practice insurance premiums doctors have to pay. Hell, some are even leaving the medical profession because it's so damn risky. And being that Edwards is a trial lawer, do you really trust him? It is of my personal opinion that he is a snake. Kerry may have the right idea for medcare in general, but I don't trust Edwards or any trial lawer.

Honestly, if we had tort reform I believe most of our ecconomic problems would go away with Tax reform being the first step.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[durdur]

When you give small business people extra money (through tax breaks), what makes the administration think they will go out and hire someone with the $$$? Maybe they'll take a trip to Bermuda and spend it there. The Bushies have been using job creation as the excuse for all kinds of regressive tax policies. If they want to create jobs maybe they should incentivize job creation, instead of just handing out tax breaks to every rich person and hoping they cause some hiring. (The other argument Bush made in the debate was that we needed the tax cuts to get out of recession and respond to 9/11 - but that doesn't jibe with his attempts to make them permanent).

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush plan didn't do fuck-all for you because you didn't do fuck-all for yourself.

The tax cuts weren't a mean to hand out money to the greedy and undeserving. You didn't pay fuck-all for taxes before so when the government decided to reduce the amount of money it took from its citizens via taxes, you still don't pay fuck-all in taxes and therefore can't really tell the difference between the fuck-all you paid before and the fuck-all you pay now.

Work hard and make more money and you will see a difference. This country wasn't founded on the principle of "screw the rich since there's so few of them". It was founded on the principles of fairness and the closer we get to a poll tax where everyone pays for what they consume, the fairer the tax system will be.

Of course that means that greedy, lazy jerks like you won't be able to live contented lives at the expense of those who do real work but those are the breaks.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[DigiShaman]

They will spend it if they want to invest in their company and it's future. When you expand a corporations infrastuction, you have the ability to expand and grow to service more customer...thus gaining more profit.

The scenario you describe are scumbags that ran Enron. The fact of the matter is, you will have good and bad companies alike. Personally, I would never work for any corporation with such business practices...nor would I invest in such companies with shady objectives and greed.

But hey, if you don't want to work for someone else, do the work and be your own boss. It's tough, but you get to set your on schedule and run a company in your own image. ;)

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Will_Malverson]

Actually, Kerry plans to tax 'families' making over $200k per year. That means individuals making over $100k per year.

Keep in mind also Al Gore's definition of 'millionaire' when Bill Clinton was planning to tax them back in 1992. Paraphrased, it was...

Well, a presidential term is four years, so we figure anyone making over $250,000 per year is a millionaire.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. It's because of the bloodsucking lawyers gobbling up all the healthcare dollars.

The CEOs of the HMOs and insurance companies raking in millions, and the 20% overhead of HMOs (Medicare has a 2% overhead) have nothing to do with this, because all their money comes from the healthcare fairy.

There is abuse of the system that needs to be adressed, but as corporations become bigger and bigger, and as everything is deregulated, lawsuits become the ONLY weapon available to make them behave.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[Redchrome]

Well, therein may be the problem. Taxes should be levied on wealth, and taxes on income reduced. Take a look at Ralph Nader's stance on taxes. You'll find it interesting, if nothing else.

How about we cut the size of the federal government, and all its associated wasteful and slow bureaucracy, and slash taxes for everyone at the federal level? Devolve healthcare, education, road construction, and more, down to the state level. This would give everyone more say in how their money is spent (because your local representative is much more accessible than your rep in Washington D.C.); and would provide an opportunity for different states to try different methods of administrating costs and managing overhead -- making solutions more customized to local needs and giving fertile ground for the best ideas to grow and flourish.

This is the original idea behind having multiple states instead of a massive federal bureaucracy that has too many layers and too many factions to be efficient.

This would give *everyone* more money, and more say in how it's spent. We know this works, because it's the way our country was run until the last few decades. Just compare the prosperous 1950s (where the average tax burden was only about %12 of income); or pre-1913 America (no income tax); to the ruinous %40-50 tax burden of today (once you factor in the hidden costs of tax compliance, taxes during production, and accounting overhead) which requires both parents to work and leaves the children to the not-so-tender mercies of the public school system.

So far, the only party that supports this is the Libertarians [lp.org]. Listen to Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org] speak sometime, like on this radio interview.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[durdur]

Umm, Enron wasn't a small business .. But even large businesses are often banking their tax breaks, or using a windfall to fund acquisitions (which result in layoffs), rather than creating jobs, as reported in today's Wall Street Journal, page one.

Re:Isn't this always the case?

[TellarHK]

That's utter bullshit. Frivolous lawsuits are nothing compared to other places where sick, sick money is made in healthcare. And have you not noticed that Edwards is one of THE chief proponents of tort reform? Did you not hear his "three strikes" plan for stopping lawyers from filing that type of suit if they chase too many ambulances?

Yes, people are making way too much money on bullshit lawsuits, but at the same time there are way too many fuckup doctors and hospitals that need a kick in the balls when they do screw up. And since I don't think that kind of doctor -has- balls, you have to hit them in the wallet when it's legitimate.

Telling

[Anonymous Coward]

When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion?

President George Bush Responds:
President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor

If you watched the last debate you'd know that he never makes mistakes, so why should he change his opinion?

Re:Telling

[Anonymous Coward]

That's okay, Kerry's real answer was "It's always and never appropriate."

Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is the greatest country on Earth,
we have a whole system just to ensure that people like you don't become president!"
-- Abe Simpson

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[jmccay]

This is a simple falsehood--a lie. We have a multiparty system, but the other parties just have not attracked the interest of the American people. What does this mean? It means they haven't come up with a message that a large chunk of people believe in.
Peoples' beliefs are complex these days. You have people who may be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and every other possiblity.
Given America has the following parties (listed in no particular order other than when I remember them):
Socialist Party
Communist Party (which has decided to back John Kerry)
Lybetarian Party
Green Party
Constitutional Party
American Nazi Party
Royalist Party (they want a Constitutional Monarchy)
America First Party
Reform Party
American Party (broke from the American Independant Party in 1972)
The American Heritage Party (formerly "the Washington State affiliate of the USTP/Constitution Party")
Labor Party

You can probably find more googling. I found some of these by googling. The problem is the top two parties (Democrats & Republicans) are not narrow parties. They include a wide range of beliefs. The Republican party was formed in New Hampshire at a meeting almost a year before the official "birth" of the party when several parties got together and decided to form a single party because they all had similar beliefs.
If you don't like the two major parties, join one of the smaller ones. Just don't be surprised if your vote doesn't register on national surveys because the percentage is statically 0%.

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[Anonymous Coward]

we do have a two party system regardless of the existance of other parties.

simply put, ask anyone who studies Political Science, and the answer will be "we have a two party system, because it is a winner take all game"

there is no second place such as in a parlimentary system. You have two choices, one wins. You may have a thousand "choices" but since it is a winner take all, the concept of strategic voting comes into play. This means there are only two valid choices.

i really like the idea of a proportional representation like Britian or Germany, and i hope eventually we go through a reform to make it that way. but as of now, there is no second place.

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[runderwo]

Yeah, the fact that the debates are funded and operated by the RNC and DNC couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that third parties get no exposure, could it now?

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[LynchMan]

We have a multiparty system, but the other parties just have not attracked the interest of the American people.

The media only pays attention to the two major parties - thus why people ususally are bound to one or the other. When ALL parties get EQUAL representation in ALL instances, then America will no longer be a two party system.

But here in the states the concept of 'All' and 'Equal' are rarely seen together...

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the 3rd parties barely show up in actual votes?

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[jmccay]

Nader seems to get a good amount of time. If the other parties were bigger, then they would get more media time. Do you really ware to hear from the Nazi and COmmunist Parties though?

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[Bryan Gividen]

What you're missing is that the Consitution and the found of the United States lends itself completely to a two-party system. Election rules and the electoral college are guards to a two-party system. Since the entire United States has been around, two parties have been in power. (Starting with the Federalists and Anti-Fedarlists.) As it is, all third-party candidates is decide who to take votes away from. And for a third party to begin to take serious command, it would leave a hole for few years in which the new party would be "stealing" votes from one main party and dominately put one or the other parties in. (If the Green Party were to gain more support, it would put the Democrats at a disadvantage and while the Liberterian Party would do well to pull both DNC and GOP members, it would draw away many more conservatives.)

I don't know how I personally feel about the two-party system we have in place. I don't know if a powerful third-party would really do much. But I do know that the idea that we have a multi-party system is merely rhetoric being spewed on a technicality. It might not be on paper, but it is definitely ingrained into our government.

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[LynchMan]

Do you really ware to hear from the Nazi and COmmunist Parties though?

Personally, no. But there is that whole 'Freedom of Speech' thing that I remeber hearing about once.

You may not want to hear it, but they have a right to be heard. I don't want to hear either Bush or Kerry.

Nader get's a good amount of time? I must have missed the fact that he is on tonight's debate with the other Presidential candidates...

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[jmccay]

I stand by what I have said. The 3rd parties have too narrow a message--leaving a lot of openness. If they had a messsage that people wanted to hear they woudl have more people in their parties. This is especially true in todays society with the internet, blogs, and public access TV stations where anybody can get time to talk about anything legal.

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[hal9000]

We have a multiparty system, but the other parties just have not attracked [sic] the interest of the American people.

That is off the mark. The DNC and RNC... these are the real powerbrokers. They enjoy a rigged system that was set up, and is perpetually fine-tuned, to prevent would be power threats. A big part of it is propaganda: to reinforce the notion that if a candidate doesn't have a D or an R, it is not a worthy candidate, and thus a vote for that candidate would be wasted. It is very real, and it has a very real effect. It is probably the biggest hurdle for alt.parties-- a lot more damning than whatever people might think of a particular platform.

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[Tellalian]

Just wanted to quickly note that your sig:

Kerryisms: "We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."

is also a "simple falsehood--a lie", or more accurately, an urban myth. That same quote has also be attributed to President Bush, but as reported by snopes, it's actually from former Republican Vice-President Dan Quayle.

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? How can third parties attract the interest of the American people when elites in the current two party system have been suppressing them?

Candidates arrested at debate
Libertarian, Green party nominees tried to serve commission

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICL E_ ID=40843

Is it that people wouldn't vote for third party candidates? Or they don't know they can because the magic box in their living room tells them so?

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not want to hear it, but they have a right to be heard.
NO! Having the right to speak does NOT imply the right to be heard. Frankly, if you come to my house and start trying to express your free speech, and I don't want to listen to you, bad things will happen. Depending on how badly you offend me, I'll either break your face or have you arrested for tresspassing after a fair warning to get the fuck off my property. Why? Because that's my right! And they do talk and talk and talk. It's just that nobody cares, so nobody listens.

I must have missed the fact that he is on tonight's debate with the other Presidential candidates...
That's because the debates are between the viable candidates.

Re:Because we have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM

[Anonymous Coward]

How can third parties attract the interest of the American people when elites in the current two party system have been suppressing them?

Candidates arrested at debate
Libertarian, Green party nominees tried to serve commission

Right, they were arrested for trying to serve the commission, not for civil disobedience in the form of crossing the police line (and then they turned themselves in peacefully)!

And that's why THREE CANDIDATES ANWSER?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, education in the US really seems to be lacking.

Re:And that's why THREE CANDIDATES ANWSER?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many candidates are in the "debates"?

And you misspelled "AN S wer" Thank you. Come again!

We need to take ourselves seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

...before they will take us seriously.

Remember all that ruckus about green party and libertarian candidates not being included in the debates and whatnot? Why aren't they included here, where it doesn't take court orders and breaking the law to get word about them out?

Re:We need to take ourselves seriously

[halivar]

Remember all that ruckus about green party and libertarian candidates not being included in the debates and whatnot? Why aren't they included here, where it doesn't take court orders and breaking the law to get word about them out?

Ummm... the Green Party was included, and Michael Badnarick had his own, exclusive interview with Slashdot.

Re:We need to take ourselves seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Nader's not the Green Party candidate this year.

Re:We need to take ourselves seriously

[squiggleslash]

If you're refering to Nader, Nader isn't the Green candidate this time around. The Green's candidate is David Cobb.

Re:We need to take ourselves seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you missed that part where the Green party's candidate for president is David Cobb.

Good...

[ottergoose]

I'm glad that Bush took the time to use the internets. He really relates to young voters...

(Funny, not Flamebait)

Re:Good...

[BigGerman]

it is hard work you know. He uses internets all the time ;-)

Re:Good...

[spezz]

He'll use most of the internets, but not the one Gore invented

What about the Libertarian and Green candidates?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're on more ballots than Nader. Why didn't they get to answer?

Bajesus!

[Mmm coffee]

Wow. I knew Bush was bad, but he successfully avoided answering all the questions and replying with bullshit. All of the questions. "What do you think of this important issue?" "America is the greatest nation, a bastion of hope for the world. I am proud to have voted for bill X..."

Kerry sometimes avoided the questions, and sometimes answered them. Fairly decent job, as far as politicians usually go.

Nader actually answered the questions.

The Libertarian and Green candidates not only agreed to be interviewed directly by a random nerd website (/.), but gave well thought out answers to the questions.

Says a lot. I won't go into what it says, as that is on the shoulders of the beholder, but it does say a lot.

Re:Bajesus!

[Anonymous Coward]

A random nerd website probably has around 400,000 individual eligible US voters visiting every day. It's a very effective place to get your message out, and a great place for third parties to reach new voters (although most here have already made their mind up, i suppose).

Re:Bajesus!

[Anonymous Coward]

It all boils down to: "I'm in favor of good things, and opposed to bad things. Rah, rah, rah, Go USA!"

Re:Bajesus!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, give him a break, after all it's HARD WORK(tm).

Re:Bajesus!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Libertarian and Green candidates not only agreed to be interviewed directly by a random nerd website (/.), but gave well thought out answers to the questions.

Says a lot.

Yes, it says that their campaigns are so hopeless that they are willing to waste the time and energy to respond to a group who, frankly, the rest of the country really doesn't give a rat's ass about. If either of the "real" candidates had wasted the time to respond to these questions with more effort than farming the job out to an intern to answer by cribbing from the candidate's speeches and position papers I would actually be worried...

Re:Bajesus!

[optikSmoke]

Wow. I knew Bush was bad, but he successfully avoided answering all the questions and replying with bullshit. All of the questions. "What do you think of this important issue?" "America is the greatest nation, a bastion of hope for the world. I am proud to have voted for bill X..."

My favourite: "We are fortunate in America to have the best health care system in the world, ..." He could at least seem a little informed on the issues surrounding health care by not using the superlative. On the other hand, I suppose people like hearing that word "best".....

Re:Bajesus!

[Fnkmaster]

Allow me to clue you in. Nader can afford to say what he wants because he's not going to win, he's in the race to make a point. I am a moderate Democrat and will be voting for Kerry in this election, and sure, it disappoints me that he doesn't always come out and say his point of view in a strong, clear-cut manner, but I accept that both Bush and Kerry are trying to make their positions as moderate and appealing to "swing voters" as possible right now.

For example, re: the last question, I know that Kerry doesn't plan on passing legislation to enforce his religious beliefs on the rest of the country, unlike Bush, regardless of matters of personal faith, which ought to be entirely personal. But I also know that for a lot of people in this country, they want to vote for somebody who will come out and say "I have faith, and that faith guides my moral decisions". Don't get me wrong, I do believe that Kerry is being honest and that he does have a certain degree of religious belief, but I also don't believe, based on his record and position on many other issues, that he intends to cross the line between letting his faith guide him and making faith policy.

Re:Bajesus!

[hackstraw]

Wow. I knew Bush was bad, but he successfully avoided answering all the questions and replying with bullshit.

Yeah, but the bullshit was good stuff for most Americans to hear. It went: "What do you think of this important issue?" "It is an important issue that is why I supported/voted/increased budget for similar thing while I was in office".

At this stage in the game there is little new that Bush can say or do to "sway the undecided" people. But knowing that people blindly stick with the status quo is a good thing to use at this time. Hollywood does it sucessfully all the time.

Re:Bajesus!

[gg3po]

Think of Bush and Kerry as the RIAA/MPAA pushing out Britney Spears and "boy band" quality answers to your questions (catering to the lowest common denominator for higher $$$ returns), and Nader, the Greens, Libertarians, and other independents as your local indie bands that really care about their craft.

Re:Bajesus!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

it disappoints me that he doesn't always come out and say his point of view in a strong, clear-cut manner, but I accept that both Bush and Kerry are trying to make their positions as moderate and appealing to "swing voters" as possible right now.

So in the USA in order to win one has to become a political whore, molding one's opinions to appeal to some mythical "swing voters"? What happened to standing for one's convictions? Coalition governments? Minority Govenrments? What sort of deluded people will call "democracy" something so depraved and always resulting in victory of most "marketed" flavour of unapetizing corporate-politcal goo? I pity your country.

Re:Bajesus!

[operagost]

Sorry, but you are really drinking the Kool-aid here, and apparently those who modded you up are as well. Where did Kery give ANY specifics whatsoever? His answers were terse and evasive, without exception. Bush gave many examples of his accomplisments and plans, such as the 2005 Budget and "No Child Left Behind".

That Kerry could not even mention a single piece of legislation he authored or even backed after 19 years in the Senate is an embarrassment. He's Ted Kennedy without the gumption or the vehicular manslaughter abilities.

Re:Bajesus!

[Reducer2001]

Yes. And thanks for your pity.

Re:Bajesus!

[jrumney]

Nader actually answered the questions.

Except the Sex Education one, where he went off and answered a completely different question.

All politicians are the same at the end of the same.

Re:Bajesus!

[Anonymous Coward]

Marketing works everywhere. Underestimating the power of marketing can be costly. Always sell to the lowest common denominator, whether for money or votes.

Re:Bajesus!

[jmccay]

Bush answered most of the questions and provided examples of what he has already done when he could. Kerry didn't and Nader is a joke.

Re:Bajesus!

[Knara]

So in the USA in order to win one has to become a political whore, molding one's opinions to appeal to some mythical "swing voters"?

At the current time, unfortunately, this is indeed the case.

Re:Bajesus!

[|/|/|||]

Yeah, we obviously have some problems in that department. You should keep in mind that they're quickly becoming the entire world's problems, so help would be more appreciated than pity.

For my fellow US citizens, this is exactly why we need elecoral reform, which both of the "real" candidates neglected to respond to. Of course they ignored it - it's contrary to their best interests! What this means to us, the American people, is that we're going to have to hammer the issue hard, starting at a local level where we can actually have an effect. Get some independent candidates in office at the ground floor, and then work our way up.

Re:Bajesus!

[|/|/|||]

Nader is a joke

You mean you don't agree with him, or that he can't win, or both? Nader is the only one who was consistently correct, IMO. Too bad we have a screwed up system where I can't vote for him. Maybe you don't agree that he would make a good President, but this entrenched two party system needs to be revamped.

Re:Bajesus!

[jmccay]

Can't you just write the candidate in on the ballot? Most ballots I think have a write in place. How do you think parties like the American Nazi party get any votes--even if the number is statistically equal to zero.

Re:Bajesus!

[Anonymous Coward]

President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor

Re:Bajesus!

[|/|/|||]

I don't think you get the point. In a two party, winner-take-all system, I can't conscionably vote for Nader even if he *is* on the ballot.

We should have a system that encourages us to vote for the candidate that we think would do the best job, not for the lesser of two evils because nobody else has a chance of winning.

Do you agree, or do you think we should let the Democratic and Republican parties choose our leaders?

Re:Bajesus!

[magarity]

I knew Bush was bad, but he successfully avoided answering all the questions and replying with bullshit

Starting with the very first question, "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"
Bush responded directly: "I favor the establishment of voluntary personal accounts for younger workers."

How is this avoiding the question and replying with bullshit? I think it's obvious that you're just trying to take a cheap shot at GWB, but it isn't working for anyone who paid attention while reading.

Re:Bajesus!

[jalefkowit]

He could at least seem a little informed on the issues surrounding health care...

Don't know George W. Bush very well, do you??? ;-)

Re:Bajesus!

[bleckywelcky]

To me it looks more like Kerry and Bush equally avoided many parts of the questions and/or provided completely useless answers. And Nader seemed to go off topic many times. Just look at question #11 - Kerry justified his "flip-flopping" but avoided the rest of the question; Bush declined to answer; and as for Nader, since when is a hot dog a "topic of national importance"? (Although I do give him credit for being candid.)

And then question #5 - Bush completely avoids mentioning the electoral college system and looking at the popular vote (obviously the burning part of the question here); Kerry practically only focuses on the 2000 election and doesn't mention how he actually plans to fix anything; all the while, Nader covers most aspects of the question fairly well but does do a bit of 'rambling'.

Half of what I hate about politics anymore is that no one seems to address the issues, face the facts, cough up what their plan actually is, or answer the questions that are actually asked. Students would fail their tests if they answered essay questions in the way that the presidential candidates (or their campaign team) answered debate questions (unless they have some crack-pot teacher/professor). Don't start every response with an exposé on how great America is, or the last 20 bills you voted for that are vaguely related to the issue, or how the other candidate is a 'bad guy'.

Just answer the damn question.

A 2 to 4 sentence question should take a maximum of 8 to 12 sentences to answer with a targeted response. We don't need 2 introductory paragraphs, 5 sentences each, explaining your view on some far-reaching issue, then another 2 paragraphs telling us how bad your opponent is, then another paragraph telling us that you will fix the problem (without telling us how). Skip all the crap and just tell us how.

For the slow ones out there (Bush, Kerry, are you reading this?), here's an example...

Question: Social Security is failing, how do you plan to fix, or change, or eliminate this problem?

Answer #1: I will fix the problem by increasing tax rates by X% for these X tax areas. And, by reducing the benefits for retirees with more than X amount of assets or external income.

Answer #2: I will change the problem by increasing the age at which retirees begin receiving benefits.

Answer #3: I will eliminate the problem by eliminating the social security program by issuing bonds to pay current benefits and eliminating the social security tax for all current workers. Anyone who has already paid into the SS program will receive a proportionate amount of benefits back from the bond funds. By doing this, the entire public bears the burden of paying for SS benefits to retirees, while at the same time eliminating the normal SS revenue stream, but we are better off in the end because SS will have been eliminated alltogether.

There... now that wasn't too hard, was it? Politics is more fun when it is about the issues and not about slandering the other guy or avoiding questions or trying to cover your blunders.

HOW WILL YOU MOVE THE COUNTRY FORWARD AND FIX OUR PROBLEMS? NOT HOW WILL YOU MAKE YOURSELF NOT LOOK LIKE A MORON/DUMBASS/INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT/INCOMPETENT CANDIDATE?

For the record: Depending on how close the race is in my state, I will:
1(Close): Vote for Bush
2(Not Close): Vote for Badnarik - Libertarian
3(Not Close and #2 is not on the ballot): Vote for Nader
[Due to the ridiculous electoral college system.]

Re:Bajesus!

[k31bang]

The Libertarian and Green candidates not only agreed to be interviewed directly by a random nerd website (/.), but gave well thought out answers to the questions.

Well being that Badnarik is a computer programer, I think he might qualify as a nerd himself. From the Badnarik webpage:

" Became a Computer Programmer in 1977 for Commonwealth Edison at their nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois; taught control room operators about computers. Was promoted to Senior Software Engineer for their Braidwood Nuclear Simulator project, which he managed from '82-'85 (his favorite job assignment, basically a $6-million "computer game" for which he was totally responsible).

Moved to Montebello, CA, and held a "secret security" clearance at Northrop to work on the Stealth Bomber simulator, '85-'87.

Relocated to San Luis Obispo, CA, in 1987 as a System Administrator and computer trainer at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant; spent 10 years as a member of the Applied Technology Services Team writing software and traveling the state installing real-time data-collection servers to their remote power stations; was an instructor for hundreds of employees teaching state-of-the-art systems being installed.

Moved to Austin, TX, in 1997 where he was a programmer and a trainer for Evolutionary Technologies International. He quickly became the Senior Trainer and began traveling across the U.S., and to Canada, England and Australia, as instructor, consultant and "high-tech diplomat."

Became an independent computer consultant in 2001, but began to turn his attention (and talents as an instructor and communicator) to teaching his 8-hour "Introduction to the Constitution" class."

Re:Bajesus!

[Anonymous Coward]

excellent comment.

Re:Bajesus!

[Kwil]

If you vote based on the system you're merely promoting the system.

If what you want is a government based on your beliefs, vote based on your beliefs.

Yeah, Nader probably won't win. If he's what you believe in, vote for him anyway. The only way the big parties will become more like what you believe is if they see there's support to be gained by going that way.

Re:Bajesus!

[jmccay]

I always vote fo rthe person who closely mtaches my personal beliefs--no matter what the party.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died on the cross for our sins and was raised after three days. Need more qualification for being a Christian?

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[mcmonkey]

Erm, no for some reason I have the feeling he's Catholic.

So, you're saying Kerry believes in his lord Jesus Cathol?

No, he belives in Christ. Will christians *please* get over themselves? Catholic, baptist, protestant--the rest of us really don't care.

Poor kids...

[physicsphairy]

Slashdot readers both contributed and helped moderate questions

Read "wrote and selected". Poor kids, getting their votes hijacked by a bunch of grumpy old fart programmers.

I'm half surprised nobody asked whether the candidates preferred 'vi' or 'emacs'. (But then, that would be a wonderfully divisive issue for the Presidential debates... can you imagine the second civil being started when the predominantly vi using states cede from the union because they code federal legislation using emacs?)

Question 10 technicality?

[allism]

I noticed that the author of question 10, regarding health insurance, is from Colorado. I am from Colorado, and when I applied for health insurance I was told that by Colorado law I could not be turned down for health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. This did not change when I left my job and was added to my husband's health insurance.

The company that I worked for would have had a lot of people turned down if asthma was a pre-existing disqualification - I worked with about 50 resipiratory therapists, and at least half of them had asthma. Everyone had health insurance.

Does anyone have any insight into why this person would think that her son had been turned down because of his asthma? Is there something with the Colorado law that I am unfamiliar with, or has something recently changed?

Re:Question 10 technicality?

[cybrthng]

I don't live in colorado - but here in PA my allergies are a pre-existing condition and therefore were not covered for the first year after starting a new plan.

The expecptions were being if i had refilled my allergy medicine within 60 days of getting the new health insurance - unfortunately my allergies were seasonal and i had not planned on pre-ordering my meds that early.

SO now i have to wait till next year or pay the 90 bucks... paid the 90 bucks because OTC doesn't work as well.

Health Insurance is a Scam if you ask me. It not only needs to be reformed and optimized - but looked at and analyzed. Associate Health Programs won't solve anything.. i did those types of programs with Small business insurance forever and they ALL exclude child births, most defensive medicines and really try and scare you out of pro-active healthcare and only to emergency needs that have huge deductables.

Re:Question 10 technicality?

[allism]

The company I worked for was still considered a small business at the time I started there (before it was bought out and expanded) and no one was ever turned down for health care due to the wonderful Colorado health care laws. Prenatal care and childbirth were covered too, including for someone who started work when she was three months pregnant.

Colorado is funny that way - we are a primarily conservative state, but on some issues (i.e. health care, domestic partner rights, etc) we are pretty progressive - which is the kind of conservatism I prefer.

Re:Question 10 technicality?

[cybrthng]

I agree - i like the conservatism that Colorado displays - much more "friendly" (and progressive is a good word) than what i get here in PA.

Asthma here *COULD* prevent your insurance from being underwritten by many companies. Luckily my asthma is considered seasonal allergy - so allergies just caused me to get a pre-existing condition exclusion.

It is a royal pain in the arse to switch insurance companies.

Re:Question 10 technicality?

[magefile]

It depends on the specifics. You can't be turned down if you have had continuous coverage for a certain amount of time before the time when you're trying to sign up. I saw a speaker advising parents of children with rare disorders to, "survive in the jungle of health insurance by sliding down the COBRA and landing on the HIPPA" if they lost their jobs - i.e., take advantage of the 6 months your company/HMO is supposed to give you after you leave them, and use that time to sign up for coverage, using the protections of HIPPA as I described above".

Re:Question 10 technicality?

[j0217995]

My wife has a previous condition, she has Chron's Disease and will always have it. The important part in dealing with a previous conidition is did she have medical insurance and did it laspe for any reason? Since it did not, we were able to get insurance once she left her parents insurance.

Re:Question 10 technicality?

[magefile]

I am in a similar situation. And that's what the COBRA/HIPPA thing is all about - making sure it doesn't lapse.

Re:Question 10 technicality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that it's the insured Employee's child. Do you know if the law states that the Employee can't be turned down due to prior conditions, but has no protections for their family? You probably re-read the article and realized that's the logical conclusion, but I wanted to point it out for everyone else's benefit...

Either that, or the person who asked the question was just lied to to get them off the phone. <sarcasm>That NEVER happens when Insurance companies are involved though, right?</sarcasm>... ::sigh::

Re:Question 10 technicality?

[allism]

I hadn't had health care coverage for quite a long time (about ten years) prior to going to work for my former employer - I had been excluded from coverage at my previous employer in Oklahoma and Kansas for a pre-existing condition.

Re:Question 10 technicality?

[allism]

It could be because it's the child, but I hadn't heard anything about anyone's children getting excluded from health insurance either. Since I worked for a medical software company, and talked quite a bit to my coworkers about their and their childrens illnesses to learn more about respiratory disorders, I would have thought that it would have come up.

Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Foofoobar]

You are either voting against Bush or for Bush. Unless the other candidate is a child molesting, neo-nazi, it really doesn't matter much.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true.

I actually disagree with Bush on a large number of issues.

However, I cannot bring myself to vote for anyone who has any association whatsoever with that murdering whore Jane Fonda.

So I'm voting anti-Kerry.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Lawrence_Bird]

And this is why you are a clueless ninny. If you can't vote FOR a candidate, please just stay home.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Punkrokkr]

And since that is the case, do we really want someone as President that was just "the other guy"?

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[RocketScientist]

I'm just going to cast my votes to maximize gridlock. I want the good old days, when the Republican-controlled legislature didn't have enough votes to override a veto and Bill Clinton was President. Neither side could get much done, so we ended up with huge economic growth, low interest rates, and very low unemployment.

Mark Twain said that no one's life, liberty or property are safe when Congress is in session. I think a gridlocked Congress is almost as good as a Congress on vacation.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about being bitter.

So, 4 more years of W's disaster is good then? I predict (if W's re-deelected) a whopping case of "buyer's remorse" in a year...

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[MSBob]

If "con" is opposite of "pro" what's the opposite of "progress"?

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[gregoryb]

> You are either voting against Bush or for Bush. Unless the other candidate is a child molesting, neo-nazi, it really doesn't matter much.

If the people who held this opinion would explore the other parties a little more and actually vote using their brains, we might actually have some intelligent people in office instead of career politicians who can't answer questions honestly, only tell people what they want to hear, and sometimes just seem in it for the power trip!

Also, this is exactly why we need approval voting instead of the current system. Then, we might actually have a real choice...

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Fnkmaster]

Explain if you will what exactly his association with her was? I was under the impression that the photo of them "together" has been fairly well debunked - they sat near each other at a rally that Jane Fonda spoke at once, and he happened to be in the background in a photo of her. See the Snopes page for details.

This was apparently well before the extremely controversial things that Jane Fonda did, and Kerry was there as a member of VVAW, along with lots of other Vietnam Veterans who opposed the war. And as far as I know they Kerry and Fonda may have even spoken directly to each other at that time, and have no other known association with each other. I went to several speeches in college given by people whose politics I agree or disagree with to various extents. So that means I'm in bed with them now?

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[operagost]

By making decisions based on negative emotions such as hatred, you are helping no one.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[TheGavster]

You mean, you did nothing, riding out the previous few administrations' work, jumping out just as the economy tanked, leaving it all to the next guy ... brilliant plan.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[TheGavster]

You, sir, are an idiot. If you want to reform the system by voting, you really need to vote for a candidate whose position you understand and support.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[wigle]

Normally, I would disagree. The merits of voting for a candidate should outweigh the merits of voting against one. However, in extreme cases (now) you really do have to vote against a candidate. It's time to worry about preserving the state rather than choosing the best candidate for the job (who, practically speaking, will never get elected--so be ideological and throw away your vote, or vote Kerry and know you're doing something useful).

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[dalutong]

I can't say I agree with this. My girlfriend's _default_ candidate is Bush. But she is looking for a _good_ reason to vote against him. She is not voting for or against him. She is trying to actually know whether Kerry will be better before she changes her vote.

I think she is representative of a good deal of the undecided vote.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Edax Rarem]

Admittedly, I was totally against W (I hate saying I'm against Bush) becuase I think he and his cronies are just evil.
Then I took one of those voter tests and my beliefs alligned with Kerry's, so I did some research and I belive him to be a pretty stand up guy. I know he has exaggerated some facts (factcheck.org) but no where near the degree the other guys have. ["I own a lumber company?(smug laughter)"]
Can anyone send me some FACTS as to why I shouldn't be voting for Kerry?
I am trolling here. And please, let's keep it to this or the last decade (keep quiet swift boat supporters), and on issues that actually mean something.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[SeanDuggan]

I'm just going to cast my votes to maximize gridlock. I want the good old days, when the Republican-controlled legislature didn't have enough votes to override a veto and Bill Clinton was President. Neither side could get much done, so we ended up with huge economic growth, low interest rates, and very low unemployment.

Except, well, this time there was a Republican president and a Republican-controlled legislature and still there was massive amounts of gridlock. I think it may be inherent in the system. On one hand, I like that because it means they screw with our lives less, but on the other hand, it means that actually helpful legislation will be revised to be so bland that it will appeal to a majority but will be so weak as to do nothing. (Or worse, it will be filled with little side-amendments that wind up supporting entirely opposing causes. Is it any wonder that all the pay raises get attached to major bills that must go through?)

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[hackronym0]

The system is currently setup so that your vote only goes "FOR" a candidate. You can achieve the same goal as an "AGAINST" vote would achieve by voting "FOR" the next largest candidate. But this will not guarantee that you are selecting someone you are for. you need to just pick who you are "FOR".

that being said, I'm kinda thinking that we really shouldn't have a "president". maybe we should just vote in like 3 people that continually rotate the position or something. Why should we put one person in the position to screw up our country 4 years at a time. That seems like far too long now.

I don't have much experience in politics, so I'm not saying I know everything. I am just saying, "Who says that is has to be the way it is right now?" -a sentiment that I hope our forefathers would appreciate.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Foofoobar]

When the first guy IS that neo-nazi, baby fucker then YES... most definitely.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Foofoobar]

Untrue. I'm helping myself by venting; every first year Psych student knows this :)

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not an extreme case, contrary to the assertions the Democrats have been making for about four years now.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[jdigriz]

There's really no way to know if he'll actually be better. But it's not very likely he'll be worse. Most of Bush's flaws are willful actions. Not erring as badly may be sufficient to be better. But here's a good reason to vote against Bush: he is in bed with the oil industry and so will not end our dependency on foreign oil. Even he says he will merely reduce it, which I judge to be wholly unlikely. Another is that he has imprisoned american citizens for years on end without judicial review or access to a lawyer. A third is that he has a history of smearing the reputations by proxy of honorable patriots such as John McCain for political gain.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[FrankHaynes]

I am voting against Asscroft before it's too late for us all!

It's not just the candidate on the ballot you are voting for, it's all his lieutenants who will come into office along with him. Think about it.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[FirstTimeCaller]

Unless the other candidate is a child molesting, neo-nazi, it really doesn't matter much.

Is he at least a handsome, honest child molesting, neo-nazi?

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[bogado]

No I disagree, voting against a candidate is just as justified as voting for someone.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[SadPenguin]

clueless ninny, maybe, but it seems he/she's got enough of a clue to realize that bush is, and will probably be remembered in ~50 years as, the worst president in decades of american history. Unilateralism lacks the tact necessary to maintain international favor. The Bush administration has ignored this, giving no regard to the fact that the US is not the only nation on the planet of any consequence. Imperialist, sadly lacking diplomacy, and having outrightly lied to the nation they lead about botched military intelligence that started at least one unjustifiable war, this administration needs to go, even if it takes the votes of clueless ninnies who see nothing more than the fact that the Bush administration is doing no good for anyone, and that our nation will be in deeper than we already are under another four years of Bush Administration decision botching. Vote Kerry and end this Buffoonery.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Edax Rarem]

>And since that is the case, do we really want someone as President that was just "the other guy"?

In our current situation...HELL YES!
Fortunately for us, Kerry _is_ qualified and fit to be POTUS.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[RocketScientist]

I'm trying to decide what "helpful legislation" is.

I guess if it's legislation to repeal legislation, that's helpful. I can't think of too many other pieces of legislation I'd like to see outside of repeals of existing laws though.

If you consider for a moment that you are being lawful if you don't do anything unlawful, then the more laws that are passed the less you can actually do. Every single new law that is created takes away more of your rights.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[killjoe]

"Can anyone send me some FACTS as to why I shouldn't be voting for Kerry?"

Duh haven't you been watching television. If you vote for Kerry Al quada will come into the united states and kill YOU. Al quada hates you and the only thing that has prevented them from killing you and your familiy is George Bush. Al quada is afraid of George Bush.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[magarity]

She is trying to actually know whether Kerry will be better before she changes her vote

Kerry has a 20+ year history in the senate. Look at his voting record:
Voted to increase taxes over 300 times (most failed, fortunately).
Despite his claims that there needs to be an "international test" to use the US military, voted No on Gulf War #1 which had the full support of practically every other country.
Voted Yes on #2, No to continue funding it after it started, and now complains that it shouldn't have happened.
Voted to cut intelligence spending AFTER the WTC was bombed in 96 and now complains that GWB acted on bad intel.
Left the meeting between the President and the 911 commission almost 2 hours early.

The list goes on and on. Just check Senate Roll Call
I assure you, Kerry would be much worse.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[dalutong]

Well, that's for her to decide. She is researching and watching very attentively.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Lawrence_Bird]

Wait.. let me guess.. you dusted off your summary of 1981-1988 and replaced 'Reagan' with 'Bush'. What is Reagans standing in the US now? Are the Eurocrats still whining about intermediate range nuclear missiles?

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[epcraig]

Kerry voted for and supports the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Kerry voted for and supports USA-PATRIOT.

Kerry voted for and supports the war on Iraq.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Edax Rarem]

I hope you are trying to be funny. If not I assume you are just another moron brainwashed by the Bush Fear-mongering.
I would rather have a decorated veteran leading our country than a drunken frat boy who found god.

Next...

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Edax Rarem]

>Kerry voted for and supports the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Ok...
An over view of this act:

Highlights Generally:

• Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.
• Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.
• Does permit the cracking of copyright protection devices, however, to conduct encryption research, assess product interoperability, and test computer security systems.
• Provides exemptions from anti-circumvention provisions for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions under certain circumstances.
• In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.
• Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users' web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.
• Limits liability of nonprofit institutions of higher education -- when they serve as online service providers and under certain circumstances -- for copyright infringement by faculty members or graduate students.
• Requires that "webcasters" pay licensing fees to record companies.
• Requires that the Register of Copyrights, after consultation with relevant parties, submit to Congress recommendations regarding how to promote distance education through digital technologies while "maintaining an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of users."
• States explicitly that "[n]othing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use..."

I guess I don't see what is wrong with this and doesn't (IMO) mean I shouldn't vote for him.

Kerry voted for and supports USA-PATRIOT.
Voted for, yes. But he has stated in the first debate that the way John Ashcroft has used this Act is unconstitutional. So, I believe he does support the law, but not how THIS administration is abusing it.

Kerry voted for and supports the war on Iraq.
Kerry voted for the right for the POTUS to use military power. The POTUS used that power, but in a very poor manner.
Saddam should have been removed, but a better plan should have been in place to do it.
Once again, I see this as a Bush flaw and not a Kerry flaw. Many support the war who feel that the way the war was waged has been a monumental disaster. I have to agree.

So far... no legitimate reasons have been given to NOT vote for Kerry.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[killjoe]

It's sad when you try to parody the president and people are not sure.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[epcraig]

Giving Adobe a chance to inform John Ashcroft that Dmitri Sllyarov was in Las Vegas and having Dmitri Sklyarov arrested and flown hither and yon to restricted tours of America's elite incarceration facilities is, to me, an excellant reason to vote against anyone who voted for and supports the DMCA. That the whole thing was a mistake and the actual accused infringer was Dmitri's employer Elcomsoft make the injustice no less. Elcomsoft's exoneration in court isn't helpful to your position.

Now, having been given that Sterling example of this administration's ability to abuse the law, allowing them any latitude for further abuse is not, in my (not so) humble opinion a very good idea, and 911 not withstanding, no excuse to pass more laws for Ashcroft to abuse.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Edax Rarem]

While I don't disagree with you that the arrest of Dmitry _Sklyarov_ was unjust and the prosecution should focus on the corporation and not the individual, I believe the problem is John Ashcroft.

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention as I had never read anything about it. The law is disturbing.
I found this article that is pretty informative about Dmitry Sklyarov and his case.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-530420.h tml?leg acy=zdnn

I will consider this more in the upcoming days...

Thanks, that is the first legitimate evidence anyone has presented.

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[epcraig]

Thanks for correcting my typo on Sklyarov. (I've known Greeks and Russians named Dmtri, none of them spelled it either the way you do or the way I did, but they don't use Roman letters, either).

Re:Kerry who? I'm just voting against Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

No I disagree, voting against a candidate is just as justified as voting for someone.

Better the devil you know...

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

And just to troll, the catholics are technically the FIRST Christians. There wasn't much of a distinction until the protestant revolt separated away from the church.

The most distinct difference is the acknowledgement of the Pope's authority, the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and admiration of Mary/Saints.

Bush is "pro-life" but favors capital punishment and this war on terror/osama..er Saddam. Kerry isn't much as a pro-choice catholic either. If one votes based on Christian values alone -- neither will pass with flying colors. Choose the lesser of the two evils.

Question #11

[MrScience]

I thought the answers to #11 provided the most insight into each campaign.

Re:Question #11

[rackhamh]

Seriously. Now that I know both Kerry and Nader have made mistakes, I couldn't possibly vote for either of them!

Re:Question #11

[spitzak]

No, Kerry did not make any mistakes, read his answer. And Nader only made a mistake about eating a hot dog.

Seriously the answers to this questions were all totally evasive. I don't like Bush but his "decline to answer" may have been the most honest of any of them here!

Re:Question #11

[GQuon]

(about mistakes)

I thought the answers to #11 provided the most insight into each campaign.

Yes. The Bush campaign doesn't exist, the Kerry campaign thinks Bush should change his mind, and Nader's campaign is balloney.

So who invited Nader?

[Anonymous Coward]

Badnarik is on nearly every ballot while Nader is not.

Re:So who invited Nader?

[davesplace1]

At least it is a start to breaking the two party system. Anybody but Bush or Kerry.

uhhh

[nomadic]

President Bush: Yet despite the energy and activism of many youth, less than half of eligible voters, ages 18-24, voted in recent national elections. The youth voice needs to be heard - so I encourage you to make sure that it is!

Yeah, right. The last thing he wants is more 18-24 year olds (who tend to skew heavily democratic) voting.

Re:uhhh

[cybrthng]

Especially when we know Bush has done nothing for environmental issues.

I liked Kerry's response on the debate about how they only seem better because he lowered the bar on what bad is - and the only thing Bush has done is created a credit system and not a reduction system - sort of a trading market for polution credits - that may help certain areas but doesn't solve the problem.

Clean energy is a policy we need to strive for. 20 billion isn't enough to re-invent our energy policy. Had we not invaded Iraq maybe we would have had 200 billion to do vast research into energy needs, efficiencies and technologies.

Re:uhhh

[avisdream]

I agree, and I'm a 22 year old Republican. The last thing I want is my classmates to vote.

Re:uhhh

[r3mdh]

Amen! You're a minority, you know? The vast majority of young voters are democrat because their teachers have forced their partisan beliefs on their classes. Why? Because the teacher's union has the democrat party in their backpockets. If Republicans are in power, the unions don't get all of the $$$ to line their wallets. My wife and I are working on our first child and I know that when he/she goes to school, I'm going to have to unteach all of the liberalism that will be forced upon him/her. It's sad.

Re:uhhh

[TheFlyingGoat]

I know this is traditionally the case, but I'm curious if it still is. I'm 25, but have voted primarily Republican since I turned 18. For reference, my mother always votes Republican (she tends to vote based on religious issues) and my father always votes Democratic (he always votes based on union issues). A large majority of my friends vote Republican as well (I'd guess 80% of them). I'm in a battleground state (Wisconsin) near a metropolitan area (Milwaukee), so I don't think it's a geographic trend in this case. I'm just curious if there have been any polls/studies about this lately.

Re:uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

With everything that's wrong with the education system, all you're worried about is that your child might pick up "liberal ideas"? Have you even talked to someone of that age group lately? It's rare enough for anything but the most basic of education to make it into their heads, and the idea that they'd respect their teachers enough to take in any of their political views is almost amusing in how much of a quaint throwback to better times it is. No, from your near religious horror that they might be infected by the dread terror of liberal ideas, I can almost guarantee that they'll grow up with Republicanism as their only consideration unless they decide to rebel for the sake of rebellion. I can promise they're never going to actually look at the issues and decide for themselves, or even examine their leaders to determine if they're following the party platform or not. Don't worry, between the current level of ineffectiveness of the educational system, and your own certainty that all the answers to the worlds problems can be found in a single philosophy, your children will most likely grow up unbothered by any thoughts you don't put in their heads yourself.

Re:uhhh

[dalutong]

I would say that it is true for the 20+ crowd but i have seen an interesting trend in the 18-20 crowd. i have concluded that because they were 15 and 16 on 9/11 and were very taken by the president's persona then they have a particular love for him. i can only guess that this is because they had not had the "normal" slow into to national/international/political affairs and were bounced into it. and what was the first thing they saw? a nation rallying around bush.

i think some people who have just gotten out of high school haven't yet been eaten up by the predominatly liberal-leaning youth culture.

btw -- churchil (i think) said, "if you're under 30 and are not liberal you have no heart. if you are over 30 and are not conservative you have no brains." -- i don't necessarily agree but i quote it to say i don't think there is anything wrong with either party. different aspects of both have their place.

Re:uhhh

[jmccay]

You know what? John Kerry has had more time than President Bush to introduce a major bill in the Senate to improve environmental conditions! In fact, John Kerry has not introduced any major bill in the Senate since he's been in the Senate in 1984! He has had plenty of chances to introduce plenty of environmental bills into the Senate, but he hasn't. In fact, he missed a majority of the Security Committeeing meetings while he was on the committee. Let's face it, John Kerry has done less in 20 years to protect the enviornment than Bush has in less than 4.

Re:uhhh

[pclminion]

He's using reverse psychology...

"Dude, Bush said we should vote!"

"What a dipshit! He couldn't tell his own head from his ass. I'm not doing anything that moron says!"

"Me neither. Hey, we're out of rolling papers, let's use this voter's pamphlet..."

Re:uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, brother!

(+/- 1, irony)

Re:uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he is hoping that by encouraging more of them to vote they will pull their collective heads out of their asses and vote non-democrat[sic]ic.

Or, from another angle, maybe the ones who don't vote tend to lean non-democrat (as the majority of the non-voting population does - I don't hear droves of non-voters saying "yeah, more gay marriage, more abortions, and lets cut and run from Iraq!") and encouraging more of them to vote will tip the scales back in the other direction.

(Score:-5,Conservative)

Re:uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Kerry: My Social Security plan is based on three pillars; growing the economy, restoring fiscal discipline and working in a bipartisan manner.

The last thing Kerry wants is 18-24 year olds waking up to the fact that they're going to be forced to pay to keep social security propped up instead of keeping their own money in retirement savings accounts. Say what you want about the uninformed youth vote, I assure you that young voters can connect with this issue. And non-answers like this do not instill confidence in a man who wants to be leader.

Re:uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

The last thing I want is my classmates to vote.

I see the disenfranchisement urge starts at an early age. Keep it up and maybe you can run an election in Florida.

Re:uhhh

[r3mdh]

I'm nto worried that they'll "pick up 'liberal ideas'", I'm worried that "liberal ideas" are the ONLY ideas that will be forced upon them. There are NO conservative teachers anymore - at least none that will admit to it out of fear that they'll be chastised (or worse) by their union bretheren. So if all teachers are liberal, or at least go under the guise of being liberal, then how are our classrooms balanced? Answer: they aren't any more balanced than the mainstream media is.

I think you missed the point, Anonymous Coward.

Re:uhhh

[Bombcar]

Of the families without TV that I know, none swings Democrat. Not even the kids. Just a data point.

Disclosure: 24, Republican.

Re:uhhh

[karmatic]

I must be in the minority, too.

My teachers andparents are a large part of why I was republican. I am sick of other people trying to run my life.

Bush is intolerable - Badnarik in '04.
If not him, at least not Bush. Republican congress, Democratic president, very little getting done. I like it that way.

Re:uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it has a lot to do with misconceptions about fairness.

How many times have you heard kids and young adults whine "that's not fair!"

(Hint to the "not fair!" whiners: life's not fair. If you're sick of hearing that, it's probably because you're whining too much.)

I'm not from a rich family. My family is barely middle class. What money I earn is not just given to me. I earned it and just because you chose "women's and gender studies" as your major does not mean that you're entitled to my money.

Re:uhhh

[mooredav]

Why would Bush be afraid of the youth vote? In the 2000 presidential election, the 18-29 year old vote closely matched the general vote.

Personal anecdotes suggest to me that men tend to become more liberal with age. However, a lot depends on the society that they grew up in. A person who grew up in the 1950s will probably have more conservative ideals than somone from the 1960s. So seniors are more conservative than the current youth, but less conservative than themselves when they were young.

Re:uhhh

[Vintermann]

Interesting point, but it doesn't prove that Kerry gains more from TV advertising than Bush - not in any way.

First of all, the decision to not have a TV is a pretty radical one in the USA today, and if you don't you probably have some strong reason - such as believing the media to be too liberal or sympathetic to palestinian terrorists, or thinking that the entertainment presented is mindless crap. Either way they're biased to be conservatives.

(Disclosure: Norwegian, 23, no TV, disagree with the first point, agree with the second, hope Bush gets N more days, not four more years)

Second, the influence of TV commercials isn't only direct. The indirect effects (people you know become more convinced in their beliefs, everyone at school starts buying BeyBallMon) are often stronger.

Good luck with the election. I hope you change your mind so that Ashcroft and Rumsfeld in particular will no longer be inflicted upon the world...

Re:uhhh

[Bombcar]

Hmm. Wasn't talking about TV commercials. Your second paragraph is much closer. People have found that you can get your cartoons from the internet, along with news, politics, etc. Movies come from DVDs, and there really isn't much reason to pay $30-$70 for a Cable TV subscription (and OTA really kinda blows now).

Don't even mention MTV.

Disclaimer: 24, work for American company owned by Norwegians, and in California, where a Republican vote is worth about as much as an Iraqi Dinar.

Re:uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually - facts show that Republicans get larger majority of the 18-24s that actually vote.

I, for example, and an economics/mathematics Masters candidate and would shiver in fear at the thoughts of Kerry's so called 'recovery' plans and my entire class is voting Bush just to hope that less will happen because the D's will keep filibustering.

Voting in an MBA was 'hopefully' going to be a good decision, but apparently he must've graduated before taking Intermediate Economics and learning about how to *completely* handle a recession.
The only thing scarier though, is Kerry's economic policy.

My one hope though, is that people aren't stupid enough to just think that 'a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush' because I'm voting Nader just to try because 3% of the vote earns federal funding, he was at 2.7% last time. I'm voting Nader instead of Bush, so go fucking vote for someone OTHER than the two wonderfully lousy choices that the general American public has provided us with.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[brandona788]

I completely agree with you. But, I ask what about the difference in interpretation of Scripture? Catholics even have a completely different canon from Protestants. Those fundamental things are what divides Christians.

Nader makes the most sense?

[victor_the_cleaner]

It's kinda scary that Nader's answers appear the most thought out. Bush basically answered "this is what I did" to most of the questions, regardless of whether it was the right thing to do, or even matched the question. Kerry mostly said, "we need to change" (yeah but how?).

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[Punkrokkr]

Isn't it more important to vote for someone who has shown experience? That's how the job market works. Can we really believe what politicians say, we need to look at what they have done.

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[Monkey-Man2000]

Why is that scary? He and the other 3rd party candidates are the only ones that actually have to work to be competitive in the race. You wonder why the race is so close between Kerry and Bush (and Gore and Bush in 2000), but it's because except for a couple issues, they say the same bullshit.

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[nomadic]

Presidential candidates have to watch every word they say. If they're honest, they'll lose the election. And you know something, that's not entirely their fault.

Look at it this way. Let's say you're an idealist running against someone who is doing a dangerously lousy job. If you're completely open on your positions, you'll probably lose. If you spin everything just right, you'll probably win. Which would you choose?

Honesty? Then at the end of the campaign you've lost. Yes, you didn't lie (or at least deceive) the voters, but now they're stuck with the lousy/evil/incompetent leader, whose decisions cause a lot more evil than your lies would have.

Now let's look at what my motivation as a voter should be. I want someone who will do a good job. I don't think they have to be a saint.

Let's take an analogy. You need a doctor. There are two choices. One is honest and incompetent, one is dishonest but competent. Which do you prefer?

None of the above is meant to apply to the current electoral situation, by the way. I don't think Bush is honest but incompetent; I think he'd dishonest AND incompetent. And I think Kerry has been evasive, but I don't think he's really dishonest. But I'm just saying this simplistic "THEY'S GOTTA BE HONEST AND TRUE" thing isn't necessarily a great reason to vote for someone.

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[(trb001)]

Out of curiosity, what would you have Bush say? He's been in office for four years and has pressed for, rejected and passed legislation dealing with most of these topics. As actions speak louder than words, I prefer hearing what Bush has or hasn't done as an indication over Kerry's "I have a plan" mantra, such as the one he uses when talking about the draft.

--trb

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[RealProgrammer]

Nader called the President a "messianic militarist" for saying that he has an active belief in God.

That's one of the most intolerant things I've ever read.

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[nberardi]

yeah I agree somewhat, but all that Kerry did is say he had a plan but never told us what it is. He said he is going to increase the Military by 40,000 people, and then he went on about why it is nessisary. He never told us how he was going to increase the military by 40,000 people, is he going to draft them, create them out of thin air, kidnap them, what John what?

On a side note anybody count how many times Kerry said "I have a plan"?

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he called him that because he chooses to assert those beliefs over the law of the land.

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[LnxAddct]

Nader and Kerry imho put GWB to shame. Kerry did kind of avoid some questions, but I don't believe he ever avoided an entire question (either by declining to answer it, or just filling the response with nonsense about nonsense)...like someone else. The things Kerry did answer were answered really well. Nader also had some really good replies, but some of them were just so extreme that they were nearly ridiculous and would never work in real life. If the alternative parties stopped being so weird maybe they'd get some votes, but as of right now, despite some good replies I can't take Nader seriously.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[mwlewis]

I certainly won't try to outline any of Kerry's plans (if he can't, why should I?), but increasing the size of the military isn't exactly rocket science. The size of the forces is set by congress. The services tell us that they haven't had any problems recruiting, so once the limits were raised (and the money to pay the troops appropriated) it shouldn't be a big deal. They might do something like change the mandatory retirement rules, so that you don't end up with 40,000 E-1s and can keep some of the experience of your veterans.

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[SeanDuggan]

Isn't it more important to vote for someone who has shown experience? That's how the job market works. Can we really believe what politicians say, we need to look at what they have done. But you see, that runs counter to how politics works. If you do something definite, you will likely get 10% of the people with you for it and 90% against you for it. If you do nothing, you've not offended the 90% for all that you didn't court the 10%. The fact of the matter is that issues are not black-and-white. Just like that old truism that red lights last longer than green lights (true over all traffic lights given that for an even amount of traffic going each direction, the green light must be interrupted by the yellow light), making a stand on the issue is bound to piss off more people than you make happy. Therefore, the best political stance is one where you can change your mind and side-step the issue at any time.

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[jmccay]

Kerry honest? honest? Seriously? How can you be honest and agree with everyone while disagreeing with everyone?

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't a whole lot of people with "former President of the United States" on their resumes, unfotrunately.

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[dr_dank]

I agree until you get to the sex-ed question. Then Nader goes completely off topic.

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you stutter when you read because that is not what Nader said.

(By the way, Bush has said he feels he is acting out God's will. I can tell this does not bother you. I call Bush a "messianic mercantilist militarist.")

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[nberardi]

But isn't that what Kerry is bitching about right now, about a back-door draft. His plans just sounds like the presidents only with out all the buzz words.

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

truly you have a dizzying intellect

Re:Nader makes the most sense?

[mwlewis]

I fail to see how any of that is a back door draft. It's just allowing the size to grow larger, and possibly not kicking people out quite as early if they don't get promoted in time.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[OverlordQ]

Actually, if you're not Catholic but you are Christian, you're still 'defective' say soeth the pope

Stating the obvious...

[Ninwa]

I know it's pretty obvious, and it should have been assumed before we recieved these responses but I'm somewhat dissapointed at how obvious it is that Bush didn't write his own responses. There's not a single spelling error, which I think gave it away.

Re:Stating the obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

None of them wrote their own answers. I was campaign manager for a university presidential election, and I answered questions for my candidate. I knew my candidate so well, that I could write entire multi-page statements in "her voice" which no one but she and I could detect. It's part of the job.

Re:Stating the obvious...

[rajinikanth]

I guess Bush did write some :)

With respect to the age at which individuals should be eligible for the death penalty, Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed, and I see no reason to change that statue.

Re:Stating the obvious...

[arrogance]

Actually, there is an error, even if it's a real word in the wrong context: "With respect to the age at which individuals should be eligible for the death penalty, Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed, and I see no reason to change that statue." I wonder if the pigeons will be shitting all over that "statue".

BTW, does anyone know if that is the case? I thought you COULD be executed for crimes committed as a minor.

Re:Stating the obvious...

[LoadStar]

BTW, does anyone know if that is the case? I thought you COULD be executed for crimes committed as a minor.

I don't know, but my interpretation was that all the responses were speaking about federal law, not state law. And if the above is true, which I have no reason to doubt, federal law might prohibit the death penalty for crimes committed as a minor, while your state might permit it.

Responses I'd like to see more of..

[Mad_Rain]

I found it interesting that after being criticized for having "nuanced" (to put it politely) or "long-winded" (to put it less politely) responses, that Sen. Kerry seemed to have the more concise answers to the questions. I'm curious to hear what other people would like the canidates to elaborate some more on...

Re:Responses I'd like to see more of..

[Mad_Rain]

I'll reply to my own post (tacky karma-whoring attempt, I'm sure).... but one of the quotes that struck me as interesting was:

Question #6 (GWB responding)
I also want students to avoid unhealthy and often dangerous activities, such as using illegal drugs. Illegal drug use can have devastating consequences. Taking responsibility for one's actions is another important part of becoming a successful adult.

Please, G.W., tell us some more. (You sound as though you might be speaking from experience.) Given your lack of answers to other questions, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

In an attempt to be non-partisan, I'd like to hear more from Kerry about Question #5:

Even before I am elected, I will protect voting rights by providing teams of election observers and lawyers to monitor elections and enforce the law. And as president, I will reform our national election system to correct the problems revealed by the 2000 presidential election.

So Senator Kerry, in case the election is close again, you've got your attack lawyers at the ready? What are you planning on doing after the election, if you've won?

And on a similar note, I'd like to hear more from Nader about his response to the same question: The Nader/Camejo campaign favors lowering the voting age to 16 years old. Persons aged 16 work, pay taxes and more and more often are subjected to criminal laws passed that treat them like adults.

You mention teaching the importance of voting in school thereafter, how else do you plan to help young voters make good informed decisions, when for many of them, they would be influenced by their parents, peers, and media (at least, moreso than the average adult).

Kerry addressing the intended audience

[Peyna]

It seems to me, that Kerry (or his staff) is the only one who wrote his responses addressing the intended audience (Mostly non-voting youth). Many of the other responses would be quickly glossed over by anyone under the age of 18 with a less than serious devotion to politics. Most of his answers seemed short, concise, and to the point. Which is what a younger audience demands.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[phaetonic]

your thoughts are correct IMHO. I am interested for the first time in voting this coming November. I was looking forward to what they had to say, and I skipped almost all of Bush's long answers that had percentages. I read all of Kerry's statements because they were to the point, and I read all of Nader's comments because his were always more candid than the other two.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[RubberChainsaw]

I concur completely. Another benefit that I realise comes from his short, concise answers is that I am more likely to believe that Kerry himself took the time to write them. When I see long, verbose replies with bill names and section references, I don't believe for an instant that the candidate himself actually wrote them. But for a brief moment, Kerry's sparse paragraphs lead me to believe that he just might have sat down and penned them out himself.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[roman_mir]

Unfortunately I think Kerry used Nader.

I also noticed the style of Kerries answers and I tried to understand the guy. I think there are at least two factors playing a role here:

1. In the first debate, in which Kerry was considered to be a winner against Bush, a political analysts for the Democrats gave her perspective on Kerries answers that while Kerry was using more logic and commons sense in his answers, he was saying too much and for an average consumer (is that what they call people now in the States?) it is difficult to follow a complex argument.

2. Nader did a good job saying what Kerry would love to say but cannot. Kerry cannot say it because in some instances Nader sounded way too nonconformist/liberal/aggressive/unpatriotic (Bush would say). Kerry needs every single vote he can get and he is not about to start coming out with ideas that are just too 'out there' for an average consumer.

Nader did most of Kerries work this time, I think Kerry owes him one.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of his answers seemed short, concise, and to the point.

To me they seemed short, circuitous, and vapid. At least we agree that they are short.

I have strong doubts that either major candidate ever saw these questions, since /. has no office inside the Beltway. However, this was a good-faith attempt by the largest journalist site for a specific demographic to interview the candidates with open-ended, non-leading questions. Couldn't the Kerry staffer responding to this take the time to respond with more than a sentence-and-a-half? The Slashdot readership is larger than the margin of victory in several states in the 2000 election.

I don't want to vote for Bush, but I don't believe in voting via the "anybody but" method. I wish the Kerry campaign would just make the tiny effort required to clinch my vote.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of his answers seemed short, concise, and to the point. Which is what a younger audience demands.

Given their lack of an attention span longer than 30 seconds, general illiteracy and the expectation they will "glaze over" if the slightest detail is mentioned.

Now if they can just figure out a way to give each candidate a microphone headset and some backup dancers, the total collapse of societal responsibility will be complete. Well, after the commercial break.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[Peyna]

I'd even go to the point to extend that the average voter wants a quick answer to their question, without weighty reasoning, details, and statistics, because they just don't really care beyond the "yes" or "no". This is kind of sad, but to be expected.

The more educated crowd will demand more well thought out responses from the candidates, so that they can fully evaluate their position, look for the weaknesses and strengths in their argument, and make a careful consideration of it.

For the majority people, however, when the candidates go in depth like that, they could make every single bit of their reasoning, statistics, etc. up, but since they kept going on and giving their idea support (valid or not), the average person is likely to see that as proof that they're right, and know what they're talking about. (websites like factcheck.org seek to some extent to inform the public of such fallacies.)

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[delus10n0]

If they're going to just gloss over, perhaps they shouldn't be voting?

Or heck, they might as well "einy meney miney moe" and pick a candidate at random when it comes time to vote.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[Anonymous Coward]

This is kind of sad, but to be expected.

No, it's not. We just allow it to be expected. We allow voters to be illiterate, uninformed and unthinking. Simple as that.

For example, our legislature (supposedly recently) repealed about 107 election laws by allowing people to vote at grocery stores up to three weeks before the election. There wasn't so much as a single word about this announced publically until the voting machines just showed up one day.

And apparently voters don't really care that the sober responsibility of democratically electing a government is now placed behind a card table in the frozen food aisle. The SUV moms probably think it's almost as convenient as their grocery club card and the in-store ATM. Well, at least they would if they weren't in such a hurry to get to Home Repo so they can drop five figures on some new countertops and a breakfast nook.

Voting is now just another stop between the dry cleaners and the bank. As a society, our head is so far up our ass it's beyond all belief.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[Anonymous Coward]

That's too bad that you skipped Bush's comments because his actually had substance. Kerry has yet to provide substance.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[Daedala]

In this, I think, the younger audience is smarter. We tend to let the politicians talk around everything. I'm more likely to trust the supporting information from other sources (factcheck.org, for example) anyway. One of my jobs is writing infosec policy for a big corporation. Actual policy needs to be clear, concise, and to the point. Yes, the devil is in the details -- but you have to have the policy first, or you'll find yourself chasing your tail. Politicians do lots of tail-chasing.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and if the candidates are going to simply gloss over the questions and avoid answering them in a clear and concise manner, maybe they shouldn't be running.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[Jardine]

I'd even go to the point to extend that the average voter wants a quick answer to their question, without weighty reasoning, details, and statistics, because they just don't really care beyond the "yes" or "no". This is kind of sad, but to be expected.

I'm probably not the average voter, but what I would like the candidates to do is very simple. Answer the question that was asked. If the question is "Do you think euthanasia should be legal?", no politician with a chance of winning will touch that with a 10 foot pole. Either way they answer, some voters will swing to the other guy so politicians never want to give definite answers to questions.

Re:Kerry addressing the intended audience

[Anonymous Coward]

That's too bad that you skipped Bush's comments because his actually had substance. Kerry has yet to provide substance.

Yeah, sure. They were full of substance. Icky gooey slime-like substance. And they still didn't provide an answer for the questions asked...

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

yup.

OT - Don't touch that... dial?

[sczimme]

don't touch that dial!

Wow, that's quite the anachronism.

/ties an onion to his belt, which was the style at the time

You see, kids... Once upon a time, radios were controlled by analog potentiometers, variable resistors, and yams filled with gunpowder. If you wanted to change the station, you had to walk dickety-six feet over to the wireless radio-set and fiddle around with the knob. If you moved it too far, that was a paddlin'. If you didn't move it far enough, that was a paddlin'. If you tuned in to the canoe races, that was definitely a paddlin'. Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes - the important thing to remember is that nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter" you'd say...

/Very very off-topic, but non-partisan.

Re:OT - Don't touch that... dial?

[WormholeFiend]

I think the poster meant "don't touch that mouse scroll wheel". ;)

Re:OT - Don't touch that... dial?

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

don't touch that dial!

Wow, that's quite the anachronism.

It is a cunning quote designed to evoke the lyrics of a certain Frank Zappa song. Namely, I'm the Slime

I mean, politicians and lyrics like these...

I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little had changed
I am the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you
I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I am the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I am the slime oozin' out
From your TV set

And here ends the preview of the next TV debate.

Re:OT - Don't touch that... dial?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a simpsons reference...

Re:OT - Don't touch that... dial?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once upon a time, radios were controlled by analog potentiometers, variable resistors

Televisions had dials too. The first TV I remember (keep in mind that I wasn't around before the 80s) had two (the second was for UHF channels), but they were multi-position rotary switches, not potentiometers. It gave a very satisfying clacky sound when you changed channels.

Re:OT - Don't touch that... dial?

[happyfrogcow]

pointing out an elders mistakes? that's a paddlin', too.

Re:OT - Don't touch that... dial?

[amigabill]

You're computer doesn't have a huge honkin' rotary knob on the front? Oh wait, I still use an Amiga, sorry... :p But I did actually just order one of then audio cassette drives for my PC from ThinkGeek... Might arrive today even. Cool.

Re:OT - Don't touch that... dial?

[cachorro]

Okay, this is further off-topic, but the radio dial for changing stations (in every radio I dissected) was a variable capacitor, not a potentiometer. And OBTW, a potentiometer (when not referring to a measuring instrument) is the same thing as a variable resistor. Of course that was way before the advent of IC-based radios, in which case you may be somewhat correct. Then again, maybe your radio wasn't boxed in wood or made using tubes like mine.

And I bet you didn't have to walk to school uphill both ways like I did...

(-1 crotchety)

Bush's Answers

[dominyx]

The President's answers seemed like a copy/paste from older speeches. Kerry's were a bit short for my taste, but more on topic and to the point.

Re:Bush's Answers

[jmccay]

Kerry's answers were more on topic? What debate did you read? In the one I read that was posted Kerry gave very little details on what he was going to do. Contrast this with Bush, and to some extent Nader, talked specifics, and Bush provided examples from his current term as President.

Re:Bush's Answers

[Simulant]

There is no way in hell Bush wrote those answers. Have you heard the man speak? He probably never even saw the questions. The others' answers are certainly more authentic. As usual, Nader is the only one who isn't blowing smoke up my ass.

Re:Bush's Answers

[dcam]

Answer this.

I note with interest that you are still using the same sig.

Campaign advisor responses?

[God of Lemmings]

Does anybody else get the feeling that the Bush and Nader responses were written by a campaign advisor rather than the actual person? And if not that, they appear at least to have been prepared responses pulled out of a filing cabinet somewhere.

Re:Campaign advisor responses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, sorry. That was a typo. I meant Bush and Kerry.

Re:Campaign advisor responses?

[Punkrokkr]

Probably were from advisers, as well as Kerry's. Unfortunately we can't really expect all the candidates to answer all questions put to them.

Re:Campaign advisor responses?

[Rallion]

I got the feeling that the Kerry ones were, too, buddy. Just because they're short doesn't mean they're genuine.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[DarthTaco]

A lot of people call themselves Christians, and many of them aren't. Sometimes it seems like most of them aren't.

Catholic or Protestant, if you have accepted and received Christ and have faith in Him, then you are a Christian. That is referring to the Christ of the Hebrew scripture and the New Testament.

Intellectual Property

[blacklily8]

Hmmm...I would have loved to read their responses to a question concerning intellectual property law. Asking them about free software might have been too much; they'd likely have turned to the official White House technology consultant, a certain Mr. William Gates. What do you think Nader's spin would be? Perhaps he'd be the only one to take Stallman seriously.

omg*

[cliveholloway]

When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? ...... Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance.

President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor

wow - Bush has no response to this? Does this man think he can never be wrong? Be afraid. Very, very afraid.

cLive ;-)

* replace with other, non-denominational/cultural entity as appropriate ;-)

Re:omg*

[(trb001)]

In my eyes, for president Bush this is the ol' "Are you sorry for beating your wife?" question. There's no correct way to answer it, and neither Kerry nor Nader will be as harshly judged as anything the president chooses. That being said, I do wish he had had a better answer in the debates, but I don't hold it against him that he didn't make an itemized list.

--trb

Re:omg*

[Teancum]

I was going to write something basically in support of his not answering this question, and then I realized just how direct this question was.

Nader's answer about the hot dog is cute, but certainly not an issue of national importance.

Kerry's answer indicated that he at least read the question, but totally dodged it with the answer.

Frankly I thought all three candidates totally dodged the question. This is a very thoughtful question that would have shown true character from any candidate who honestly answered it. During the entire political careers of President Bush or John Kerry, I can't believe that they havn't had at least one example, even if it isn't a current campaign issue (like deployment of the Pershing II missiles in Germany or military intervention due to the 1970's oil boycott by OPEC).

Re:omg*

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a huge difference to admitting a mistake and giving your opponent something to thrash in the news.

If he picks any one issue to say he made a mistake on can you imagine the feeding frenzy in the press? Between the 'Ah'Ha! we told you so!' and the OMFG he picked that! When he has so messed up x, y, z!!

How can he win or break even answering that type of question? Its loaded to be used against him no matter what he answers and backing off of it is the sensible thing to do, even if its not the answer you want to hear.

Questions not answered

[Coryoth]

The thing that stands out most is the number of questions that were simply not answered. Sure, a response was given, but it often completely ignored the real question. All the candidates did this, though some more than others.

The most striking examples include:

Election Reform - Both Bush and Kerry completely ignored the main thrust of the question which related to different voting system, and the two party duopoly.

Personal - All candidates effectively ignored this question, Bush most prominently, but neither Nader nor Kerry actually had much to say about changing their own minds on any issue of any significance.

But many of the other questions involved significant dodges on various points of the question, other otherwise derailing the answer from the main track to make completely unrelated points.

Sure, these are politicians and that's what they do, but really, they had so many advisors to write this for them, and plenty of time to do it - you would think they'd do a better job of actually answering the questions directly.

Jedidiah.

Re:Questions not answered

[Bull999999]

This reminds me of the last debate. Both of them pretty much gave indirect short answers and spent the remind time on their campaign slogans. I guess they are trying to limit answers that can be used against them later on.

Re:Questions not answered

[PackMan97]

I believe part of the question on IRV/Full Represenation I submitted made it as part of Q5 (name, age, state, subject all match).

While it's nice to see my question asked, it is very disheartening to see my question ignored. :(

Re:Questions not answered

[Gnpatton]

I would really like to see a vote not for agree/disagree (on the NVP site) but rather, if you felt the answer is acceptable or not. If the answer get's too many negatives it gets thrown back and the canidate should have to answer it again, differently (ie less deviation from the original question).

Re:Questions not answered

[peachpuff]

That's true, but in all fairness, people already know that Kerry changed his mind about Vietnam and that Bush changed his mind about the Department of Homeland Security. (Those are just examples.) No one really needs the candidates to come up with examples, the question was just to put them on the spot and dare them to commit political suicide.

Ask a trick question, get a tricky answer (or no answer).

Re:Questions not answered

[mefus]

Personal - All candidates effectively ignored this question, Bush most prominently, but neither Nader nor Kerry actually had much to say about changing their own minds on any issue of any significance.

Kerry could have made reference to his trusting Bush to do the right thing when he voted to give him war powers regarding the Iraq debacle. "If I could do it again, knowing what I know now, I would not have ceded him the power. He lacks wisdom for such responsibility."

Nadar I could believe didn't have any mistakes. He's never held national office that I know of and all his positions favor individual rights and social responsibilities. For him it's just an uphill battle against the powers that be and any tactical errors he might have made along the way are in alignment with the principles he has maintained.

Re:Questions not answered

[starseeker]

Answering a question directly allows people to form an agree/disagree opinion, and that's how you lose voters. In the end, it's the candidate who pisses off the least percentage of voters who wins. Why do you think both major parties are so moderate? Their core support doesn't like it, but will vote for them none the less. They have to get as many voters as possible from the middle to dislike the other guy, and not be offended by them.

If I had to sum up our political situation in one word, it would be wishy-washy. And with good stastical reasons - it's quite deliberate.

Re:Questions not answered

[Datafage]

Nader could have said he wouldn't have crusaded against a car that was proven to be as safe as any other car of its period.

Re:Questions not answered

[mefus]

Nader could have said he wouldn't have crusaded against a car that was proven to be as safe as any other car of its period.

I keep hearing that asserted, or it's variants. Do you mean to say the corvair was as unsafe as he said, but so were all the other cars? Who has funded this refutation of "Unsafe At Any Speed?"

Re:Questions not answered

[Anonymous Coward]

keep-alive

Double this, triple that...with what $$$?

[FerretFrottage]

All these pledges to increase this and double efforts here and there and no mention on how we [US] citizines will pay for it. Tax cuts are just great and make a candidate sound like the right answer, but at what overall cost? Let's just keep running up the national debt, while the quality of our schools/education, transportation systems, and civil servants decline. I think that as US citizens we have a duty to pay for what this country can and does provide. I'm not saying I want higher taxes, but where else will the money come from? IMHO, since we are in a "time of war", we should increase our taxes to fund the efforts of the war and if anyone deserves a tax cut, it should be the men and women who are serving or have served in the military. Many of them and their families have already paid too much.

Re:Double this, triple that...with what $$$?

[Anonymous Coward]

Throwing more money at schools and other government-run entities does not always mean that the quality will improve proportionally to the extra money spent... take DC public schools for example. They spend a whole lot dollars more per student than in neighboring Fairfax County, Virginia, across the Potomac, and yet Fairfax achieves much better results in terms of test scores, students who go on to college, etc.

Yes, as Americans we do have a duty to pay for what our country provides, but there's a fine line between investing in government programs that actually work and just forking over money so it can get frivolously squandered away by politicians in... Washington, our state capitals, and yes, even in our local counties and cities.

Politicians are politicians are politicians. In the end it just comes down to voting for whomever you believe to be the lesser of the two (or three... or four) evils.

healthcare

[Neophytus]

We are fortunate in America to have the best health care system in the world

While the quality of care may be superb, putting the entitlement of your citizen's in the hands of private for-profit companys seems rather a poor policy. After all, the best insurance policy is an unclaimed policy.

Re:healthcare

[stinerman]

Correction.

The quality of care for those who can afford to pay is superb. If you can't pay, often times emergency rooms will not give you the same level of care as someone who does have insurance. In fact, there is talk of legislation that relaxes rules for who emergency rooms have to treat. As of now, they have to treat everyone who walks in the door.

Basically it all comes down to: "If you can't pay, you don't deserve to live."

Re:healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose it is easy to have a really good health care when only a part (the wealthy) can afford to use it.

Re:healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

The best health care system in the world might not be affordable if it covered all of its constituents. We pay almost double the cost of European nations and yet still have a lower life expectancy.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah. Unless you are someone who belives in the Virginity of Mary and No Divorce (among other tenents and Dogma) then you are not Catholic, simple as that. Given that the Holy Roman Church has been around th elongest (among the Christians) it gets to say how things are. That is not to say that the other Protestant sects are wrong, Martain Luthor had some good points about the austere and corrupt Chruch at the time. Vatican II moved the church along and it only too several hundred years to get Mother Chruch into shape. Oh, and if you are a Hun, you ARE defective.

what he should have said...

[cliveholloway]

"When I was young, I thought getting drunk and snorting coke were a good idea. I was wrong. I realised it was destroying my life and changed my mind."

Now, if he'd said something like that, I *might* have a grain of respect for the man.

cLive ;-)

Re:what he should have said...

[sol_geek77]

Personally, I think actions speak louder then words and 17+ years without either is a good start.

Re:what he should have said...

[jobber-d]

Um, what makes you think he hasn't done either for 17+ years? Here are some photographs of him getting drunk quite recently

Re:what he should have said...

[Anonymous Coward]

I realised it was destroying my life and changed my mind.

I think you meant "was destroying my life and damaging my mind."

Re:what he should have said...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, but then he'd lose the segment of voters who are perfect and won't stand for anything less.

Re:what he should have said...

[TrancePhreak]

Are you such a geek that simply being near alcohol gets you drunk?

Re:what he should have said...

[Vicsun]

Too bad the rest of Voting America disagrees... Admitting to getting drunk and snorting coke (even if it's in a past long forgotten) is the rough equivalent to admitting you are a neo-nazi child molestor.

Re:what he should have said...

[jobber-d]

?? You can visibly tell that he's drunk. There's more than one picture, you know

Re:what he should have said...

[cliveholloway]

You're assuming I support either of them.

Even if I could vote (I can't, I'm British), democracy at the national level in the US is such a farce it's not worth participating in.

So, Which "Yale attending, rich, corporate funded Skull and Cross Bones member" will you support?

See question 5 and the lack of answers from either main candidate for more information.

Living in LA, I miss some of the UK politicians that stick to their principles no matter what (and no, I don't mean Blair). People like Ken Clarke, Dennis Skinner and Tony Benn.

It troubles me seeing how Blair is working on changing the UK into a US style "Advertocracy", where style and image no longer drown out the message - they are the message.

.02

cLive ;-)

Re:what he should have said...

[cpeterso]

or: "I realised it was destroying my mind and changed my life." :)

Re:what he should have said...

[Anonymous Coward]

except in DC where a certain coke snorting mayor is doing quite well.

Re:what he should have said...

[lovebyte]

well, GWB wrote he liked ethanol. Does that count?

Re:what he should have said...

[Anonymous Coward]

or: "I realised it destroyed my mind and changed my life."

Re:what he should have said...

[snerdy]

"When I was young, I thought getting drunk and snorting coke were a good idea. I was wrong. I realised it was destroying my life and changed my mind."

Now, if he'd said something like that, I *might* have a grain of respect for the man.

Perhaps he doesn't think those activities were a mistake, that he wasn't wrong and thus hasn't changed his mind?

Re:what he should have said...

[nberardi]

You know you actually understand something that the libral media over at the NY Times doesn't.

"Even if I could vote (I can't, I'm British), democracy at the national level in the US is such a farce it's not worth participating in."

Because they are always saying if the world could vote, they would vote for Kerry. I SAY THE WORLD CAN'T VOTE, SO IT IS NON-SENSE, JUST LIKE YOUR WASHED UP PAPER. I just hate how this processes has been turned into a glorified American-Idol.

I really don't agree with Bush domestically, he is a little to libral for me there with all the spending, however I know it would be 10x worse with Kerry domestically. So it's like picking the poisen that won't kill your pocket book the quikest.

A use of the term "debate" I was unfamiliar with

[StateOfTheUnion]

the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate. Uh . . . that doesn't look like a debate to me. In a debate, there should be some interaction between the parties . . . some followup response and rebuttal.

This would more accurately be characterized as text based interview of the candidates (or mare accurately, their campaigns . . .I can't believe that the candidates personally wrote these answers). Though this information has value, lets not jade young voters by telling them something is a debate when its merely answers to questions . . .

Impressed as always

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush:
"We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases or pregnancy."

Now that is not only a great answers to someone who shared his experience that abstinence programs don't work but only worsen the problem, but also begs the question if this "fact of life" could not also be taught with proper sex education.

Maybe you dont know what a christian is?

[l4m3z0r]

Strange that you seem to think being Catholic and being Christian are mutually exclusive(although if you were arguing based on how far away from Christs actual teachings Catholics have become you would be somewhat more accurate) HOWEVER Christianity is the set of all religions based on the teachings of Christ which would include Catholocism.

Re:Maybe you dont know what a christian is?

[Anonymous Coward]

HOWEVER Christianity is the set of all religions based on the teachings of Christ which would include Catholocism.

So what you are arguing is that his definition of Christianity is "strange," but yours is correct because .... you capitlized the word "HOWEVER?"

Re:Maybe you dont know what a christian is?

[Secrity]

It all depends upon which brand of Christian is defining who is a Real Christian. There are certain fundamentalist protestant Christians who believe that their particular brand of religion is the only one and true Christian Church. I do not see how people can call themselves Christians when they teach their children to either pity or hate people who are different from them.

Re:Maybe you dont know what a christian is?

[Anonymous Coward]

HOWEVER Christianity is the set of all religions based on the teachings of Christ which would include Catholocism.

Your definition of Christianity would also include Islam.

Muslims believe in the teachings of the prophet Jesus.

They also believe that his teachings were corrupted later by his followers (which led to God's final revelation, the Qur'an, to the prophet Muhammad).

You need to redefine your definition and/or learn more about Islam.

Not that simple..

[cybrthng]

There are tons of people voting for Kerry.. believe it or not he has some great ideas and is probably one of the best candidates in a long time.

Liberal or not, i don't see that as a bad thing. Our leader has to be adept at adapting to new environments and new situations.. completely opposite of Bush.. i see Kerry as holding that trait..

So in essence i am voting against Bush on that st ance, but voting for Kerry because he seems to understand the issues and knows the ramifications of his decisions a bit more than Bush & Co.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

There wasn't much of a distinction until the protestant revolt separated away from the church.

You are forgetting the second largest Christian denomination...

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also a vast difference in interpretation between various Christian sects. It seems that after a while, if one doesn't like the way things are interpreted, they take their ball (or in this case their book) and go elsewhere.

The catechism of the catholic church was created to serve as a reference on where the church stands on things and isn't as subject to numerous interpretations as the bible.

mod parent stooopid

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry is Catholic therefore he is Christian, man! You'd figure all those crosses and pictures of Jesus in a Catholic church would clue you in.

Re:mod parent stooopid

[Punkrokkr]

Being Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc. does not make you a Christian. These are all belief's in Christianity; but that doesn't necessarily make you a Christian. Christianity is being a disciple of Christ. A LOT of people who call themselves Christians, I would not say they were disciples of Christ.

Wow

[ericdano]

I think Bush's answers were more thought out than Kerry's. Amazing.......And everyone says Kerry is the long winded one......

Re:Wow

[rabel]

Yeah, but Kerry could have concievably written his own answers, and we all know that Bush probably didn't even see the questions.

Re:Wow

[ericdano]

Ah, you you know this how? When I read it, it looks like both Bush and Kerry didn't really write their own responses, but Bush's seem more likely to be written by him.

Go back to having some koolaide.

Re:Wow

[sexylicious]

Nah. All the words were spelled correctly that I saw, and there was no "terra".

Re:Wow

[ericdano]

Ouch. But then again, who doesn't misspell or misspeak? ;-)

Re:Wow

[Rallion]

'Longer' does not mean 'well-thought-out.'

It's a big pile of obfuscation if you ask me.

Re:Wow

[ericdano]

Yeah, I thought that about Kerry's arguements as well....

Re:Wow

[Rallion]

Presidential campaign staff, apparently!

Question to slashdotters

[Antony-Kyre]

I'm curious how many honestly read the whole thing? I didn't.

Re:Question to slashdotters

[hopemafia]

I didn't. I skimmed through, reading the questions, and enough of the responses to see that they were the normal "party line" BS that I have to see every commercial break on TV (I live in a swing state...bleh!...thank God for mute)...Nader got a bit more complete read, since he doesn't get the same level of coverage as Bush and Kerry.

On a side note: I'm glad this debate at least admitted that there were more than two candidates, but it would have been nice if some more of the larger third parties (Green, Libertarian...maybe Constitution, and Socialist too...) had been included.

Question #5 in particular was dissapointing...neither main candidate even came close to answering it, but I'm not surprised since the policy by both the R's and D's all along has been "Deny all knowledge of other options."

Re:Question to slashdotters

[cdf123]

I'm curious how many honestly read the whole thing?

You must be new here

Re:Question to slashdotters

[Alzheimers]

I can honestly say I read each and every response.

If you believe me or not, that's up to you. I'm not running for office.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[eXtro]

I was raised Catholic though I am best non-practicing. I moved to the middle of the bible belt and have on a number of occasions been preached at about Christianity by my co-workers. One time I figured telling them I was Catholic would make them go away. Instead it redoubled their efforts. To many, not all, maybe not most, but to many of them Catholism and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

Vote Nader

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Bush

Fuck Kerry

PS In other news, Hillary Duff looks like she sucks a mean dick!!!!11

Re:SlashDot = Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and your post positively DRIPS with original thoughts, correct? Bah...

After reading their responses ...

[RealAlaskan]

After reading their responses, one ineluctable fact impresses itself on me: I want to vote for none of the above.

If we're going to have election/political reform, I think making that a ballot option would be a great start.

If you're not in a swing state, vote for any third party candidate.

Close, but no mod point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would've been funnier if you were an ensign and Bush strapped you into his Navy S-3B Viking to touch your junk.

Sheesh, kids these days, can't even follow a damn troll template correctly.
And I'm still waiting for some decent Jessica Lynch slash fiction. Not that nasty skank Lynne England, though!

Re:Close, but no mod point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think this is a joke? This actually happened!!!!

I am serious. His fingers like penetrated my vagina, and he was finger fucking me, but he didn't even wait until I was damp!!!! And I was so turned off my him that I remained dry so it was like sandpaper!!!!! :(

It was worse than the time Chuck Woolery said he'd be back in "two and two" before giving me the shocker.

Now would you vote for a man who can't even finger bang a girl properly??? Would you vote for a man who expects a girl to suck him off but does not reciprocate???!!!!

This country makes me sick.

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[nomadic]

Good god, in 2000 Bush explicitly said he would lower gas prices by CALLING UP OPEC MEMBERS AND ASKING THEM. Believe me, Kerry's not the won trying to win on force of personality.

Oh, wait, I just read the last sentence of your post and realize you're totally irrational. I'll just leave this conversation at this point...

renewable energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry: "like using renewable fuels for 20 percent of our energy by 2020 and bringing new, low-emission vehicles to our streets."

If we're only using 20% renewable energy by 2020, we're totally screwed.

Re:renewable energy

[Punkrokkr]

Perhaps Kerry should start by getting rid of the SUVs that he doesn't own.

Re:renewable energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. If the non-renewables included nuclear power, natural gas, and hybrid electric vehicals, that could help as well. Conservation can also go a long way on its own. I agree however that it too bad that many in the democratic party have lost the courage to make bold statements. If kerry said 80% or something like that the pundits would be all over it.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[EnronHaliburton2004]

In my experience (As a former born-again Christian with formerly-religious parents[1]), many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian.

It's an 'us and them' thing. WE are right, THEY are wrong. There is only one way. "Protestants" worship Jesus Christ directly. Catholics are a cult worship the pope and saints and are in league with the Devil. That pretty much sums up Sunday School for me.

Oh, and Led Zepplin is a cult.

[1] MY father was Catholic. My mother was Protestant mother. My dad was 17 in Catholic high school and asked a priest a fundamental question: How did he know that God exists? The priest beat up my father-- it took several people to pry the priest off of my father.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the orthodontists?

(I jest, I jest!)

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Will Linuxers *please* get over themselves? Gentoo, SuSe, Mandrake--the rest of us really don't care.

Good use of the Poll Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this should be a poll.

Grammar

[Mdalek]

The Bush team seem to use a capital A in administration, perhaps they think /that/ much of themselves.

Re:Grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they are referring to their administration as a proper noun - not just some random administratino.

It'd be funny if they corrected YOU on the grammer in the end. :)

Half of eligable voters is normal

[suso]

Yet despite the energy and activism of many youth, less than half of eligible voters, ages 18-24, voted in recent national elections.

Sigh, Read my current thoughts on this. People keep saying that there are so few eligable voters actually voting, when in reality, this has been the case througout most of America's history. There is not so much of a down trend as they like to make out.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[nine-times]

So (according to the pope since this was published with his permission) if you're Christian but not Catholic, you're defective.

No, according to the pope, if you're a Christian going to a non-Catholic church, your church has 'defects'. Which, since the pope doesn't even speak English (I don't know if he knows English, but it's not his native tongue), so we might ask what exactly he means by 'defects'.

Either way, this sort of belief is what accounts for all religious splits. If protestants didn't believe there was something deficient in the Catholic church, why aren't they Catholics?

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[EnronHaliburton2004]

are not considered 'proper' churches. They suffer from 'defects

Sorry about that. I'll have the bug fix checked into CVS by this afternoon, and will then close the ticket in bugzilla.

BTW, do you have a URL so I can verify the fix?

Thanks!

you can tell...

[scaaven]

that Bush had no say in any of his answers. Else all we would hear is "It-it-it's hard work."

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[brandona788]

Yet the Catechism is still based on a certain interpretation of Scripture.

There is also a lot of politics and legalism in every denomination because of humans taking things in their own hands. For example, I think John Wesley would have a fit with the way the Methodist church is now and there are alot of other examples like this. Its as if the people forgot God (just like Israel in the Old Testament).

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Milo of Kroton]

The Mormon church feel as such same that Jesus lived and for us died. Why persecutes Latter Day Saints' Church and member. You Americans are crazy. For how much fellow Christians hate, I see hate of Muslims crazily moreso, hereafter.

Another Race Card Played...

[Anonymous Coward]

6. DRUG POLICY: ...Black students and lower to middle class students are unfairly targeted, as wealthier students can afford tuition and need not apply for financial aid.

How in the world did you turn that into a race issue? You are what is wrong with America.

Re:Another Race Card Played...

[Anonymous Coward]

$100 says you're a white guy who has never experienced discrimination and have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Another Race Card Played...

[pclminion]

Wow, I think you just won the Most Ignorant Human On Earth award.

Are you happy out there in your perfect suburban utopia, Jack? Seen any colored people lately?

Re:Another Race Card Played...

[Anonymous Coward]

Race is only an issue because people like you make it an issue. Black people don't need special attention - they can (read: should be able to) stand up for themselves. I may be romantic, but not ignorant.

Bush response to sex-ed question

[Peyna]

Each year, at least 3 million teenagers contract sexually-transmitted diseases... and those numbers are going up... We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs.

Anyone else fail to see the logic with this statement? "Well, we spent ($100,000,000) last year, and the problem got worse, maybe if throw ($200,000,000) at it this time around it will get better!

Abstinence only education has only served to increase teen pregnancy and STD infection, because they are not being made aware of any alternatives. Kids are going to have sex. If you can't accept that fact, and think you can "educate" them into not having sex, you're foolish. The most reasonable solution is to inform them of all of their options, the risks associated with each, and allow them to make their own decisions. Telling someone that condoms exist doesn't teach them that it is okay to have promiscuous sex anymore than telling them that firearms exist teaches them it is okay to shoot one without regard for the safety of yourself or others.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[stanmann]

Perhaps they should show kids entering Jr high the slideshow I saw Upon entering basic training which graphically demonstrated the consequences of STDs. Suffice it to say that the pictures on Rotten.com have nothing on this. All of the pictures were of actual instances of various forms of VD and several were varietals that cannot be prevented by wearing "protection".

IN point of fact the ONLY way to be certain of avoiding STDs is to be abstinent and not in the clintonesque forms.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling someone that condoms exist doesn't teach them that it is okay to have promiscuous sex anymore than telling them that firearms exist teaches them it is okay to shoot one without regard for the safety of yourself or others.

Dammit, condoms don't impregnate teens, teens impregnate teens!

err....

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

No, teaching kids that condoms are a form of safe sex is closer to telling them they have a 5/6 chance of surviving a round of russian roultette.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[stinerman]

teaching kids that condoms are a form of safe sex is closer to telling them they have a 5/6 chance of surviving a round of russian roultette.

Whereas, you'd rather we just not tell them that russian roulette exists.

When armed with the facts, people make the best decisions.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Luyseyal]

Pictures tend to be a short-term deterrent. How many people stop speeding after watching defensive driving videos with mangled corpses and whatnot? a month after? six months after? a year after? If you watch them over and over you get desensitized to it and probably rationalize it to some extent (oh, that's just the worst of it -- they have drugs for gonnorhea, syphillis, etc. now). Not to mention that it's very unhelpful for teens in committed relationships who decide to have sex but have little knowledge of how to not get pregnant or where you can go for emergency contraception if he accidentally spews the manjuice up inside of you.

Telling teens "oh, just don't have sex" is like telling depressed people "oh, just don't be depressed". Sure, it'll work some of the time but the problem isn't when it works but how poorly it fails when it doesn't work (stealing a bit from Bruce Schneier).

-l

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[eaolson]

No, teaching kids that condoms are a form of safe sex is closer to telling them they have a 5/6 chance of surviving a round of russian roultette.

Similarly, we should teach teens to never drive anywhere, since seat belts will not save their lives 100% of the time, if they get in an accident.

Sex is a part of life for virtually every human being in the world. Life is not without risk. Get over it.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[vondo]

I didn't see the original poster claim condoms are safe sex. To the contrary:

all of their options, the risks associated with each

I went to a private school and sufficiently long ago to say that I never really had any decent sex ed, but I've looked at what abstinence only sex-ed teaches, and it is scary. The basic point is, if you don't abstain, you will get a deadly sexually transmitted disease* and there is no mention at all of what you can do to minimize this should you choose not to abstain. In my opinion, that's kind of like telling teenagers not to speed and not telling them that if they do, it's a good idea to wear a seat-belt. (OK, I know this isn't a good example since you can still be killed driving safely.)

* The deadly disease they are talking about is HPV, some forms of which cause cervical cancer which is deadly in some cases, essentially where women don't get regular pap smears. Condoms don't offer particularly good protection from HPV, but they seem to be somewhat effective.

I'm no expert, but I would be very surprised to find any reputable sex-ed education that claims condoms enable "safe" sex. The term used now, even by condom manufacturers, is "safer" sex. Safer in that they are very effective at preventing AIDS.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[rushmobius]

I'm sorry but that is a pretty apathetic response.

The whole 'people are going to do XXXX', so lets make sure they are educated about it is foolish.

We as a society, should look down upon any behavior we find wrong. As soon as we sit back and 'accept' it, we then condone it.

I find murder wrong, therefore I denounce it. I find teen pregnancy wrong, therefore I denounce it.

You don't have to agree with what I find 'wrong' but surely, don't assume that I should accept what you find 'right'.

I'm not looking to 'educate' kids to not have sex. If enough society looked down up it, that would be education enough. While you consider it to be 'foolish', I consider your acceptance of it lazy.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[stanmann]

And as another poster pointed out, telling teens that a condom makes sex safe is like telling a teenager that they have a 4/5,5/6,7/8 chance of surviving a game of russian roulette.

Like putting a loaded gun to your head having sex outside a responsible, adult, committed relationship is dangerous and that should be what we are stressing, not "here have a condom go have safe sex".

Here I agree with John Kerry, "we can do better".

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[dalutong]

That or him saying they are going to do it means that enough of the population thinks it's okay.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Anonymous Coward]

I find murder wrong, therefore I denounce it. I find teen pregnancy wrong, therefore I denounce it.

Wonderful!! In other words muderer == rape victim == ignorant teenage girl (who was never given any education). The only problem is that unlike sex hormones, there are no "murder hormones" to justify murder as much.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Peyna]

I was in no way being apathetic. I didn't say "kids are going to have sex, so forget teaching them that abstinence might be preferrably for any number of moral, ethical, (physical or emotional) reason." I said that it is naive to assume that they're not going to have sex because you're only teaching abstinence. You have to accept that it is going to occur so that you can address what to do in the situation that it does occur. There is nothing wrong with informing them sex, the risks involved, and what they can do to reduce those risks.

I'm interested in your plan to stomp out teen sex.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[cpeterso]

The difference between murder and teen pregnancy: the murder victim did not choose to be murdered. The pregnant teen chose to not take steps to avoid pregnancy.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[rushmobius]

The murder example, was intended to point out the choice the murderer made, not the victim.

I look down up the actions of the murderer.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Anonymous Coward]

If Bush wants to increase abstinance, he need do no more than increase funding to /.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[rushmobius]

I think after re-reading your initial post, apathetic may have been a bit strong.

I think where we differ is on the 'acceptance'. I think if the majority of society didn't accept it, there would be a much lessor need for education.

By spending more time on education, instead of displaying our disgust torwards a bad behavior, I feel we are increasing the problem.

This is an extreme example, but we don't spend a lot of time teaching folks the proper way to pick someones pocket, we simply look down upon it and punish the behavior.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[stanmann]

No, I'd rather tell them don't put a gun to your head, even if it's not loaded or you think there is only one bullet. It's unwise and unsafe and you are likely to die.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[rushmobius]

I think my example didn't illustrate the simple point that if a choice is made that I find wrong, I denounce it, look down upon it, etc.

A person makes a choice to commit murder. A person makes a choice to engage in teen sex. A person makes a choice to become pregnant. A person makes a choice to do drugs. A person makes a choice steal. A perons makes a choice to lie.

If you find that you disagree with a persons choice, then disagree, don't accept it. Now obviously there are fine lines in choices, but it is these lines that define who we are.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling someone that condoms exist doesn't teach them that it is okay to have promiscuous sex anymore than telling them that firearms exist teaches them it is okay to shoot one without regard for the safety of yourself or others.

I'm afraid your analogy is a bit off. A condom is protection from the act... not a device necessary for the act. A more accurate analogy might be

condom=>promiscuous sex

as

bungee=>jumping off bridges

It's not so easy to claim that sex ed doesn't encourage sex. Of course my analogy is slightly off as well as most would not claim (though some would) that there is an inherent natural drive in humans to jump off bridges.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who thought that whats-her-name's recommendation to encourage masturbation as an alternative to abstenance was a workable real-world solution? What girl wouldn't like to meet a guy who's willing to go out on a date only for the company? (c.f. There's Something About Mary)

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[zophim]

The $100,000,000 or $200,000,000 they spend is nothing in comparison to the $100,000,000,000 that MTV and the rest of the pop culture/entertainment industry spends every year on sex appeal targeted at youth. Pretty much all the teenage soap operas and sitcoms these days feature young kids having sex. It's a shame that the abstinence education will never work, but if you think its the reason STDs are running rampant, I'd say you should take a step back and look at the big picture. There's really nothing that can be done about it at this point, and that's a shame. Monogamy really is a good thing, the only place to get that sort of information these days is church and active parenting.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Meisda]

I was shown a similar slide show in my 9th grade health class, under the topic of sex education. The majority of the student's responses were, "Oh wow, thats pretty nasty!" not "I'm not ever going to have sex because I don't want that to happen to me!"

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Luyseyal]

I'm just pointing out that only telling teens "do not have sex" is short-sighted, unrealistic, dangerous, and expensive.

Keep in mind, I'm an individual who made an abstinence pledge and later got his girlfriend pregnant having unprotected sex... his very first time. So, let's just say I'm not exactly sympathetic to the abstinence-only viewpoint. I can tell you exactly why I did it, though:

1. I wanted the first time to be "au natural", like my Southern Baptist God intended.
2. I had no idea where one got condoms. Really. No clue.
3. I thought the statistical likelihood of getting pregnant the first time was pretty small.

So, being an insanely devout Baptist didn't help. Taking an abstinence pledge didn't help. Hearing all the time about couples having trouble getting pregnant didn't help. And lastly, a health class that was Abstinence YES (oh yeah, but there exist these other things called condoms, diaphragms, etc. if you slip from the golden path... but we won't give you any idea how to get them) didn't help either.

So, that's where I'm coming from. :)

-l

p.s., I'm intentionally ignoring parental obligations because we are of course assuming that schools have to act in loco parentis for all sorts of kids on all sorts of topics, like it or not.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[stanmann]

First, my apologies and sympathy for the perversion of Christianity that brought you where you are

I am a Christian, married at 25 as a virgin to a virgin aged 23 whose parents(mine) took the effort to explain the consequences(pregnancy, child support, oh and by the way disease) of pre-marital sexual activity. I knew how and where to find condoms and how to use them.


Allowing or requiring parents to abdicate any of their responsibilities for any part of educating their children from math to sex is one of the largest problems with the education system as it has evolved today.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a firm beleiver in the computer-only version of sex education. Buy your kids computers and force them to read slashdot. They'll be so preoccupied (geeky), they won't have any clue that there people of a different gender outside the cold dark basement hell that is their life.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[hambonewilkins]

I take it from your response that you:

a) Are not a "youth"
b) Do not know MTV, et al's budget and
c) Are under the misguided impression that church can save a horny teenager.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Luyseyal]

Not all parents are by nature responsible nor can be "made responsible". My ex-wife for one... (sure, roll your eyes, but drop me an email sometime and I'll fill you in)... crack mom's, etc. Expectation does not necessitate action in another...

-l

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[stanmann]

I understand, my good fortune. and mourn the societal changes allowing and occasionally encouraging irresponsibility.

Responsibility breeds responsibility and irresponsibility breeds greater irresponsibility.

So someone(formerly the village or grandparents or cousins, now the government) has to step in and take charge. I know that time cannot be turned back but I would rather a society where the taking charge(seizing responsibility) happened at a local or family level rather than a state or federal one.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[KjetilK]

I find teen pregnancy wrong, therefore I denounce it.

Sure. But there are many decades since having sex meant pregnancy. In fact, I think advocating abstinence is morally wrong, because good sex builds solid relationships. I also think that much of the entertainment industry does morally bad things, which doesn't help building solid relationships.

The problem here is that people in the US administration still equate sex with pregnancy. That's simply wrong. Norway has taken the opposite approach, really teaching details in sex ed. Teenage pregnancy rates has been low for long, but policy-makers have found that every new thing has to be met with a no-taboos approach. So, if researchers find that "whoops kids are actually having group sex", the response is to have teachers give objective information about group sex and it's risks and how to mitigate those risks. When every increase in STD and aborts are met with this approach, a corresponding decline is seen soon thereafter. It works.

The original poster had 20 class-mates getting pregnant. Among the many hundred kids in the schools I've been to, I have heard about teen pregnancies twice. My mother is a teacher, and she has never said anything about any of her pupils getting pregnant, but then, she probably wouldn't.

You can denounce teen pregnancy all you want, and you can try to mark it as socially unacceptable. But what we're dealing with here, is that this is about biology. The sexual drive is the strongest there is in mankind. You can't just fight that. It is silly and destructive to fight that.

The reality is that Bush is letting dogma stand in the way of a facts-based rational policy that is known to work.

Finally, do read this page. It is a former sex-ed site that closed, for various reasons. One of them being that freedom of expression isn't what it used to be. Take note.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Luyseyal]

I dunno, I think that happens naturally. I think it works out to levels of cushioning... er maybe circles of cushioning with federal being the widest, but perhaps shallowest cushion. Like a bed at a cheap motel -- it's better than sleeping on the street, but it ain't exactly comfy.

Don't get too nostalgic, though. In the Good Old Days they sent pregnant teenagers away (like out of state with "relatives" or to boarding school) rather than dealing with problems in a responsible manner. This happened to my Aunt Patti. My Dad didn't like that and my parents were very supportive in dealing with the situation (getting married, preparing for delivery, trying to finish high school, etc.). But there are lots of parents who don't and then either the teenagers run away or have to get help elsewhere, whether it's church or Planned Parenthood, school or other relatives.

Of course, affluence is the best contraceptive... but it'll be awhile before we all get there. A Nature study I read said the population will top out between 10-15 bil around 2100 before declining due to the contraceptive effects of affluence. Pretty interesting read.

ok, I'm REALLY rambling,

Cheers,
-l

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[scotch]

Do you propose making sex between consensenting minors illegal?

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[stanmann]

No, no more than putting a gun to your head is illegal.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[scotch]

Suicide is illegal in lots of places. Attempted suicide may be, too. I think abstinence alone approach to sex-education fails unless the act is illegal (I don't think it should be). Just telling a bunch of kids with raging hormones and budding body parts and influential peer groups that they shouldn't do something is irresponsible by itself, and a shitty thing to do for the health and welfare of our kids.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[stanmann]

No, you tell them "just say no" and then explain to them why and how not saying no can ruin their lives. I'm not proposing DARE style exageration or lying, just straight facts, some stories maybe a testimonial or two. some videos, and the truth about how effective condoms aren't when used by teenagers. That's all. no more no less. ANd I've never suggested an abstinence alone approach, simply an abstinence based/focused approach.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[superyooser]

Anyone else fail to see the logic with this statement? "Well, we spent ($100,000,000) last year, and the problem got worse, maybe if throw ($200,000,000) at it this time around it will get better!

I wish people would apply this logic to education and a myriad of other government programs.

On this point, however, abstinence is a change in the way sex ed is done. It is not an increase of the "same old same old."

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[scotch]

Ok, man, you're cool.

Peace.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Anonymous Coward]

just give every young male a slashdot account

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[zophim]

a) Are not a "youth"

As a matter of fact, I'm 22, so I'd still consider myself pretty young, but just old enough to see the errors that radical non-conformists make.

b) Do not know MTV, et al's budget and

Heh, I am not a stock owner or anything, but I know they do *pretty well*! Everytime I catch a glimpse of MTV it is like looking into a paralell universe, and even a teenager will admit that! What is it, I read an article where someone interviewed some kids from laguna beach, and they were saying how the reality OC show on MTV filming high school students in laguna beach was totally distorted, and they can't see any of their peers having a "black and white" party unless MTV was paying out. Some kids were saying "jeez, we're not THAT rich!". I take it you're an MTV fan?

c) Are under the misguided impression that church can save a horny teenager.

As a matter of fact, I am. Monogamy is a good thing, they tell you. Save yourself for that special someone you want to stay with your entire life. It is not purely a religious philosophy, it makes sense from just about any angle, but it's something that most religions emphasize.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Confessed Geek]

Buzzz. Sex != Teen Pregnancy.

Sex is good. Safe Sex is very good. ANY pregnancy outside of a situation that provides a stable loving safe affluent environment for the child is very very bad (regardless of age, marital status, sexual preferences, race, creed or religion).

If we finally give up all these superstitious prejudices regarding sexual reproduction and recreation and deal with these matters like rational adults, then we could actually educate our children on the matter rather than filling them up with so many conflicting and derranged ideas that they - like most adults! are unable to think or act rationally in regards to sex.

Re:Bush response to sex-ed question

[Confessed Geek]

Gah hate to reply to myself.

Take the money we are wasting on abstinence propaganda and shove it into research of 100% side effect free and effective birth control and STD vaccines. Innoculate against STD's just like measles, chickenpox, polio, smallpox.

Reached Menarch or had your first wet dream? Congrats! You get a party!! And you get your birth control implant that you will wear till the day you can pass a literacy test, afford to put 4 years of colledge tuition and 18 years child support into a trust fund.

Reproduction is too important to be ruled by superstion. Reproduction is NOT a right, a duty, or a blessing. It is the most significant privledge one has.

A HOTDOG!!?!?!?!

[bmetzler]

Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance. - Jeremy, 30, of WA

Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:

When I first arrived in Washington, DC, one of my first meals was a hot dog. After I discovered what were in hot dogs I never ate another one. I changed my mind.

That's Nader's idea of a issue that has national importance? Whether he should eat a HOTDOG?! And he's running for president?

-Brent

Re:A HOTDOG!!?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant that more figuratively. Have you dared to read his full answer? The point is that it is perfectly acceptable to change one's mind if new information is at hand which sets new boundary conditions.

Re:A HOTDOG!!?!?!?!

[bmetzler]

The point is that it is perfectly acceptable to change one's mind if new information is at hand which sets new boundary conditions.

Right, even President Bush made that point in the second debate. That's not what I had an issue with. The question asked for an example of an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance. Nader only example in his whole answer was a hot dog. At least President Bush had the balls to ignore the question altogether. That's a ton better then giving a hot dog as an example.

-Brent

Re:A HOTDOG!!?!?!?!

[808140]

I'm not about to vote for Nader, but let's be fair. How much experience does he have being an influential politician? None. I mean, Kerry could have conceivably said something like, "I voted for the PATRIOT act because at the time, in post 9/11 trauma, I really wanted to do what was best for national security, but now, seeing how the powers it granted have been abused, I'm in favor of repealing it" and President Bush might have said, "I really believed that Iraq had WMDs, and I said that frequently on national television, and it's embarassing to admit, but there weren't any; obviously it would be inappropriate for me to stubbornly keep saying that WMDs were an appropriate reason to invade Iraq when there's ample evidence that none existed or posed a threat."

But Nader? I mean, what example could he have given that would have resonated politically with anyone here? The guy is very smart, but lacking political experience, these sorts of "When have you changed your mind" questions are bound to produce an answer of less importance than someone who actually works in politics, as both Senator Kerry and President Bush do.

Let's not forget, either, that of the three, Nader is the only one that actually listened to the question and gave an answer, even if it was a slighly less than serious, mostly metaphorical one. Kerry said the same thing as Nader did, but declined to give an example of changing his mind on an important issue, and Bush declined to say anything at all.

So while the hotdog example is silly (and I had a "WTF?" moment too when I read it), compared to the responses of the other two candidates, it was refreshing, because it actually approximated an answer to the fscking question.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[DarkSarin]

In some ways, there are those who lump Mormons in with Catholics--according to those worthies (generally born-again types), neither are "Christian", although both espouse a belief in God, Christ and the Holy Ghost (although there are differences in conceptualization of those beings among all parties).

I am always disturbed when I hear someone claim that a particular church is not Christian. It isn't our place to do that, regardless of how we view that religion, and whether we agree with their tenets.

So wrong...

[cybrthng]

Social Security is fine - infact its probably more so then any business out there.. the fear is what 40+ years away? Thats more security than any corporation i know of other than Microsoft as far as cash reserves.

The issue with social security is the problem of deficit spending and borrowing from our reserves (social security) without intention of paying it back and loosing the revenues of the interest payments as well.

Social security does have some issues, but i would never trust it to corporate america after they have failed miserably with insurance, healthcare, prescription drugs and other privatized industries.

Check out Johnkerry.com for the full plan on social security reform and his ideas on it.

Re:So wrong...

[Bull999999]

But if many of the major corporations crash and burn, there will be less works to support our Social Security payments when we retire. Thus, I believe that there is a strong tie between the Social Security and businesses.

My take on Social Security is to save for retirment as if it didn't exist. If it sitll exists when you retire, that just means more money for you to spend, and if not, you are still covered.

Social security does have some issues, but i would never trust it to corporate america after they have failed miserably with insurance, healthcare, prescription drugs and other privatized industries.

Both the governmnet and megacorps lie constantly, and it'd be foolish to rely on any of them.

sdfsdf

[photonic]

Most important question in my opinion:

5. ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:
To the candidates, you talk a lot about the importance of promoting democracy in other countries. However, I have never heard 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 without winning the popular vote. This hardly seems democratic. What are your positions on instant-runoff voting and proportional representation?

with both Bush & Kerry giving no real answers. I think this question touches on an issue that causes a lot of the problems of American politics. The present system is effectively a two party system. This gives you only one choice between left and right wing. One party has power until it screws up and then the other takes over. Support for both parties will always stay in the 45-55% range.

I think a healthy system should have place for somewhere between 5 and 10 parties, ranging from greens, labour, religion based, conservative, liberals, etc. You will probably require a coalition to rule the country, but that is the whole idea of democracy: to make compromises between the various wishes from society.

Re:sdfsdf

[stinerman]

This gives you only one choice between left and right wing.

Or as most Europeans (and some independents like me) see it:

A choice between conservative and more conservative.

Re:sdfsdf

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it gives you a choice between right-wing and *more* right-wing.

Re:sdfsdf

[kindbud]

The present system is effectively a two party system. This gives you only one choice between left and right wing.

From where I sit, we effectively have one party, with two right wings to choose from.

Re:sdfsdf

[Anonymous Coward]

That question was dumb to begin with. No one seems to understand the reasons for the Electoral College.

It's so that the population centers don't dominate the rest of the country. You don't just visit New York, Texas, California, and a few other spots to garner the election. You need to see the country as a whole and not just what applies to a few small locals.

Anyone attempting to get rid of the Electoral College is just looking to start a revolution in America.

Re:sdfsdf

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't give real answers because the question is bogus.

The current presidential system seems to have several shortcomings, including two-party duopoly
There is no two-party duopoly - there are hundreds of parties. It's just that no party other than the Democrat and Republican parties are currently getting traction with the electorate. Build a better widget (party) and they will come.

...and the ability to win the Election without winning the popular vote. This hardly seems democratic.
Repeat after me: we live in a representative Republic, not a democracy. Your school teachers either dumbed it down for you or didn't understand it themselves. Also, the founding fathers didn't want the fate of the entire country decided by population centers (originally Boston, Baltimore, NYC, DC, etc. - now including Miami, Chicago, LA, SF, etc.) but rather by the entire country - hence the electoral college and not a populist democratic vote (btw: note that legislation isn't a population only affair for the same reason. Hence the House of Representatives [population based] and the Senate [equal state based representation]) - duh.

Oh geez, the parent got modded Insightful? I must be reading /. again...

Re:sdfsdf

[Hektor_Troy]

This gives you only one choice between left and right wing.

No, what the US has is right wing and right wing. At least by European standards.

Your two parties are both to the right of the middle of politics here. Far to the right. What we call conservatives, you would lable bleeding heart left wing liberals. Which is ironic as our Liberal parties, that are on the right wing of our political spectrum.

Hell, you've manage to take a nation, that is founded on the belief of "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness" and made Liberal a swear word! Hell, I've been accused of being a, I kid you not, liberal commie bastard by Americans which is sort of like calling water dry, as communism is an authoritarian style of government, which is the oposite of liberal.

But then again we find it rather interesting (read scary) that your supposedly independent media have decided to take a pro-government stance no matter who the incumbant is, doesn't seem to want to take on any kind of leading role in the pursuit of truth or even fair coverage (*cough*presidential debates*cough*) and don't find it problematic to lable anyone critical of what is done by the government as an "anti patriotic hater of freedom".

Hell, in the "paragon" of freedom, the BASTION of democracy (even though you're actually a republic, but then again, most of you couldn't explain the true difference between representative democracy and a republic if your life depended on it anyway) more people want to decide who gets to win American Idol to become the next lame plastic pop-star than who get's to sit on the biggest army not to mention the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world. And yet you have the audacity to call the rest of us freedom hating people who only want to bring back the good old days of kings and queens, so we get back to preventing you guys from spredding democracy in the world (which is funny, since you don't want democracy at home) ...

<sarcasm>
But what do I know ... it's not like I live in your country, and I know that I shouldn't care. It's not as if this election will have any direct influence on my world ...
</sarcasm>

Re:sdfsdf

[zsau]

I don't see why they don't just give into to preferential voting (IRV). As an Australian, I can tell you that it doesn't break the two-party system. All they need to do is implement it to keep the masses happy, then if the issue ever comes up again, they just have to say: 'yeah, but we tried fixing it and nothing changed, what else will fix it?'. All will be good and America can go back to being the bastion of democracy we know it is.

So where is John Boys plan?

[Lawrence_Bird]

Take a look at the answers. On every question Bush and Nader go on at length - whether you agree or not with what they say. Kerry on the other hand has very short one paragraph platitudes. Is this who you want for your President?

Re:So where is John Boys plan?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. He's the wrong man, wrong plan, wrong time.

Re:So where is John Boys plan?

[lottameez]

Be serious. You don't actually believe Bush wrote his do you? Is that who you want for your President? Someone who doesn't write his own responses? Now if John (actually wrote his and) had written a couple of pages response for each question you'd probably complain he was too verbose. Ain't no satisfying some people.

Personally, I think John wrote his own answers, and gave this survey it's due (which isn't much imo). He answered the questions and moved on.

Re:So where is John Boys plan?

[SocietyoftheFist]

Search google for Bush's answers. They are repeats. Kerry knew his audience too. You know what I want for president? Somebody who can admit mistakes. Thinks this over:

The case for war: WMDs
The use of diplomacy: declared useless
Where WMDs found: no
Would the fact that no WMDs where there been established without war: possibly but the threat wasn't there.
Was the stated cause for the war justified: no

Now a moral impetus is trying to be placed as the justification for war. North Korea probably has nukes and can probably hit the West Coast. Iran is enriching Uranium. The invasion didn't stop bombs in Bali or Madrid. Al Qaeda, though injured is still viable and should be the focus instead of having hundreds of thousands troops occupying a foreign nation that wasn't a threat. Lots of people in this world hate the US, that is not an excuse to attack them. We need to work to protect ourselves and to maintain respect in the world. If you want an example of how disengous this administration is, look no further than Cheney claiming that Kerry and Edwards calling the war bad hampers our ability to recruit other nations to help. Seems to me that our major allies of the last 50 years didn't want join up before the rhetoric in this election. I'm not a democrat, nor do I really like Kerry or Edwards, but this administration really hurts our crediblity. I personally know of two people that say they are from Canada when travelling internationly, too much tension is involved when they acknowledge being from the United States. We had every right to level Afghanistan, going to Iraq was wrong.

Re:So where is John Boys plan?

[Gleapsite]

Because of course intelligence is measured in word count.

shit

[Anonymous Coward]

shit, that non-italics font for the story is so much easier to read than the usual italics.

make that change plz, ok thx.

Re:SlashDot = Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that most of the slashdot readership consists of right-wing conservatives?
Because that's what the democrat party looks like from outside. Republicans being even worse doesn't fix that. Reminds me of the good cop/bad cop cliche.

This is getting old.

[Bluesman]

Question: Blah.

Bush: I think it's important to blah. We've spent a lot of money to encourage blah. We need to restrain our spending except for blah.

Kerry: What Bush said, but not what Bush said. More money needs to be spent on blah than he says. I'm just the man to do it, because I fought in a war to defend blah.

Nader: Don't listen to them. They are in bed with EEEEEEVIL corporations who are trying to steal your children's college fund. They do this by fear-mongering. They will kill us all with unsafe cars if you don't elect me.

Re:This is getting old.

[TheFlyingGoat]

This is perhaps the most accurate and funny political post I've seen in a long time. I'm a conservative Republican and my office partner is a liberal Democrat and we both laughed outloud at it. Good job. :)

Re:This is getting old.

[Anonymous Coward]

Definetely mod parent up. I was sitting in the middle of a library when I read that, and I had such a hard time not laughing! Even my "I'm laughing, but trying not to" sounds drew attention from nearby library visitors.

Re:This is getting old.

[Yolegoman]

I'm about to die, that is so hilarious! :P

Re:This is getting old.

[scotch]

I'm a conservative Republican and my office partner is a liberal Democrat

That's funny, I'm a liberal Republican and my office partner is a conservative Democrat. Oh wait, there's only one person in this office.

Re:This is getting old.

[Thuktun]

Bush would preface that statement with, "Blah is very important to the American people."

Kerry would mention that he has a plan for blah, and that you should visit his website to see what it is.

Nader would go on at length about how the DNC is trying to get them ripped off as many state ballots as possible.

Re:Libertarian Vote?

[Rad Adam]

You could considering voting for a third party instead of adding to the foolishness of the two-party system. Although I suppose the idea is that there are only two people 'capable' of winning the election and if you are that anti-Bush, it may force you to just vote the opposite. (although.. you could vote for Badnarik, who is taking highly conservative voters' votes, thus taking away from Bush ^^)

Why was Micheal Badnarik (Libertarian Canidate)not a part of this Q&A?

Rad Adam -- http://badnarik.org/

Re:SlashDot = Democrats

[Punkrokkr]

Perhaps, but SlashDot Readers != 18-24 year olds. I resent that implication.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

What your father experienced is extremely wrong and unfortunate. It's really sad when representatives of the church act so horribly...and give good priests a bad name.

I can't and won't defend the priest who beat up your dad. I can't offer much of anything, actually, except the fact that those who act as such are a minority and that there are numerous wise, kind, and faithful priests. I happen to owe my sanity and spirituality to one.

Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[MobyDisk]

...The United States is one of the only nations in the world that executes juvenile offenders...
President George Bush Responds:
...Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed...

None of the candidate's seemed to answer this question. George Bush shed a little light on the subject (amazingly). If federal law prohibits this, then states cannot do it. Remember we fought a war over this? I will guess that federal law prohibits execution of juvenile's in federal cases, but makes no statement about states. If I am correct, then the only fair and reasonable reply to this question would be "Write your state governor, it's not a federal issue."

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[ickle_matt]

Bush comment on the Federal law appears to be trying to give the impression that he agrees that minors should not be executed. Shame his actions don't back that up.

Gary Graham was executed in Texas in June 2000, for a crime he committed when 17. Gov. Bush supported the execution.

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[Fnkmaster]

Bush's answer is misleading (surprise). Federal law only prohibits Federal courts from giving the death penalty to minor offenders. It doesn't prohibit the execution of minor offendors. As you said, if it did, it would apply to State courts as well, which it clearly doesn't since the practice goes on in several states.

This kind of answer mangling goes a bit beyond just trying to appeal to moderate young voters (which both Kerry and Bush are doing here, Nader doesn't give a shit since he's not running to win, so he says what he wants), it's genuinely misrepresentative of facts.

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and thank $deity that it only prohibits federal courts from handing down the death penalty to minors, otherwise we Virginia taxpayers would have to foot the bill for the (formerly juvenile) sniper Malvo's lifetime prison stay... and given what he did here in the DC area, I believe that I speak for the majority when I say "let him fry."

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[junebughunter]

I am thinking maybe they can execute those under 21 but not under 18...in which case he may not be contradicting himself...either way, if some 18 year old kid raped my sister I would kill him and if he was 16, I would cut his balls off...then kill him

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[SuiteSisterMary]

What he's saying is that if a minor is found guilty of a capital crime by a federal court, that court cannot execute him.

If, however, a minor is found guilty of a capital crime by a state court, then the laws of that state determine if he/she can be executed.

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[cr0sh]

I think if we are going to have a death penalty (federal or state), and we are going to have executions (federal or state), and those death penalties/executions can apply to minors - then minors need to have a say (voting or otherwise) in the election and/or governmental process. As it is, they have *no* say in regards to processes, laws, and who governs them - to be able to change things (whether that be for tougher legislations or less) in their favor.

Will we ever see this? I think there would have to be an age cutoff point, or maybe a representational system based on age (ie, 16-17 y/o representing the views of those younger than them, maybe by an electoral voting system or something) - for it to work properly (to filter out wierd things like "elmo for president"). Somehow I doubt it. We continue to see our kids as slaves and chattel that adults "own". We don't want to give them options, maybe out of fear that we might lose control (?) or something.

Or maybe we fear that they might do the right thing out of innocence - and show us supposed adults that we are truely idiots roaming the earth...?

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[pclminion]

I will guess that federal law prohibits execution of juvenile's in federal cases, but makes no statement about states. If I am correct, then the only fair and reasonable reply to this question would be "Write your state governor, it's not a federal issue."

I'm no supporter of Bush, but let's be fair here. He said: "Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed, and I see no reason to change that statue. The Supreme Court will soon consider whether the Constitution requires states to follow a similar rule."

What about that statement was unclear or misleading? Yes, it was buried in a bunch of "Message" verbiage. As adults, I think we're smart enough to parse out the actual important bits, right?

One might infer that, because he sees "no reason to change that statute," that he probably feels that execution of juvenile offenders is wrong. Of course, he avoided actually telling us his opinion, but that's a politician for you.

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of all the presidential responses to improving education by committing more money. About 5% of all educational spending comes from the federal government. It's a state and county issue. In fact, I would guess that county real-estate taxes pay the majority of educational expenses in most districts. If you have a problem with educational spending, complain to your schoolboard, not the president.

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[Guppy06]

"If federal law prohibits this, then states cannot do it."

You're forgetting what "federal" means. Members of a federation maintain a degree of autonomy, and because we are a federal republic and not a monolithic republic (like, say, France), just because the national government can't or won't do something doesn't mean the states have the same restrictions. The national government of the US can only act within the explicit bounds set forth in the national constitution, and that's it.

For example, there's the upcoming SCOTUS trial on California's "medical marijuana" law. California's argument in the case will be that, so long as the stuff doesn't cross state lines (and become "interstate commerce"), it falls wholly within state jurisdiction and there's nothing Congress can do about it.

About the only thing in the national constitution that might apply to this is the "cruel and unusual punishment" bit. Other than that, there is nothing in Article I that seems to suggest that Congress can keep the states from executing minors short of a constitutional amendment. Other than that, beyond abolishing the practice for federal suits, there is nothing either Congress or the White House can do about it, only the Supreme Court.

The correct answer, therefore, was "not my job," which is what he was saying in politic-speak.

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[MobyDisk]

I think you are completely wrong. I'm googling to find stats. I heard my state governor (Robert Ehrlich - Maryland) say that 50% of the state school budget comes from federal funding. According to ahis article, Mississippi gets $600 million out of their $800 million budget from the federal government. That's 75%.

This and this are comments by various Maryland state senators complaining that the federal government is only paying between 11% and 18% of the special education budget. That's not even close to a full picture, but it sounds like 5% is nowhere close.

I wish it were 5%. Then the federal government couldn't use school funding to punish states.

Re:Juvenile Executions - Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if we are going to have legalized abortion (federal or state), and we are going to have stem cell research (federal or state), and those abortions/researches can apply to unborn babies - then unborn babies need a say (voting or otherwise) in the election and/or governmental process. As it is, they have *no* say in regards to processes, laws, and who governs them - to be able to change things (whether that be for tougher legislations or less) in their favor.

Veribiage...

[StevenMaurer]

There must be some really frustrated speech writers working for President Bush. I threw the responses into a text editor, and came up with the following stats:
Bush:

• 7337 Words
• 16853 Characters w/o spaces

Kerry:

• 1401 Words
• 6732 Characters w/o spaces

The Kerry campaign used fewer Characters than the Bush campaign used words!

They also must not have their top people working on this - at least for the Bush campaign. I did a search for some of the words used in his responses here (like "quell"), and found that Bush himself never uses them in any of his accessable online speeches. That's not a mistake a seasoned campaign speech writer would make.

Re:Veribiage...

[Edax Rarem]

Good research...
I would mod you up if I had points.
Someone responded earler that Kerry kept his answers to the point, while the others droned on.
Even my atention was tested by W and Nader's windiness.

I seriously doubt that either of the big 2 (W and Kerry) wrote their responses. Well, maybe Kerry.

I would like to see more succint answers in the debate. I hate being taken off topic, or distracted all together. But I suppose that is the heart of politicking.

Good post!

Re:Veribiage...

[LadyLucky]

Not sure if that's accurate, because if it is, average word length is:

Bush: 2.3

Kerry: 4.8

Draw your own conclusions...

Re:Veribiage...

[Kombat]

Bush:

* 7337 Words

Wow, this really demonstrates that I've been reading too much Slashdot. I read this, and the first thing that came into my mind was, "'Leet words? What 'leet words was Bush using?" Then, I realized, you meant the actual number 7337.

Re:Veribiage...

[jrumney]

• 7337 Words
• 16853 Characters w/o spaces

I guess Bush really did write his own speech this time. That's an average word length of less than 2.3 letters!

Re:Veribiage...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except 1337 would be "leet". 7337 is...something else.

Re:Veribiage...

[Anonymous Coward]

you need a new word counting program, or a new letter counting program, you're statistics are completely wrong!

Re:Veribiage...

[ahdeoz]

Bush gave longer responses than Kerry, so what?

You've never once uttered the work 'accessable' -- or 'accessible' for that matter. And I'll bet you've never said 'seasoned' either. And I'll bet Bush has used 'quell' many times for that matter.

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[TellarHK]

"Charlatan", "Ponzi"

As to Kerry's responses on how to fund a lot of his ideas and promises, I think he's still working a lot of it out before he gives details. If he's smart, he'll be working it out well into his third year in office (as long as he starts from day one, and keeps working from there) which is the wisest thing to do.

I've noticed with a lot of politicians that the levels of response you get from them may all seem to be based on hiding something, but the motivation can be guessed at with a pretty high level of confidence.

Bush gives non-answers because he's trying to use jingoistic rah-rah America responses at every chance he gets so we don't see how he's fucked up the country's global standing (and domestic well-being) in his four year term.

Kerry gives non-answers because he's having a hard time conveying the clearest answers he -does- have through the Republican haze of accusations. That, and because in many cases he may not have an answer he's comfortable with. And what's wrong with that? It would be vastly better for those of us who understand that acknowledging that you don't -have- an answer to see him admit it, but the vast majority of people out there are being brainwashed by the Republican "Always solid, always decided, always right, always inflexible, always AMERICA!" media blitz that Kerry can't afford to show those weaknesses.

Nader on the other hand... He has nothing to lose, so he's just speaking his mind. I appreciate it, even though I just can't bring myself to agree with his views or the Libertarian party candidate's. Both want to go too far, neither would accept compromise.

Dear President Bush

[Letter]

Dear President Bush,

Are you wired?

Letter

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[kc8kgu]

You my friend, are the one in complete denial. Kerry basically said that if we balence the budget and stop dipping into the fund every time a righty feels an itch to cut taxes and then still has to spend 110% of the budget, that we wont have to worry so much about it. Bush's response, on the otherhand, made so much more sense - "I say we should let everyone opt out who wants to, and then were sure to have enough in the fund." My "special" cousin could find the faulty logic in that little theorum.

Sorry, Im just fed with right wing mega-spin. Its not your parties beliefs that amaze me, its their inability to defend them logically and then have the unwashed masses follow your leaders around like their the damn pied piper.

Announcement to the poverty stricken and lower middle class: THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES THEN GOD, GUNS, AND GAYS!!!

That is all.

[nt] And I thought Bush was the quiet one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ralph Nader and "corporatism"

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap. Ralph Nader has used the word Corporate or Corporatism more than Bush used Hardwork in the first debate.

oh please.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a great respect for people of all beliefs, and I am proud to live in a Nation that welcomes and respects people of diverse philosophies and backgrounds.

right. and then he refused to awknowlege wicca as a religion and called wiccans heathens. lovely. we told you the problems as we saw them. we don't need you to restate them. and that goes for all of the canidates.

How did you know I don't have children?

[Anonymous Coward]

First I'd tell her to keep her legs together and then direct her to the nearest planned parenthood. Then I'd tell her to go enroll in the local junior collge

Social Security question ducking

[TheSync]

I think Kerry really ducked the Social Security question. You can go from 16 workers per retiree to 3 and think the system is going to keep going. Unless you are ready to make the payroll taxes even higher (which hurts the economy) or reducing benefits (which hurts the retirees).

Re:Social Security question ducking

[Keeper]

He's saying the solution to the problem is to spend Social Security money on Social Security, and not other government projects.

There isn't any way that Social Security can "survive" by any of the methods proposed. All of the Republican proposals take more money out of the system. So they too would have to may payroll taxes higher or reduce benefits.

Both parties claim they will do neither. Practically speaking, I don't think either can reach that goal. However, as far as plans for dealing with the problem go, the plan to spend Social Security taxes paying Social Security benefits would seem to have a high chance of success than taking Social Security taxes and putting them somewhere else ...

Re:Social Security question ducking

[TheSync]

He's saying the solution to the problem is to spend Social Security money on Social Security, and not other government projects.

That won't solve the problem either for the long term. Social Security surplus ends in 2018, and even if all of the money from the "Trust Fund" were recovered, Social Security runs out of money in 2042.

There is at least $1 trillion already in the "Trust Fund," which means in the 2030's even if no more Social Security surplus is spent, the Federal Government will have to start moving money from the general fund to Social Security to pay off bonds. Which is basically the same as saying Social Security runs out of money.

Here is an alternative that moves to a half-private solution.

Re:Social Security question ducking

[Keeper]

Yup; I'm not saying that it's the best solution, but it definately works longer than diverting social security revenue to a different location leaving current benefits unfunded...

At least our education system works...

[zerojoker]

"The public education system in America is one of the most important foundations of our democracy. After all, it is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic society."

Do you know what is a marriage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage, for example, has been the foundation of our society and of societies and cultures throughout history -- and it has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman.

Are you sure, Mr Bush? You should know that, in some countries, a marriage can be defined as the union between a man and ONE OR MORE women. Sure this is the first time you read about it...

Re:Do you know what is a marriage?

[pjt33]

Surely polygamy is the state of being in multiple marriages: if it were one marriage between a man and multiple women that suggests that the death of one wife would cause the man to cease to be married to the others.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[meme_police]

So why does it matter what type of Christian Kerry is? If they didn't say what type of Christian Bush is then the question as stated is fine. If they had said "President Bush's Lutheran faith" then they should have said "John Kerry is a Catholic".

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Telastyn]

Actually, I do care.

The main differentiator between Catholics and Protestants [the rest] is the Pope. As an agnostic, I doubt that God will come down and order a Protestant President to throw me in jail. The Pope though could easily tell a Catholic President to throw my heathen ass in jail, causing the President a religious vs secular quandry.

Not that I think that Kerry or Kenedy before him would put the Pope above his duty, the distinction isn't trivial.

Fun with Google

[cmcguffin]

President George Bush Responds:

In little over a generation, we have witnessed the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500-year story of democracy. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy.

[...]


That sure looks familiar -- it's recycled from a year-old speech.

Not to mention a mostly-repeat answer from here.

And so on...

Way to go, word-processing speechwriter monkeys!

Re:Fun with Google

[crumley]

I liked that response as well. It definitely sounded recycled.

Also, by most reasonable measures it seems wrong. My personal feeling is that "freedom advanced" most from the last half of WWII on. Nazi and Japanese-controlled territories were freed. Though in the case of the Soviet Bloc countries and China the improvement wasn't great, for much of the rest of the world it was. In the years after this most of the European powers shed their colonies, which lead to a lot of instability, but eventually to more freedom in many places. In particular, the transformation of India to a democracy "advanced freedom" tremendously.

Depending on how you measure things, other time periods could be competitors as well. The time periods of The American Revolution, French Revolution, American Civil War, or British Civil Wars could all be argued, but I am not convinced that they rank as high as the other time periods mentioned.

Finally, the one event that could trump them all is if the Chinese suddenly became much more free. At this point, though, it looks more likely that they will slowly gain more freedom over a long period of time.

Re:Fun with Google

[Anonymous Coward]

That sure looks familiar -- it's recycled from a year-old speech. Not to mention a mostly-repeat answer from here. And so on... Way to go, word-processing speechwriter monkeys!

Uhhh, it's called a consistent position.

But, you wouldn't know that if you're a Kerry supporter.

(Score:-5,Conservative)

Re:Fun with Google

[BroncoInCalifornia]

Maybe that is why many of Bush's answers were long winded dodges of the questions. They were just stock campaign positions on issues somewhat related to the question.

Kerry dodged a few questions too. But he had some short concise answers -- and these short answers actually answered the question!

The shorter the answer, the more likely it answered the question.

Re:Fun with Google

[Mike Hawk]

It natural that a Kerry supporter would expect to hear a different answer each time the same question is asked.

Re:Fun with Google

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a Bush supporter, it's natural to expect interview answers to be talking points regurgitated verbatim, ghost written by Rove and his minions.

Re:Fun with Google

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called not having to think about the question. It's called bending every one of 1000 nuanced questions into a single black and white, well rehearsed answer.

This is Bushe's entire train of thought at all times...

What he hears: blah blah blah drugs blah blah blah

What he says: regurgitate drug speach, regurgitate drug speach...

Re:Fun with Google

[casuist99]

Certainly you have a point - the world does not consist of black and white issues, but Bush sometimes gives the impression he thinks it does. At the same time, you have to limit yourself somewhat. You don't need to understand 16million colored positions in a country that has a clustering of people around the light grey and another group of people clustered around the dark grey. I think Kerry does a better job of understanding the issues, and I think Bush does a better job of blindly recycling speeches.

Wrong drug question.

[Hatta]

I have a question about the Higher Education Act (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?
- Margaret, 20, of WI

The way this question is phrased begs the most important question of all. Should drug use be a crime? If I as a responsible adult, successful student and productive citizen choose to alter my own mind, why should I be persecuted? As it stands, I have more to fear from my own government than from terrorists, and they have the nerve to call this the "land of the free." A few kids being denied grant money is nothing in comparison to the millions of peaceful citizens who have lost their freedom in this evil War on Drug users.

Re:Wrong drug question.

[Anonymous Coward]

The way this question is phrased begs the most important question of all.

No, it raises the question. "Begging the question" is circular logic.

Re:Wrong drug question.

[ziggy_zero]

I too was really disappointed when I scrolled down to find that was the only question relating to the War on Drugs. Is everybody avoiding it just because they KNOW it's a complete waste of taxpayers' money? That more people are hurt than helped? That it is unquestionably a violation of our rights as human beings to our own bodies? The entire idea just boggles my mind.

Hopefully in 50 years my grandchildren will laugh when I tell them that yes, there was a time when you weren't allowed to put whatever you wanted into your own body! They probably won't believe me.

Re:Wrong drug question.

[Hatta]

I know what begging the question is. If you read the question I mentioned, it's not "raising the question" at all. It is taking for granted (begging) the question I mentioned. Begging the question is often circular logic, but not necessarily.

Re:Wrong drug question.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Begging the question" does not mean taking something for granted. It means taking something for granted in order to prove the "something". In other words, circular logic. So, no, you don't know what begging the question is.

Re:Wrong drug question.

[Hatta]

"begging the question" is a fallacy based on circular logic. But you can beg another question without begging the question that is being debated. It was in that sense that I used the term originally.

Re:A use of the term "debate" I was unfamiliar wit

[PK_ERTW]

In a debate, there should be some interaction between the parties . . . some followup response and rebuttal.

If you read the summary,
And that's not all: We're supposed to get candidates' rebuttals on or about October 17

Me thinks that the rebuttal is coming. This is about the only way to do it when you are responding in print.

pk

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[TellarHK]

Buh?

Let me parse. Mormon persecution? The Mormons aren't persecuted for anything other than dressing funny, bigamist extremists, and shitty piss-beer. If you're German, you should hate them yourself for what they did to beer alone! Utah, a Mormon-controlled state has specific laws regulating the alcohol content of beverages in the state.

Christianity is such a fragmented bunch, it's hard to lump them all together most of the time. Some are okay - like the Episcopalians and the "live and let live" philosophy - but there're the wacky bastards like the southern Baptists that still preach the "hellfire and brimstone" sermons about casting the "faggots into the eternal flames".

The people that hate Muslims hate the Muslim faith not because of their religion, it's because they're fucking idiots that hate anyone they can't understand. And a lot of these people can't understand things as simple as "A pickup truck is not the only means of transportation.".

I can't believe Kerry is supporting the drug war.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just about shit when I heard Edwards took off talking about how he was going to increase money on cops to bust meth users.
Fucking hell! I can't vote for these bastards any more.
I hate to do it, but they just lost me. I mean if that's how it's going to be, they're just as bad as Bush. I'll vote Nader. If Bush wins, well I'm not sure it matters to me if they're both pro drug war.

How come..

[kaarigar]

..George Bush communicates better in writing than in speech...?

Or in the style of "Whose line is it anyway?!" -

"It is certain that this is man is good at pushing his pen more than wagging his tongue, if you know what I mean!"

Re: Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I knew there would be a +5 reply of trolling in this discussion, I just didn't think it would be so early.

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[Belgand]

One of the greatest problems with SS is that is it a completely non-voluntary system that is, in theory at least, done for our benefit. While there are still problems with the system simply having an opt-out would be very satisfying for me. Personally I'd much rather handle my own investments rather than trust the government to do so for me. Even if I just stash the same amount of money under the bed I can be guaranteed to still have that exact amount in 40 years, ignoring the effects of inflation. With the government I don't even have that simple benefit: that I will get back at least the same amount of money I put in inflation adjusted or not.

Actually Nader speaks in essays.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've ever heard Nader speak you know this is exactly how he speaks.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Punkrokkr]

I beg to differ, Catholocism came around much much much later than when disciples of Christ were called Christians: "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26)

Don't blame me

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Kodos

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 Flamebait

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Which, since the pope doesn't even speak English (I don't know if he knows English, but it's not his native tongue), so we might ask what exactly he means by 'defects'

He speaks at least seven languages fluently (Polish, German, French, English, Spanish, Latin, Italian, and Portuguese) . He is one of the most intelligent people on this planet. Just wanted to clear that up.

The church in that statement is saying that some people's churches practices have defects, not the people themselves. Sort of like how America's justice system has defects, but that doesn't make each American 'defective'.

Drudge Report

[stecoop]

Drudge Report is running an article about Tennessee Democrats Compare Republicans To Special Olympians.

Insurance...

[cybrthng]

Insurance is a social system no matter how you think about it - your paying in the hopes you will never have to use it - In the event you do, you want it to be there to get you through.

Now my question is, why is it a bipartisan issue with the seperation being a welfare system or privatized system when in actuality its already very much a privatized welfare system spiralling out of control?

What is the fear of getting government involvement? If anything C.H.I.P is a perfect example of something working better than many fully private programs. Heck even Charity hospitals are doing better than privatized institutions.

I just want healthcare. I want my payments to the system to be affordable and reliable for when i need coverage. I don't want to have to exclude coverage, add secondary coverage, mix & match with my wifes plans and all the BS i need to do today..

whats the scare of a forced re-orginization of a failing instituion?

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Ignignot]

I hung out with some Christian Fundamentalists for awhile, and one of the funniest things I heard one of them say was "I think some Catholics are Christians too."

To which I responded, "I bet they would agree with you."

Ultimately though, Catholics are much more liberal on issues of spirituality than most Protestants. The only issue that they come down on the conservative side is abortion. And that's just a huge clusterfuck, so I can't entirely blame them.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yet the Catechism is still based on a certain interpretation of Scripture."

True...however, scripture (the new testament, anyway) wasn't written until well after the early christians practiced their faith. Scripture was compiled by the early church as a teaching tool -- thus they chose books and other bits that they felt were true to the original teachings of Christ. From that perspective, their interpretation of the bible should hold a great amount of authority. In the end, though, it's not the be-all-end-all definitive Religion In A Nutshell book.

In the end, though, you'd be right. It's about our relationship with God and with humanity.

Gay "marriage"

[DarkSarin]

I will most likely get flamed for this one, but here's an instance where I disagree with all of the candidates (although I support Bush).

In my mind, the concept of marriage is a religious issue, and should be handled on that level. The state should have nothing to say on the issue. Nader, who typically maintains the concept of separation of church and state, failed on this one too.

Gay "marriage" does not exist in my mind--I oppose it. But I see it as a religious/moral question that should be adjudicated by the church to which the individuals belong. If they do not belong to any church, then they do not need to worry about it.

The separate concept, a civil union, is a contractual issue. There have typically been benefits of such a union given by the state (such as tax breaks), but there is no real basis for such a situation, if both members of the union are working members of society. There have also been traditional benefits of these unions in the workplace, such as healthcare.

It is my opinion, that a civil union should only carry those benefits which make sense--such as healthcare, or possibly a tax break if only one member of the union works (and is therefore dependent on the other for their wellbeing)[1].

Therefore, a civil union should be allowed between any two adults that deem it desirable, regardless of sexual orientation (if two straight men wanted to enter into such a union, that would be fine with me). However, there would no longer be any benefit from the government for doing so. I doubt, under my conceptualization, that there would be many individuals who are willing to enter into this union. Also, under this plan, the only way that an adult would be allowed to consider another adult a dependent (other than a child with psychotic[2] mental impairment), would be via a civil union, and proving that they are responsible for more than 50% of the individuals support.

Marriage, would be a separate issue, and not necessarily require a civil union. It would be a "legal" contract, but not in the sense that it is now. As I see it, if two men or two women wanted a marriage, and could find an established religion willing to perform the ceremony, there should be no bar to that.

This flies in the face of what many in my church believe, and what most staunch conservatives think. This is, however, an issue that most do not get. Why should the government have any say in who is allowed to be civilly joined? Only if that government is providing some benefit to those individuals. Remove the benefit, I say, and the reason for the government to be concerned with it at all.

As a final note, Nader has it wrong to. The answer is NOT "legalize gay marriage", but to move government out of the realm of marriage altogether. Also note that we are not the only country with this problem. What the rest of the world does with this situation should be interesting.

1-That said, I favor repeal of all income taxes, and the move to some form of federal sales tax.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[gregoryb]

> but to move government out of the realm of marriage

Ever considered the Libertarian Party? :)

That phrase, "move government out of the realm of ", needs to be used so much more often than it is! It's too bad, IMO, the answers to problems these days always seem to be more government intervention, regulation, and laws.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Nader supports the equal rights of gay Americans. Civil Unions, in the government's eye, only grants a fraction of the over 300 rights you gain when you get married. Nader supports gay marrage, in the government's eye, so that gay couples can recieve the same benifits as a straight couple.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[stanmann]

Why limit civil Unions to only two adults.. IMO civil unions should be permitted to any 2 or more adults in any combination for inheritance or child raising purposes.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[DarkSarin]

I don't know about all that, but this is a situation where you begin to move from civil union to "family incorporated". Maybe not a bad idea. I'd have to think about it.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Eccles]

It is my opinion, that a civil union should only carry those benefits which make sense--such as healthcare, or possibly a tax break if only one member of the union works (and is therefore dependent on the other for their wellbeing)[1].

I'd say the key issue is the legal recognition of the partner as one's next-of-kin, with all that entails, including parental rights over offspring. That's not really a "benefit" the gov't is providing, since it doesn't cost others anything.

Also, the tax situation for married couples isn't necessarily a benefit. For example, for years I had a job with no retirement program, but I couldn't start an IRA because my wife had a retirement program.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[stanmann]

Read Robert Heinlein --- The moon is a harsh mistress, Friday, and others.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Dixie_Flatline]

If you look at this at a very base economic level, it makes a great deal of sense. 3 adults are considerably more capable of raising children than 2. Two incomes and one full-time stay at home parent is an obvious win. The adage 'it takes a village to raise a child' still holds true, but 'the village' doesn't seem to want to do it anymore. Better that we can form our own villages for the benefit of the children.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Dixie_Flatline]

I agree with basically everything you've said here. The government has no real business in marriage or sex, as long as all the adult parties involved are conscenting.

Marriage didn't used to entertwine state and church so much. The marriage 'contract' that went to the state used to be signed on the Church steps, because that wasn't a union being recognized by God. The state's business stayed OUTSIDE the church.

In the end, 'marriage' has become a loaded term. I think all anyone wants is legal 'civil unions', but the right to call them 'marriage'.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[stanmann]

Here is what I wrote yesterday on the subject, slightly more drawn out.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Kombat]

I favor repeal of all income taxes, and the move to some form of federal sales tax.

Come to Canada! We have both federal income tax, and a federal sales tax! Actually, we have both at the provincial level too, so we pay provincial and federal income taxes, and provincial and federal sales taxes. Ain't it great!

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Secrity]

Most US states have both income tax and sales tax. The US Fed has what amounts to a sales tax, but only on certain items; such as cigarettes, liquor, telecommunications, air travel, etc.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[dxnxax]

If marriage is a religious covenant, and you believe in separation of state and religion, then marriage should neither be recognized nor accorded special status under the law.

But that is not the case. Married couples are give extra rights and privileges under both state and federal law. Therefore, it cannot be said that marriage is a strictly religious covenant (IE, marriage also exists as a legal institution). Which means that there is no basis for denying the same rights to gay and lesbian couples.

BTW. Get over it. If allowing gay couples to marry somehow demeans your own marriage, then your marriage sucks in the first place.

Dan

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Anonymous Coward]

I found your compromise on gay marraige interesting. My concept of marraige consists entirely on it's status as a civil contract. I have the right to be near my wife in the hospital, we can make certain decisions for each other, etc. Marraige is no longer a sacred institution, nor is it the form of slavery that it once was. It has changed in significance and meaning. With this in mind, why does anyone even care who is getting married? There are still many people who believe that blacks and whites should not be married. It used to be illegal in many places.

As for a federal sales tax, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!!! This is the most regressive form of taxation I have ever heard of. Do you have any idea what that would do to poor families? Would the purchase of stock, bonds, investment in mutual funds be taxed? Think about a multi-millionaire on vacation, as long as they leave the us they pay no taxes. That is really going to encourage people with money to spend it in the US. Now think about the middle-class, maybe a couple times in their lives will they take a foreign vacation, but every year they will take a domestic vacation. You then have those least able to supporting the government which only appears to cater to the uber-wealthy.

I urge everyone to read "take back your government" by Robert Heinlein. Then contrast his world to ours.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[SteveSgt]

Bingo! From Green perspective, I agree that marraige should be strictly a function of religion, without any involvement by the state one way or another.

Civil Unions, Domestic Incorporations, or any of the other proposed systems for incorportating people into a government-recognized family unit should have few bars to entry. Indeed, a reform based on the Domestic Incorporation proposal could even help simplify adoption laws.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[spoonyfork]

Let me first say that I respect your opinion and your faith. However, I completely disagree with your comments. My marriage has nothing to do with your religion and your religion has nothing to do with my marriage. My marriage is between my spouse, me, and God.

There are, as you have pointed out, some social aspects to marriage. These aspects fall into the realm of law, not religion. One of the more important ones has to do with legal rights of the partner. Imagine for a second that God forbid you get into a car accident, your spouse is injured. At the hospital the staff deny you the right to make legal life-altering decisions or even visit with your spouse. Imagine how you would feel if someone said "but all you had to do was go to a lawyer and get a document for a living will, power of attorney, etc." and carry it around with you EVERY DAY for the rest of your life? I can imagine your rage. You see, the government does need to be involved to protect their rights -- and your rights. But that's not why I'm writing.

Also note that we are not the only country with this problem. What the rest of the world does with this situation should be interesting.

Civil unions (marriage or whatever you want to call it) for homosexual couples already exist in multiple countries recognized by their governments for the purpose of enforcing the same rights afforded to heterosexual marriages. Here's a partial list:

Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, several Canadian provinces, and the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Several other countries are drafting legislation to recognize same-sex marriages. I do not think they see this as a problem but as a solution.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Anonymous Coward]

I support gay marriage, but you're just not going to win any sympathy with that type of argument.

The goverment needs to extend marriage benefits to everyone or no one. However, if you think mommy goverment is going to force all those evil Christians to recognize that a gay union is the same as a straight union, it just isn't going to happen, and you're the one who needs to get over it. If, by some miracle, the government did declare such a thing, religious groups will just make up another name for their version of marriage and you're back to square one. Deal.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[rthille]

A federal sales tax (consumption tax) can be made non-regressive by granting a rebate of a given amount to everyone. So, if I buy nothing at all all year, I get (say) $10k from the govt. and I'm up $10k. But if I spend 2mil, get taxed 10% and give 200k to the govt, I still get 10k back.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[stanmann]

A federal sales tax would also be reasonable and aproved under the constitution as part of "regulating interstate commerce". I like the idea.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Peyna]

Currently marriage is entirely up to the states to decide how to handle it. George W. Bush wants the federal government to step in and tell the states how to deal with their citizens in this regard. Anti-federalism at its best.

You propose the opposite, which is still taking away rights from the states: remove any government power to say who can and can't be married.

Perhaps the best solution, but one the government might not like, is if we remove any benefit to the government of marriage, while keeping in place any benefit to those married (legal benefits, not monetary).

The main argument for the government encouraging marriage at all (and thus providing the benefits it does) is that it is overall beneficial to society, families, and children for people to be in such a relationship. People see gay marriage as an antithesis to that goal of marriage, because they feel they do not support traditional family values or proper raising of children.

I think I had a point somewhere, but I forgot where I was going with this.

(where did your second footnote go to?)

Re:Gay "marriage"

[sahonen]

Here's what I've always had to say on this topic. I personally disagree with nontraditional (i.e. gay, polygamous, etc) marriage, but I realize there are many people who don't. Fine with me, it's a free country. However, if you are going to destory the idea of traditional marriage as we know it, please explain to me why you only stop at allowing people of the same gender to marry. If I can marry a guy, why can't I marry, for example, my sister, or a few of my coworkers. By taking an institution that is so specifically defined and watering it down, you are now opening it up to further change.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[damiam]

My marriage has nothing to do with your religion and your religion has nothing to do with my marriage. My marriage is between my spouse, me, and God.

It seems to me that you agree with the parent. Your marriage is between you, your spouse, and God, not you, your spouse, and the government. Marriage is a spiritual contract and should be handled by your church (or other spiritual leader), not the government. The government should concern itself only with the legal aspects of a relationship, such as taxation and visitation rights.

Imagine how you would feel if someone said "but all you had to do was go to a lawyer and get a document for a living will, power of attorney, etc." and carry it around with you EVERY DAY for the rest of your life?

What does that have to do with anything? The rights that a married person currently has would be covered by the civil unions the parent proposed.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[zophim]

It may sound like a simple solution, and I agree with you for the most part, but I would have to point out that society would not accept something just because a judge interprets the constition one way. Just because something SHOULD be one way doesn't mean it should, if you know what I mean. It's the same with drugs. Sure people should be able to do what they want with their own body (and they can, if they move to canada or amsterdam or something) but it has "spillover costs" associated with it, and it affects the rest of society. For gay marriage, the spillover costs are vague, but it mostly goes down to the family unit, which is well defined, and is a vital part of our bureaucracy. I wont go into any more detail than that, but I agree that the federal government should recognize civil unions, but the state should decide whether gays should fall under civil unions or marriage. I also think federal adoption laws should be reformed to specify when a kid can legally be adopted by a gay couple, if they have strong family ties to one of the partners, or if the kid has been floating around without a steady home for a number of years. Infants should not be adopted by gay couples under any circumstances. A straight couple makes a much healthier family unit and there are plenty of couples waiting in line to adopt a baby. If the government had no say in who could get married, it might as well not exist at all.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[smcavoy]

In Canada they are working towards full nation wide gay marriage, as several provinces and even one territory's supreme courts have found that banning them is against our charter of rights and freedoms. They are specifically ensuring that religious institutions will be protected from being forced into performing gay marriages (if they are not already protected). As Canada is a secular state, arguments that religion beliefs should somehow trump personal freedom cannot work, I would think the same would go for any secular state (i.e. the u.s.)

Re:Gay "marriage"

[MCZapf]

Another tax return to fill out? No thanks.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[nexus987]

"In my mind, the concept of marriage is a religious issue" Great, then YOUR church can refuse to perform gay marriages. Uh, what about all of us athiest that were married in civil ceremonies (to people of the opposite gender)? "Marriage, would be a separate issue, and not necessarily require a civil union. It would be a "legal" contract" Bzzt, sorry, wrong answer. Since we have separation of church and state, we would have to revoke all the current laws that affect married people too. Under your proposal, being "married" would mean nothing under the law - only in YOUR church would it have meaning. Which is fine. Don't impose your religion on the rest of us, please. I don't think you've really thought out the consequences and implications of your proposals...

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Anonymous Coward]

repeal of all income taxes, and the move to some form of federal sales tax

Why on earth would you want to pay an even larger share of taxes? Unless you're a millionaire... then I could see it... But if you're an average joe, like most of us all it does is shift the tax burden down to the middle class. Again.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Shajenko42]

There are, as you have pointed out, some social aspects to marriage. These aspects fall into the realm of law, not religion. One of the more important ones has to do with legal rights of the partner. Imagine for a second that God forbid you get into a car accident, your spouse is injured. At the hospital the staff deny you the right to make legal life-altering decisions or even visit with your spouse. Imagine how you would feel if someone said "but all you had to do was go to a lawyer and get a document for a living will, power of attorney, etc." and carry it around with you EVERY DAY for the rest of your life?

Here's what I wanna know: if the person at the hospital tells the doctors "I'm her husband", do they ask for any sort of proof, or do they just take your word for it? Can you just point to the ring on your finger and get them to assume that the two of you are married to each other?

Re:Gay "marriage"

[808140]

I support negroes voting, but you're just not going to win any sympathy with that type of argument.

The government needs to extend voting benefits to everyone or no one. However, if you think mommy government is going to force all those evil whities to recognize that negroes have the same sufferage rights as godfearing white people, it just isn't going to happen, and you're the one who needs to get over it. If, by some miracle, the government did declare such a thing, American Whites will just make up a new, exclusive way to vote, and you're back to square one. Deal.

(Am I the only one that thinks the parent's retort was completely stupid? New name for their version of marriage? What?)

Re:Gay "marriage"

[danharan]

What idea of traditional marriage? This is an institution that has been changing for a long time. Our parents no longer arrange marriages to create alliances between families. This isn't just about social welfare or ensuring paternity.

So what's marriage about today? Romance? That's pretty much failed miserably, don't you think? Gays aren't destroying marriage as we know it: heteros that can't make them last are.

In fact, the people that are most vocal about wanting marriage, our best hope for rebuilding this long-ailing institution... are gays and lesbians.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[Creepy Crawler]

I perfectly understand what he's saying, and I agree with it too.

Currently, we acknologe "religous marriages" as a special type of governmental license with many special benefits. States seem to have that right, as it is not stated as a federal power (but that has not stopped them). YOu end up with the State/Federal saying who can get "married" and who cannot.

Instead, "Marriage" is a religous institution. A civil union (union without marriage) is the special type of contract, based in law. A civil union is just a contract with one sex defined for each space.

The point of contention is that Marriage and Civil unions be seperated, and civil unions be moved fully to the domain of contract law. Any church can "marry", as long as you have that legal binding contract. That would mean that a male/female, male/male, or female/female, or 3 or more can enter into a contract.

As usual, "civil unions" to non-sentient beings (dogs, cats, fish..), mentally retarded as defined by court or psychiatrist, or others not being able to legally bind themselves into a contract, cannot do so.

The most logical solution with regards to state and federal law pertaining to marriage is that those rules/regulations be dissolved. There should be no discernable benefit for "grouping together".

Re:Gay "marriage"

[DarkSarin]

Allow me to reiterate my position:
I do not support the concept of gay marriage. I think it is wrong. I also think that marriage is a religious question. It is a moral construct as well as a social contract. If you take the concept of allowing people to worship how, where or what they may, (or even if they wish), then you must accept that some people are going to honestly believe that gay marriage is right and good.

I disagree with them, and will teach my children the same principles that I hold--that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman.

That said, I am pushing for the elevation of marriage to purely religious status (and yes, I do see it as an elevation), and reserving the status of civil union for non-religious social contracts. This civil union would not carry governmental benefits (for the most part), and neither would marriage. The government should not give incentives for such things. As I see it, with the civil union, there would be no reason to restrict it along the traditional lines.

I personally wish that this was not an issue. I don't like having to deal with these types of things. They are messy in that they can cause very good people to lose their rationality and say some very stupid things.

However, I do think that people do need to be allowed to follow their convictions. I also believe that I have a right to speak out about my own. No one has to listen to me, and I don't have to listen to them, but we all have the right to speak.

In the system I envision, if two men or women decide that they want to marry, and can find a minister willing to do so, who truly holds that as a conviction, then how can I say that it is not a truly held belief--even as much as my belief that it is wrong? I cannot make that claim. I hold, very dearly, the belief that people should have freedom to live according to the dictates of their conscience. How can I say that those who wish to join themselves to another of the same sex are not doing that? I don't believe it, but I can't credibly make that claim.

I am not entirely tied to this idea, but I think it a reasonable compromise. Codifying same-sex marriage into or out of the law just seems like a poor plan.

As far as other types of "non-traditional" marriage, you mention polygamy. I have some very bad news for you--polygamy is a very time-honored tradition. It has been practiced in most cultures at some point--Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and many others, have all accepted polygamy at some point (and before you get all uppity about Christianity, remember that Abraham and David are both hailed as great prophets, and were both polygamist--how is something that was accepted by Abraham so patently wrong?). This doesn't make it right for us in our day, but remember that there are times when it makes sense for a culture (one in which there are many more females than males, and there is a need to increase the population growth--survival is usually the best reason).

I am simply saying that while I don't like the concept, it is a religious question best settled by the churches of our land, not by the courts or congress. Marriage, in my mind, is a sacred institution that should be handled by those who lay claim to the sacred--the churches. The legal side of it should be small (and for the sake of avoiding messy legal issues, the civil union would need to be kept; it would help resolve issues of child custody, for instance), and largely irrelevant. If a legitimate religion wants to allow such a thing, then that is their business. But I will not have the government support this, nor do I think they should prohibit this. It is all a matter of religion. Leave government out of it.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[AEton]

A straight couple makes a much healthier family unit and there are plenty of couples waiting in line to adopt a baby. Proof?

Re:Gay "marriage"

[rthille]

No, no federal tax return at all. You buy stuff, the seller charges you the consumption tax. Each year/month/quarter/whatever you get a check from the government for being alive/of voting age/whatever. Not regressive, not complicated. Whether it's 'affordable' (revenue neutral), or 'fair' is another question.
I'm not sure I'm in favor of it, but when people say it's regressive, I like to point out ways around that.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[zophim]

I am not going to go looking for statistics on the wait time to adopt a newborn baby, but I know there is a long wait.

As for a straight couple making a healthier family, I am sticking to a sociological perspective in my previous post, and rather than getting into morals, I'll just say that a kid who is raised in a gay family will be disadvantaged socially. His two dads or whatever will not be able to participate in activities that require a mother. He/she may be ostracized by peers. They wouldn't get a double sided femenine/masculine upbringing, and it would most likely encourage non-conformity by the child, which some would argue is a good thing but I disagree with that. There are probably other sociological factors but those are the ones that come to mind.

So what I am saying is that the small minority of gay people want to radically alter the fabric of american society, and I don't think that change will ever take root. I think if its left up to states to decide the gay marriage issue, the change will be much easier for everybody. Gay communities will form and these sociological repercussions will be less severe or completely non-existant. That is the point I am making.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[miltimj]

Wow, you really have no idea what a federal sales tax is all about. Right now, the multi-millionaire on vacation doesn't pay taxes because s/he's not earning income. With a sales tax (which includes services), they would be paying taxes.

As far as what it does to poor families... ummm, how about not having to pay any taxes?!? There would be a rebate given to everyone below the poverty line which would effectively have them not pay any taxes.

In conclusion, in order to pull your head out of your ass, see the FairTax website. :-)

Re:Gay "marriage"

[J. T. MacLeod]

Right now, the multi-millionaire on vacation doesn't pay taxes because s/he's not earning income. With a sales tax (which includes services), they would be paying taxes.

Of course they're not paying taxes again. They already paid it when they earned it!

Yes, there are a lot of loopholes that ought to be closed. Yes, I support switching from income tax to sales tax. I think it would be more fair in tremendous ways, including for ensuring vacationing rich people pay their share.

But suggesting that a rich person vacationing one year and therefor not paying taxes is an example of wrongdoing is... incorrect. They're not paying any less relative to their income.

Re:Gay "marriage"

[stanmann]

There should be a tax benefit for those who choose to provide for children in the context of a "family" whatever the context of that family.

OF course this would require simplifying the tax code to allow for more than 2 "primary" wage earners and "heads of household".

Re:Gay "marriage"

[AEton]

As for a straight couple making a healthier family, I am sticking to a sociological perspective in my previous post

Can you cite some definitive, controlled, and large-sample sociological study which has adequately investigated this issue? I'm curious - even the dissenters in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health acknowledged they had no solid evidence heterosexual couples provided the "optimal" setting for child rearing.

Suppose your wife dies in a horrific accident and you don't remarry. Should you be allowed to keep raising your three-month-old child, or should it be taken as a ward of the state and given to a deserving, loving heterosexual couple?
Little Timmy's parents are killed in a horrific plane crash. His only living relative, his grandmother, raises him. Should she give him up to adoption by a "normal" heterosexual couple?
What if Tiny Tim's only relative, his grandmother, lives with her wife?
What if a girl leaves her abusive husband and takes the child? Should she keep it?
A transsexual marries his high school sweetheart. For medical reasons they can't conceive children themselves. Should they be allowed to adopt one, or to serve as foster parents?

They wouldn't get a double sided femenine/masculine upbringing

Pat is a self-confessed 'tomboy'; she was raised in a family of six boys, and she has mild Asperger's syndrome. She marries the very manly man Dan, and they enjoy the same activities; practically the only 'female' thing Pat does is sleep with her husband, and even then she's into kinky S&M stuff. Are Pat and Dan communicating an appropriate "feminine/masculine" image?
Dan has had a change of heart and decides to be fashionable; now he's a "metrosexual". This isn't in the masculinity book! Should he lose his children?

a kid who is raised in a gay family will be disadvantaged socially. His two dads or whatever will not be able to participate in activities that require a mother. He/she may be ostracized by peers.

So - children of gay parents are in a bad place because nobody likes children of gay parents. Isn't that a little sweeping of a generalization to make about the entire world? (country?) How is a gay family in notoriously homosexual-friendly Provincetown, Massachusetts disadvantaged? Is this more pronounced than the severe lack of cultivation one gains by living on an Amish farm? By living a life confined exclusively to the inner city of Detroit? By being raised in Hawaii as a haole in an unfriendly community?

it would most likely encourage non-conformity by the child, which some would argue is a good thing but I disagree with that.

Should children develop as individuals?
Frequently conservative Christians (some of them; not all!) assert that their orthodox Christianity is 'under assault' in our society. Suppose that this is the case. Then children raised with Bible-belt values in strongly "atheistic" areas may have trouble communicating their upbringing and, worse, may find that they and their parents are excluded from the religiophobic community on the basis of their being "them crazy religious freaks". (This happens, according to some said "crazy religious freaks"; they assert it's the reason revival meetings and the like are necessary.) Never mind how mean and intolerant these atheists are being; suppose that it happens. (Remember the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit?) The child will want to conform with the expectations all around them, but a child -can't- abandon those most basic, axiomatic built-in parts of himself, such as "Jesus Christ is my personal savior and I must help save others." So two parents of the same strong religious faith should not be allowed to raise a child (it

Re:Gay "marriage"

[zophim]

Ok, here we go...

Can you cite some definitive, controlled, and large-sample sociological study which has adequately investigated this issue? I'm curious - even the dissenters in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health acknowledged they had no solid evidence heterosexual couples provided the "optimal" setting for child rearing.

I won't site specific studies, but I know there have been studies that show that children who grow up without a mother or a father, or who have to adjust to a new mother/father have more problems than kids raised in a functional family unit. Before you throw this out, go do a google search if you need proof, I'm not trying to convince you one way or another. Note that I never said gay couples should never be able to adopt a kid. I agree that if a man and a woman divorce, having two mothers might better than one, but not in all cases. The same goes for a child who has to adjust to a new mother/father after his/her parents divorce. Now, back to my original post, the point was not to make a moral objection (even if I may have them), I was only pointing out that people assume that they can change society to accept gay marriages. Just because something is made legal does not mean it will be accepted. I specifically stated that a child who's closest living relative, who may be gay, may be a better choice than a random heterosexual couple, although the fact that they are gay aught to weigh against them in an all-other-things-equal situation with another relative.

Pat is a self-confessed 'tomboy'; she was raised in a family of six boys, and she has mild Asperger's syndrome. She marries the very manly man Dan, and they enjoy the same activities; practically the only 'female' thing Pat does is sleep with her husband, and even then she's into kinky S&M stuff. Are Pat and Dan communicating an appropriate "feminine/masculine" image? Dan has had a change of heart and decides to be fashionable; now he's a "metrosexual". This isn't in the masculinity book! Should he lose his children?

Being a tomboy is one thing. Getting into domination and sexual torture and sharing that with your kids is obviously a no-no. Going back to the sociological repercussions, the kid will undoubtedly express the unusual norms his parents have created in a school setting, or other public setting. Studies show that children who are breast fed have less problems than children fed through a bottle, with or without formula. Should you bring in a third member to breast feed the child? Is that a cohesive family unit? A man and a woman can act however they want, the thing is if a kid is not getting an appropriate role model, he may be conflicted between his heterosexual instincts, and the femenine/masculine roles his/her two dads/mothers are portraying. You describe these hypotheticals, but you don't concede that there are any problems at all with it. From what I can tell, the gay marriage movement is more centered on the rights of gay couples, not the well being of children.

So - children of gay parents are in a bad place because nobody likes children of gay parents. Isn't that a little sweeping of a generalization to make about the entire world?

That is almost what I'm saying. I wouldn't use the word "like" in that sentence. I wouldn't want my children (if I am ever to have any) hanging around with gay children for the same reason I don't want them hanging around with kids who do drugs. What they consider to be normal, I don't, and I have a right to protect my children from drugs, nudity, whatever. This is why gay marriage will never take. It is similar to legalizing public nudity. Some people think they have the right to walk around naked. Now, back to my original post, if it is left up to the states, you would have communities like you mentioned where gay couples could seek acceptance where it otherwise wouldn't exist. Also, I am not making a generalization abou

For the most part...

[unixbugs]

...the most experienced of these political hacks makes good use of smoke and mirrors with the words theyve used. Bush definetly seems to blaitantly IGNORE the fact that these questions are asked to be answered. At least Nader and Kerry seem to have the balls to take some of the questions on. Bush is up to the same old political shit that my parents taught me to watch for and laugh at when I was young. He says A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING, and thats exactly the future I picture with him in office.

I asked my questions....too bad they didn't answer

[PackMan97]

*sigh*

Dear 2004: A reverse time-capsule

[Accord MT]

John Q. American
October 15, 2008

To the Dear citizens of USA,

I am writing to you from the future, with the hope that by describing the world as it is today, it will help you understand the important decision you must make in a few weeks, and how that decision will affect the world for years to come.

The world of 2008 is very different from your own.

There is no longer a middle class as it existed in 2004. The privileged have completed the liberation of the rest of the world's population, leaving seven billion happy worker-consumers and a few scattered terrorists. After the election of 2004, the then heavily Republican US Congress moved swiftly to deregulate all parts of the US economy, instantly prompting the largest string of corporate mergers in history. Within days, a single global corporation emerged which today controls all aspects of the world's economy. The governments of the world that were able to react fast enough took up whatever positions of power they could within WorldCo(R). What else can a government do in the face of a giant mega corporation that now is the sole owner and distributor of practically every resource on the planet? Now, anyone who labors, labors for WorldCo(R). Anyone who consumes, consumes from WorldCo(R). It is the ultimate distributor of wealth, efficiently funneling vast riches to its privileged Shareholders, which coincidentally enough now include every patriotic US congressman and the entire Bush Administration.

The War in Iraq, which I remember was one of the most important "issues" during the 2004 election, is utterly ridiculous in comparison to the global war we fight today. The "WTC Terrorists Of Iraq 2001" have spread around the world, attacking WorldCo(R) guerilla-style wherever they can. Financed and sponsored by WorldCo(R)'s massive weapons industry-arm, Our Troops(TM) fight these terrorists wherever they are found and distribute WorldCo(R)'s many Freedom(TM) brand products to the newly liberated lands.

Of course WorldCo(R) Media is also present on the battlefield to report on the number of terrorists killed. Gone are the many confusing and conflicting opinions present on the television and Internet of 2004. Although you are now in the middle of your 2004 candidate debates, the idea of a "political debate" is unthinkable in 2008, and borders on Treason. It is unpatriotic to criticize your leaders. As a proud American, I am united behind President Bush and WorldCo(R)'s unwavering War Against Terror.

Apart from the terrorists, crime in general is at an all-time low, thanks to Zero Tolerance Zero Privacy policies, and aggressive imprisonment and property seizure. I feel so much safer today than I did in 2004, especially since I believe in WorldCo(R) and their Support Our Troops(TM) program.

Border crossing of any kind is considered something only terrorists do, not to mention non-consumptive, so international travel and dealings with "foreigners" are basically unheard of today.

The War on Unemployment is long gone. Unemployment has been at 0% for the past thirty months, and shows no sign of returning. According to Policy, anyone who leaves the employ of WorldCo(R) is immediately imprisoned, and thus returns (at a lower pay grade, of course) to work. The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty were both similarly successful.

As you can see, we live in a utopia, thanks to President Bush. It is hard to imagine that in 2004, there were people who opposed him. I am writing this, hoping that it will reach you before they do. I hope it will keep you strong and determined to make the right decision in November. America is counting on you. WorldCo(R) is counting on you.

John Q. American
October 15, 2008

A solution

[hopemafia]

Why not just pay the teens not to have sex? It would probably be cheaper in the long run...

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on who you ask. Your list there doesn't even cover the whole Nicene Creed, and thus wouldn't be enough to qualify for being Catholic (and many other flavors).

horse shit

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, I have to bitch. the responses from Bush and Kerry are so canned as to be pointless and useless. Bush is not a fucking prophet, so stop acting like one. The majority of the world is not christian and most of the world does not believe in the holy christian crusade.

the arrogance of Bush is truly horrifying. Can't I have a different republican candidate to vote for. One that really is conservative and for the common person. Not corporations and his buddies.

I get the feeling both candidates are just as spoiled as each other and do not really understand the common person working their ass off to make ends meet.

As a non-American

[phorm]

(FYI I'm Canadian).

I knew a bit about Kerry, and of course GWB, but I'm actually quite impressed with the interview and Nader's responses. I didn't know a lot about Nader prior to this, but while some of his dodges are a bit dissapointing, and some of his answers I don't agree with, I'm rather happy overall with the way he responded.

Bush's answers were as expected... not likely coming from Bush, avoidist, and for most it's "sidestep issue... but we're planning on doing this wonderful blah blah and we've already blah blah," some of Kerry's answers also go this direction (not as much as Bush) and a few of Nader's.


My main thoughts, however, are that written questions aren't much use as one never knows if you're getting the candidate, his secretary, and/or a canned answer. It seems obvious that Bush didn't write his answers... so wouldn't the best way of doing this be to get all three in seperate conferences, ask them the pre-written questions, and see the live squirming response? Of course, this would never happen, but it's the best way to get a real answer

Re:As a non-American

[Anonymous Coward]

so wouldn't the best way of doing this be to get all three in seperate conferences, ask them the pre-written questions, and see the live squirming response? Of course, this would never happen, but it's the best way to get a real answer

This is the funniest thing I've read all week. You do know that almost every single person who has access to a TV in America will watch a debate tonight where this is exactly what happens. There have already been two debates this year. There are such debates every election year. A moderator asks questions that the candidates are not allowed to know in advance, and they get to respond to them upfront.

You, Sir, are one of the most politically ignorant people on the planet. (See, I've from Europe myself, and everyone over here watches the debates as well...)

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[brandona788]

I'm more of a believer in each person making up their own mind. I know that the majority of people don't want to make up their minds and like to be told what to do, but they need to read the Bible and make up their minds on what they believe. That is one good thing about denominations, common beliefs and interpretation. But I draw the line at "there's only one way to interpret and thats *my* way." A lot of denominations do this and it drives me nuts!

Why can't people just make up their own minds and agree to disagree on the non-important things (can you lose your salvation, what makes someone "saved"......etc)

Re:A use of the term "debate" I was unfamiliar wit

[Anonymous Coward]

Rebuttals are coming the 17th, as it says in the main post. Read and reflect before responding.

Obviously the questions and answers were not delivered in realtime, so there's going to be a bit of a delay before the rebuttals. Admittedly not the most ideal format for a debate, because most youth will probably not come back to read the rebuttals. They're too young to realize those are the best part.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[shockbeton]

Catholics are Christians. Any faith that believes in Jesus Christ is Christian.

Perhaps...

[paranode]

They had their hands full getting arrested in an act of civil disobedience protesting their exclusion from the presidential debates.

Re:Perhaps...

[numark]

It wasn't an act of civil disobedience. They weren't protesting anything. They were instead trying to serve papers (an Order to Show Cause). However, many states won't allow papers to be served by someone who's a party in the case. When Badnarik, et al, were asked to leave private property and didn't, they were arrested for trespassing. They had no right to be there in the first place, so I don't see how you can call it civil disobedience.

Re:Perhaps...

[Vintermann]

"They had no right to be there in the first place, so I don't see how you can call it civil disobedience."

Fits both Thoreau and Gandhi's definitions of civil disobedience.

Re:Perhaps...

[Minna Kirai]

When Badnarik, et al, were asked to leave private property and didn't, they were arrested for trespassing. They had no right to be there in the first place, so I don't see how you can call it civil disobedience.

If a black woman sits down at a restaurant under a "No Coloureds" sign, is that civil disobedience?

Or is she just trespassing on private property, where she has no right to be in the first place?

Re:Perhaps...

[numark]

In my mind, it boils down to intent. The black woman in your example is not primarily trying to create an artificial media event, she is trying to take control of her rights as a human being. Badnarik has no such defense in my mind. He was there, it seems, solely to create a media event by creating an uproar , using a court order that he knew full well he shouldn't be serving by himself. He had no intention of actually attempting to enter the debate, he merely wanted to be on TV showing his perceived injustice regarding the debate system. So, in summary, the black woman is performing the act with the intent of actually maintaining her rights, whereas Badnarik intended solely to create a media event, without actually attempting to participate directly in the event at hand.

Re:Perhaps...

[Minna Kirai]

The black woman in your example is not primarily trying to create an artificial media event, she is trying to take control of her rights as a human being.

You still have no idea what civil disobedience is.

"Articifical media events" are exactly the point!

So, in summary, the black woman is performing the act with the intent of actually maintaining her rights,

No. She's not "maintaining" anything, because she doesn't have those rights yet. But she wants them, and thinks she deserves them, and believes that making a scene in public will help.

whereas Badnarik intended solely to create a media event, without actually attempting to participate directly in the event at hand.

He thinks it would be right for him to participate in the debates. He wants that right, thinks he deserves it, and believes that making a scene in public will help.

Seriously, you know that all the major civil disobeidence from the 20th century civil rights movement was pre-planned media events, and not spontaneous outpourings, right?

Re:Perhaps...

[numark]

No. She's not "maintaining" anything, because she doesn't have those rights yet. But she wants them, and thinks she deserves them, and believes that making a scene in public will help.

This was more of a semantics problem, one that I realized shortly after submitting the comment. What I meant was more along the lines of the fact that the woman was trying to take control of the rights that she (and I) knows she deserves, but that aren't being accorded to her by the restaurant owner and society.

I also don't draw a parallel between the civil rights movement and Badnarik's position. The civil rights events were much more important to American society and rights than Badnarik's participation in debates. Ask most people, and they'll say that the right of African Americans to live free of institutionalized discrimination is a far greater issue than whether a Libertarian candidate can debate using private funding and locations.

In closing, I will say that I can agree to disagree on these points. Politics in general can get people riled up, and in many ways it's one of the most illogical human systems devised (on all sides of the issue).

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[renderhead]

It's pretty convenient that you can read the candidates minds. What I wouldn't give to be able to tell, when they behave the same way, that their motivations are different. For example: neither candidate will give clear answers to policy questions. How fortunate that you know that Kerry has a good reason for it while Bush is just being a sneaky bastard.

Oh wait! No you don't. You just ascribe positive motivations to the candidate you agree with and negative motivations to the candidate that you disagree with.

factual

[zpok]

"President George Bush Responds:
We are fortunate in America to have the best health care system in the world ..."

mwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaah

Go ahead, believe him. Oh, and Holland is the capital of Belgium, the statue of liberty was made by mr. Liberty, a Godfearing American Quaker.

Re:factual

[huge colin]

Notice that he didn't say that America has the best health care coverage in the world. It may indeed be true that the quality of the health care itself (i.e., the skill of those practicing medicine, the available technology, etc.) is second-to-none.

--Colin

Re:factual

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you lived in the states, and then lived in a country with nationalized health care? I have, as I trade time living in Canada and the US, and due to my wifes medical condition, we frequent health care establishments (doctors, hospitals, etc.) Go to an emergency room and then tell me which has a better health care system. After waiting 8 hours to see a doctor who has sub par, antiquated equipment to examine you, you might change your mind. The US system may be for profit, but if I had a choice, I'd far prefer to get sick in the US.

Even my wife, born and raised to adulthood in Canada, admits she is much happier and more comfortable when we're living in the states.

Re:factual

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I find the Skill levels statement as being in doubt as well.

My example: Ralph Shoemaker, Brother of World champion Michael in Formula 1, Slammed himself into a wall at the US Grand Prix and was taken unconcious to a hospital where they could not determine he had broken vertebrae. He gets sent back to Germany and on arrival sees a doctor due to numbness and pain and is determined to have several broken vertebrae and displaced cartilage. The determination was made at a normal public hospital before his specialist saw him.

I'm not even a doctor and I would suspect that a Hospital in the US should have been able in the case of a High velocity impact injury to at least closely investigate for possible fractures of the spine. If that was the pinacle of medical attention given to a famous multi multi millionaire I suspect your average client/patient gets worse attention.

Re:factual

[Anonymous Coward]

We are fortunate in America to have the best health care system in the world.

This is interesting: Canadian and American health care systems compared

Re:factual

[Anonymous Coward]

I use both regularly, and the Canadian one is much better. The worst time to be worrying about money is when you're sick.

Re:factual

[zpok]

Something to consider: America and Canada are not the rest of the world.

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[Rallion]

It wasn't a non-response, it was a short and direct one. Or did you not notice that the longest responses (By both Kerry and Bush, not so much Nader) tended to more completely fail to answer the posed question, and were filled with padding to hide that fact?

YouthDebate's politics.slashdot.org blurb

[dereklam]

SLASHDOT knows what issues are important to young Americans because more young Americans are on their open-post Web boards discussing those issues than anywhere else in the world. Yes, they're tech-focused, self-proclaimed Nerds - a community that most likely boasts the highest mean IQ of any online - but it's their politics-related discussions that hold seven of their Hall of Fame's 10-most-active-stories spots. PS: Slashdot was also nice enough to invent reader-generated interviews and reader-moderated discussions. It's what's enabled them to provide our only question nominations from an entire community.

Save time, Bush Summarized Here

[Culture]

Bush provided me with summarized answers for those who do not like to read (for some reason he was very sympathetic):

1) Should we have the death penalty for perps under age 18.

If I talk a lot, you might not notice I did not answer the questions.

2) What are you doing to ensure young people today will get social

security?

You should pay for your retirement, your Grandparents retirement and

your parents retirement. No one should help pay for yours.

3) What are you doing to improve our reputation around the world?

If I talk a lot, you might not notice I did not answer the questions.

4) Do you support a draft?

No.

5) Election reform.

If I talk a lot, you might not notice I did not answer the questions.

6) Do you support preventing college finacial aid for people with drug

convictions?

No.

7) What will you do to solve the energy crisis?

Supports tax subsidies to farmers.

8) Sex education.

Just say no.

9) Civil rights for gays.

I hate gay people. They are living in sin.

10) Health Insurance.

You need to read my full-length answer.

11) Is it ok to change your opinion?

No ... I mean yes ... I mean, I do not want to think about this.

12) Tolerance of others.

I love (agape) everyone as long as you are a heterosexual Christian.

Re:Save time, Bush Summarized Here

[bnenning]

You should pay for your retirement, your Grandparents retirement and your parents retirement. No one should help pay for yours.

And that's pretty much the only honest answer there is. Current and near retirees have been promised SS benefits and they've planned accordingly, so we pretty much have to keep paying them. But the system is a pyramid scheme that can only be sustained by ever-increasing taxes, so it's a choice of our generation getting screwed, or future generations getting even more screwed.

Re:Save time, Bush Summarized Here

[Culture]

I have to disagree. Just because our parents and grandparents decided to borrow a lot of money in our name does not mean we should have to pay it back. Just because they decided to not worry about retirement by assuming we would pay for it does not make us responsible. Let them suffer the consequences. yes, I know there is a social contract, but they broke it, not us. It was obvious to me 15 years ago (when I was 25) that I would never get SS, why didn't they figure it out?

Re:Save time, Bush Summarized Here

[yourmom16]

No the generation that voted in SS should be the one to get screwed.

Re:Save time, Bush Summarized Here

[marshmeli]

I agree... I only have one grandparent left and my parents do not need their SS since my dad has a very good 401K and pension...

I want to be exempt from paying SS....

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

If protestants didn't believe there was something deficient in the Catholic church, why aren't they Catholics?

Actually a fair few who considered the isue ultimatly didn't, possibly most notably notably john henry newman

The problem is that an awful lot of christians, protestant, eastern orthodox and catholic alike, do not study the history and evolution of their churches, and critise the other churches from a series of percieved wrongs that no longer exist or make sense, if more christians were to study their history then the efforts for Christian re-unification might find greater success.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[strictfoo]

He speaks eight languages (the eight that you listed) fluently, although one would guess his mastery of all eight might have slipped in recent years due to his age.

The church in that statement is saying that some people's churches practices have defects, not the people themselves. Sort of like how America's justice system has defects, but that doesn't make each American 'defective'.

He is also one of the first popes to apologize for previous actions of the Catholic church (especially during WWII) although his terminology was limited due to that whole "infalibility" they're still unfortunately clinging on to (this coming from a Roman Catholic).

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that Jesus Christ was born due to sexual relations outside of wedlock. Am I still a Christian?

A more honest answer

[roystgnr]

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?

I believe that I can safely ignore this question, because most of the public is too stupid or ignorant to realize I'm doing so, just as long as I still say something with words like "voting" and "reform". I believe that my opponent will do the exact same thing, and so we can both laugh at the fact that any candidates who would try to fix the flaws US voting system have no chance of winning because of those flaws.

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[TellarHK]

Bush has pretty well demonstrated his "sneaky bastardness" to the world for the last three years. Kerry hasn't done anything to demonstrate anything even remotely similar.

Sure, I'm -guessing- at Kerry's intentions behind his responses. I've actually been listening to him when he speaks and can generally get the feeling I understand the concept of "subtext", or reading between the lines. Could I be wrong? Sure. It does all boil down to a gut feeling, and my gut tells me he's a sincere - if frequently taken out of context - guy.

And it tells me that Bush is a lying sack of shit that hasn't accomplished anything other than uniting the Democrats against him, and the world against us.

Question #5

[Antony-Kyre]

I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't include the other two third party candidates, Badnarik and Cobb.

I wish I could have seen the debate on t.v. (Oct 6th I believe), but I missed most of it (it was being reran like on the 11th), and watched something else. I think it involved four parties, neither of them the top two.

By the way, my opinion on electoral reform, something like this. Do it the way they have it in Maine and Nebraska, the winner of each Congressional District gets the vote, and as for the other two votes, they go to the state popular vote winner. But I say don't allow someone to win by plurality in this case. Use Instant Runoff Voting by Congress District, and by the state.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[MBraynard]

The better standard is this: "Christian" is a self-designated label. If you decide you are one and claim to be one, then you are one. You may not have thought Christ divine, you may not belong to any organized Church, you may have different ideas than other Christians and think Mohammed is a real prophet - but if you 'claim' to be a Christian, you are one. There is no central authority. Just like Republicans who support Kerry or Democrats who are pro-life.

Catholics, on the otherhand, are part of a centrally defined organization and you must meet certain criterea established by a third party to rightfully claim to be one. Same for Mormons and possibly Southern Baptists. They have a central PERSON ON THIS EARTH who is recognized as a leader who sets the guidelines and can point to you and say "you are a Catholic" and "You are not!"

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

No, orthodontists are all Mormon.

Sleep better at night

[liquidsin]

It's comforting to know that Kerry only supports the death penalty when the defendant is a *terrorist*. So then senator, I guess the next question would be "name specific crimes under U.S. law that qualify as terrorism". I've heard authors of computer viruses referred to as terrorists, but rapists and corporate plunderers seem exempt from the label. Maybe if we can get Kenneth Lay branded in the media as a terrorist for doing so much financial damage to the U.S. then we can get to see more of that famous Kerry "flip-flopping".

Re:Sleep better at night

[FriedTurkey]

Flip-flopping???

Do you even know what that means? What you said has nothing to do with flip-flopping? I think the right is so programmed a typical conversation is played out in the Fox News watcher like this:

Liberal: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Conservative: Kerry is a flip-flopper!!

Liberal: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Conservative: Kerry is a flip-flopper!!

The right needs to get some more talking points. It is getting old.

Re:A use of the term "debate" I was unfamiliar wit

[bprime]

From TFP:

"And that's not all: We're supposed to get candidates' rebuttals on or about October 17, so don't touch that dial!"

I think you just touched the dial.

Bullshit

[Culture]

Marriage, for example, has been the foundation of our society and of societies and cultures throughout history -- and it has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman.

Re:Bullshit

[nberardi]

Hell it even pre-dates recorded history as a union between a man and a woman. You can't trace it back to any single point, it was most likely pegan in origin that developed in many different civilizations pre-history. You can come to this conclusion because every religion in the world has a cermony for and nobody can find a reference to when the first time was that a man commited to a woman.

Re:Bullshit

[The Bungi]

The concept of marriage has, in our societies and cultures, always been that. Married arab men were "permitted" to keep young male lovers, the Greeks didn't have a problem with that either and homosexual relations have always existed (and encouraged and recognized, for example in militarized societies like Sparta and Macedonia).

The western concept of the civil legal contract called "marriage" has always been between a man and a woman. That it has always been from the judeo-christian standpoint (which predates the civil one) as well.

So when you say "bullshit" you must be referring to something else, I hope.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hell it even pre-dates recorded history as a union between a man and a woman. You can't trace it back to any single point, it was most likely pegan in origin that developed in many different civilizations pre-history. You can come to this conclusion because every religion in the world has a cermony for and nobody can find a reference to when the first time was that a man commited to a woman."

said the guy on another thread of the parent post. which is really true if you think about it, doves take a mate for life, so do many animals. it's natures way of propogating the species. it may not be the best way genetically, but it insures the bringing up of the young one, which is a long time, 20% of a humans life, and continues the species.

Re:Bullshit

[Culture]

Yeah, my post sucked wrt clarity (I am studying at the feet of Bush).

What I am referring to is that while monogamous relationships between one man and one woman have probably been the most common model historically speaking, multiple wives is a very common historical model. Is Bush going to support this?

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

So because all of humanity for thousands of years have been hateful and predjudiced of a minority, that serves as the REASON that it MUST continue?!?!?

Not to mention that I would like to know why the hell we still need to be continuously propigating our own species into a deadly overpopluation problem.

Voluntary non-propigation arangements between people should be ENCOURAGED not DIScouraged.

To be fair...

[JiffyPop]

originally he was going to answer the question.

Just a couple points that struck me

[Epi-man]

Here are two things that really raised my ire:

Question poised:
or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security and use that extra income to invest myself for my retirement, most likely in a Roth IRA.

Ralph Nader responds:
If the system is privatized, this tranquility will be replaced by anxiety, as we worry about whether we will be winners or losers in the system's roller-coaster ride on Wall Street.

What a load of crap! Where does the question say you have to then invest in the stock market? Sure he says it would most likely be a Roth IRA, but is that a bond fund? Is it an fixed annuity fund? Nader automatically assumes everyone will jump into the stock market and risk it all on a stock or two. Has he not heard of diversification? Does he not review the historic performance of the stock market and realize that it is unmatched? As long as you are diversified and in it for the long term (and we are talking about over 30 years here), there is zero evidence that you will lose or be outgained by any other investment strategy (simply pull up 15 year DJIA charts for any period, even include the last 15 years, and you will see fine returns).

Question:
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 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?

Kerry's answer:
First of all, my health care will expand health insurance to every child in America. I also believe that we must help out small businesses lower the cost of health insurance and my plan will do that by having the federal government pick up the cost of the most expensive health care costs and allow small businesses access to the same health care that members of Congress give themselves. My plan will cut health care costs by up to $1,000, making coverage more available and affordable for your family.

How does his plan cut the cost of coverage??? It doesn't, instead it spreads the cost out to everyone else, while introducing more government inefficiencies (and don't try and tell me the government does anything efficiently). That isn't cutting the cost, that is tranferring the cost.

I could never follow any of Bush's responses through to get my ire up, he wondered around so much dodging the questions....

Re:Just a couple points that struck me

[tenco]

How does his plan cut the cost of coverage???

As you wrote, by spreading out the cost to a larger group of people. This will cut the costs for families with low income.

That isn't cutting the cost, that is tranferring the cost.

That's called solidarity.

Re:Just a couple points that struck me

[Leperflesh]

As long as you are diversified and in it for the long term (and we are talking about over 30 years here), there is zero evidence that you will lose or be outgained by any other investment strategy (simply pull up 15 year DJIA charts for any period, even include the last 15 years, and you will see fine returns).

Generally I agree with your assessment of Nader's response. However:

you have to recognize that a retirement account must be liquidated, to some degree, at retirment. In other words, there may be a set year at which a given person needs to begin withdrawing cash from their retirement. As we saw in 2000-2001, if your invested-account happens to, say, lose 50% of its value in the last year, because, say, the stock market plunges, or bond funds shrivel, or a given 'safe' mutual fund fails, you are really screwed. Many people have private retirement accounts, and we heard lots of stories of newly-destitute retirees, and 65-year-olds who were having to put off retirement for a few years, because of the downturn.

That's why social security is there for everyone, regardless of their income or wealth. That's why it's important to have some safety-net that is NOT locked to ANY public (risky) investment. It would be one thing if the proposal were to allow people to invest some portion of their social security in, say, US Treasury Bonds, which are at least as secure as actual currency.

Now, that doesn't mean I am completely against the idea anyway. Something must be done to rescue social security. But I think despite its alarmist tone and inaccuracy, Nader's argument has some merit.

-Lep

Re:Just a couple points that struck me

[upsidedown_duck]

Sure he says it would most likely be a Roth IRA, but is that a bond fund? Is it an fixed annuity fund?

Dillema: whether to advocate a privatized system to people educated in public schools with little or no financial curriculum. Fact: most people do not understand the risks and rewards inherent in investing, regardless whether in bonds, stocks, or a bank's crappy 2% IRA. Fact: most financial advice from magazines and professional advisors is so vague that people pretty much have to make their decisions completely on their own, anyway, and most people don't have enough of a grasp of the financial markets to really make the right choice. Aggressive growth? Stable value fund? Bonds in a bull market? The growth one sounds nice...oops, but the graph looked so high earlier!

The government can offer privatized accounts, but there will be so much political pressure for government insurance and guarantees, that those accounts will pretty much turn right back into Social Security but with more paperwork and tax rules. People just don't want the risk. If they really wanted the risk, they would probably already have learned about the markets and be investing actively.

two issues...

[TamMan2000]

1. John Kerry's association with Jane Fonda was extremely limited in scope. So much so as to be inconsequential.

2. Bush is responsible for more wrongful deaths than Fonda.

Nader dodged some of them too

[Hortensia Patel]

Specifically #11. The question clearly asked for a change of opinion on an issue of national importance. Hot dogs do not qualify.

there is a "Disciples of Christ" church

[Anonymous Coward]

"Disciple of Christ" is a separate church
like catholics, baptists, methodists, etc.

http://www.disciples.org/

Kerry is not a magic solution

[Bull999999]

Disclaimer: I'm not a Bush supporter, infact, in my past posts and journal, I even stated that I may end up voing for Kerry as lesser of two evils (Nader is too extreme for me).

However, I do not believe that Kerry is a solution to all our problems as many of the slashdotters believe and below are my reasons.

Patent reform: While I can't picture Bush doing anything about it, I highly doubt that Kerry will either as both Kerry and Edwards are lawyers, not to mention that lawyers are their biggest contributors. They don't have any incentives for patent reform as far as I can see, not to mention that non of the candidates mentioned about it during the debates.

Medical Cost: While Kerry's wish to make medical care affordable to every one's commendable, I have the following issues with him. When Bush confronted Kerry about malpractice suit issues during the debate, Kerry just replied "That is someone we need to take a look at". And just like the patent reform issue above, it may be hard for him to come up with the malpractice suit reform due to his interests. As for the lowering drug costs by allowing imports from Canada, do you honest believe that Canada will let Americans buy up all its supplies and leave their own citizens high and dry?

Not to mention that 2/3 of American adults are overweight and obesity causes host of other problems, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol level, and sleep apnea, which further drives up the medical costs.

Government deficit: I do believe that Bush's tax plan will increase the government deficit unless there's enough growth to cover it. But Kerry's plan will also increase the government deficit unless there's enough growth to cover it as well. Kerry's camp stated that rolling back the tax cut for the rich will increase the tax revenue by 800 billion dollars over 10 years. Bush stated during the debate that Kerry's plan will cost 2.2 trillion dollars, which Kerry did not dispute (please let me know if you have unbiased figure of Kerry's plan cost). That does not seem to be a balanced budget to me.

RIAA/MPAA issues: TV/Movies/Music industry historically donated more to the Democrats than the Republicans, so I don't see a reason why Kerry will deal with them differently than Bush did.

Re:SlashDot = Democrats

[TCQuad]

SlashDot Readers != 18-24 year olds. I resent that implication.

We're just saying you look good for your age, that's all.

The War on Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

The War on Drugs is perhaps the biggest issue facing our society today. We spend almost as much as that as we have spent recently in the war in Iraq, but this drug war spending has gone on decades, increasing every year. We're certainly not getting a good return in this spending; drugs are as available as ever, and the more they clamp down on the borders, the more drugs (cannabis and meth) are produced domesticly. The other cost to the war is a total reshaping of our justice system. Despite what both Kerry and Bush talked about in their comments on the death penalty, we do not really have trial by jury anymore. 95% of people who are convicted are convicted based on a plea, not a jury of their peers. This is a result of the need to convict and imprison millions of people every year for this War on Drugs. The War on Drugs has also lead to greater militarization and secrecy in our law enforcement than ever before. This war has also lead to an increase in property crimes as addicts must steal to support their addictions.

I'm very very disappointed that the candidates declined to answer any direct questions about the War on Drugs. They answered one question about drug convictions and student aid, but the real question that needs to be asked is: "Is the War on Drugs benefiting us? How do we evaluate its costs and effectiveness? Is it worth it?" And no one dares to answer those questions.

Whoops... my bad

[halivar]

Nader's not the Green Party candidate this year.

I hear egg-in-the-face is fabulous haut-coutre (sp?) this year, and I'm a trend-setter. Never-the-less, my comment on the Libertarian (sp?) candidate stands.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[AoT]

What's the difference between the Pope telling them to do it and God directly telling them to do it? That's essentially the difference between Catholic and Protestant.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[PriceIke]

Muslims believe in Christ too. That doesn't make them Christian. They just think that, in addition to Jesus, there was another man who showed up on earth a few hundred years later and changed it all around again.

I believe in Jesus of Nazareth too, in fact. I just don't believe he was a miracle worker or any kind of anthropomorphized deity.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[shockbeton]

I think so. Bush. Question #8 "We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs..." Gee. Mary practiced abstinance, and look what happened to her.

You didn't read all of them again...Bush's Spellin

[Anonymous Coward]

Question #12 Someone forgot to spellcheck #12...

"the decisions I make as a leader are sbased on these principles and not my personal faith."

"sbased" has now been added to the Dictionary as "Because Bush said so!"
(after all he doesn't make mistakes ;)

Where was Badnarik?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, he's the only one whose answers would have been truly different than those three genetic defectives.

Wow

[Kallahar]

Wow, these are really excellent questions. Why aren't the mainstream media asking them?

My Plans

[Art_XIV]

From Senator Kerry:

I have a plan to free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil.

I have a plan to expand the all-volunteer active duty Army by 40,000 soldiers...

I have a plan to win the peace in Iraq, and bring our troops home.

My plan will cut health care costs by up to $1,000...

Oh yeah? Well I have a plan to cut health care costs by up to $10,000!

I have a plan to raise two hundred packets of Amazing Sea Monkeys and train them to hunt down and destroy terrorists!

I also have a plan to to have colonies on the Moon by 2006, another plan to create a virus that will wipe out all mean and/or rude people in the world, and another plan to ensure that all Americans have a right to live to be two hundred years old while simultaneously dropping the retirement age to 38.

Good plans... Solid plans...

Re:My Plans

[stinerman]

Very insightful.

Most people forget that Kerry will have to convince a Republican congress to implement his plans. Almost none of his plans can be carried out by executive order.

Re:My Plans

[Thurn und Taxis]

You're absolutely right. The Kerry/Edwards campaign really ought to explain their plan in detail somewhere....

Re:My Plans

[Zed2K]

The problem is that I shouldn't have to go hunting to their website to d/l a pdf file. He is running for President! He should be telling everyone how he intends to implement his "plans". But he never does. He just says he's got a plan for this and a plan for that.

Re:My Plans

[stanmann]

And if you want to know what it is, it's hidden somewhere on my website, but it's simple and easy to explain, but I won't do it here Oh and go to my website.

Re:My Plans

[Art_XIV]

You're absolutely right. The Kerry/Edwards campaign really ought to explain their plan in detail somewhere...

Touche!. As we all know, written plans, and especially those that are freely available in pdf form, are always legitimate and present accurate representations of the way events will occur. I have seen the light and I will now vote for Kerry!

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Charvak]

Surely you jest. (By catholic you mean roman catholic). I am not a christian but I have heard that syrian catholic were before roman catholic.

Re:NADER IS ON SICK ANTI JEW

[Anonymous Coward]

Nader has done plenty since "Unsafe at any speed." He helped get seatbelts and airbags in cars, pushed renewable energy, helped countless people and communities fight against corporations that were trying to kick them out of their houses or polute their water and air with waste. Nader has been a citizen. Kerry has taken advantage of a serious social/political movement to gain fame and Bush is rich. Which one actually cares about the US? The one who spends all of his time helping fellow citizens or the one that takes advantage of situations for personal gain?

Were Bush & Kerry invited?

[Anonymous Coward]

If not, lets have them both arrested for showing up to the debate.

Turnabout is fair play.

listen fuckface

[putch]

1) apparently you've never heard of an analogy

2) so is it honest to ignore, or at least pretend to ignore, overwhelming evidence that is contrary to your position just to save face? does blind faith earn your trust? even MS admits mistakes and releases patches, although often too late.

3)tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. hopefully enough people don't have any doubt in dubya's case foolishness

Re:listen fuckface

[putch]

thank you, i guess.

Wake up liberal sheep...

[Anonymous Coward]

All you puppies who follow the liberal media or Hollywood morons need to really research the info and get a clue. There's a reason the younger crowd tends to vote differently -- they are less informed.

It's more than one man or the other that we are voting for. I want to hear what thier Administrations would come up with after rigorous consideration.

For Kerry, it's easy to point and say you did this and that wrong. But what has he done? All those years in the Senate and his influence is nothing without his wealth. He more so than Bush has lined his pockets.

And do we really want a lawyer and a First Lady with two last names again in the Whitehouse. :-)

Time to mature on this one kids. The outcome could drastically weaken the U.S. in many ways.

The kids are alright...

[uqbar]

I don't see that age has anything to do with it. Kerry has been practicing dumbing down his answers for everyone, not just youths. Even complex topics are not to be afforded a nuanced answer.

But IMHO youths today are more sophisticated than in past generations. Chalk it up to the internet, or to living in truly strange times, but I think there are far more kids today who are able to tackle complex issues in a thoughful fashion.

Re:The kids are alright...

[Goonie]

Kerry has been practicing dumbing down his answers for everyone, not just youths. Even complex topics are not to be afforded a nuanced answer.

There's a good reason for that. The great mass of undecided voters are simply incapable of appreciating nuanced answers.

I'll give an example from our own recent national elections. Most Australians are on variable-rate mortgages - if general interest rates go up, their home loan repayments go up. That makes home loan interest rates a big political issue. In the recent Australian elections, the incumbent conservatives ran on the claim that interest rates would be lower if they were retained. This was rubbish, but to explain why it's rubbish is devilishly difficult to do in a campaign TV commercial to a bunch of economic illiterates.

The conservatives not only won, they won more seats than they held last time. Apparently, analysis of the area-by-area vote shows that their increased vote came almost exclusively from one-income families with big mortgages...who are about to cop it in the neck when interest rates do inevitably rise in the next couple of years.

Re:The kids are alright...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the recent Australian elections, the incumbent conservatives ran on the claim that interest rates would be lower if they were retained. This was rubbish,...
Yes, it was just coincidence that the rose drastically (around 15%) under the last 5 Labor governments.

Let me guess, you are calling the Australia voting population idiots right? Maybe we should have a dictator so that we don't have to deal with idiots voting?

Re:The kids are alright...

[Goonie]

Yes, it was just coincidence that the rose drastically (around 15%) under the last 5 Labor governments.

Let me guess, you don't remember what the interest rate was under Fraser, do you? Go and look it up. Then look up the history of interest rates over the whole of the Hawke-Keating era, not just the peak. Then look at *real* interest rates - rates after inflation. Oh, and then look at graphs of Australian interest rates versus global rates. The reason why absolute rates are low here now is because they are low everywhere, and inflation was brought under control by Keating (mainly through those high interest rates in the early 1990's, as well as the Accord keeping wage increases down). Then go and look at housing affordability, which is worse now than at any other time mainly due to the Reserve Bank leaving rates too low, incredibly irresponsible tax policies encouraging housing overinvestment over more productive investment, and the stupid bloody first home owners grant - all this has achieved is an enormous property bubble that has left people in a far worse position than Labor ever did if the economy tanks, which it will soon. As well as unemployment and inflation, a lot of people are going to be left with negative equity in their overgeared homes. Ever heard of negative equity? Let's just say it's left a lot of "aspirationals" sore and sorry for themselves during recessions in the past few decades. Oh, and go and do a bit of reading on a body called the Reserve Bank, and how *it* controls interest rates since reforms Labor did, not the government.

And, no, the Australian voting population are not idiots. They have voted on their self interest with the information readily available to them. They are just horribly ill-informed, and it's going to bite them (and by the sound of it you) in the arse.

More on the Environment!

[Izaak]

Once again (like in the second debate), Kerry passed up a huge opportunity to expose Bush's horrible record on the environment. Good grief, just do a google search on the keywords President Bush Environment. The only results that have anything positive to say are the Bush campaign web site and whitehouse.gov. He has rolled back water and air quality standards, gutted the the EPA and placed former industry lobbyists in key positions, and allowed loggin in the national wilderness preserve.

Last night I was talking to a friend who spent years working with the Sierra Club to create the national wilderness preserve. Over the course of several years, they accumulated an uprecedented number of signatures and small private citizen donations (primarily through knocking on doors), to create the wilderness preserve. It was an amazing example of grass roots activism done in the name of public good.

Bush wiped it out in his first two weeks in office.

in re: Flamebait mod

[mefus]

Hey, I was just speculating on motive. Come on.

It was otherwise a mistake to allow me and everyone else speculate as to why he would refuse to state a position, and considering the alternative, that "he's not answering because he doesn't consider himself answerable to the likes of us", I would enjoy responding to someone with an interpretation more favorable to Bush.

Re:in re: Flamebait mod

[Anonymous Coward]

'by Bush's own admission'

Doesn't sound like speculation, sounds like you're presenting it as stated fact. Please, next time, (a) make a better argument or (b) find a quote or source to back yourself up (though I doubt one exists in this case)

Re:in re: Flamebait mod

[mefus]

Doesn't sound like speculation, sounds like you're presenting it as stated fact.

um.

Jack Brubaker of the Lancaster New Era got a modest scoop from on high. Our President had requested a meeting with an Amish woman who knitted him a quilt, and the result was an impromptu Amish get-together:

"Bush had never met an Amish person before, and he was clearly smitten with the group. He chatted with the women, and he tried on one of the men's straw hats. When he asked for their vote in November, one man told him that while not all members of the Amish church vote, the group would pray for him. According to one witness, the president teared up. Bush closed the session by reportedly testifying to having a very close relationship to God. 'I trust God speaks through me,' he said. 'Without that, I couldn't do my job.'"

and

The Israeli paper Ha'aretz reported last year that the President said to then-Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, " God told me to strike Al Qaeda and I struck, and then he instructed me to strike Saddam, which I did."

and

According to Paul Harris of the British Observer, "Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'"

I got those with just a short visit to the HNN. You could probably do better if you wanted.

death penalty only for ??terrorists??

[GodWasAnAlien]

Please, Senator Kerry, clarify this answer.
The answer that you gave is ambiguous, to say the least.
Mr. Bush and others have reinvented the word terrorist to mean many things and nothing.

What was your answer to the death penalty before Bush was in office?

Either give an unambiguous definition of "terrorist" or please explain what acts should be punished with the death penalty.

The moderators in the debates, should preface every question with "Without using the words terror, terrorist, or terrorism, please answer the following ..."

Re:death penalty only for ??terrorists??

[jdunlevy]

... and can "terrorists" be minors, and -- if so -- is it okay to execute them? ... and would Kerry also say it's okay to torture "terrorists"? Hold them indefinitely without charge or trial?

Re:death penalty only for ??terrorists??

[thelinuxjunkie]

Doesn't Kerry support trying "terrorists" in the UN courts in the Hague(sorry, can't spell today.), which doesn't support capital punishment.
So doesn't this mean he doesn't actually support it?
Is he trying to sound strong and tough, is he flip flopping, or does he not really think things through to the end?

I am so sorry

[roman_mir]

for all who have to take this shit. But on the other hand - who is responsible for this? I don't see half of the american population taking the matter in their hands and forcefully removing Bush from power, getting rid of Kerry in process, leading an election reform and choosing someone to be the president who is the most agreeable for majority.

Bush is a tool. Kerry pretends to be better, but he is also a tool. Nader is a crackpot with nothing to lose.

They all are useless and dangerous for the position of your president. There is no real difference between Bush and Kerry except for the ties to the Saudi money and the excessive war mongering.

So, who is going to the the next president:

Will it be Jimbo, Barbrady, the Denver Broncos?

stay tuned.

Re:I am so sorry

[LynchMan]

I couldn't agree with you more. Being a citizen of the US - this whole election is very, very depressing. I am extremely anti-Bush. I will be voting for Kerry only because I don't want four more years of Bush. I would really prefer Nader, but I live in a swing state and I don't want to 'waste my vote'.

Quite Honestly, I wish Howard Dean made it this far instead of Kerry. But apparently he showed too much enthusiasm and concern - he wasn't dull enough to make it.

Something has to be done. My partner and I are honestly thinking about moving to another country if Bush wins again.

In the words of KMFDM: 'We need a revolution to rip the system'. In these times, I could not agree more.

Re:I am so sorry

[smcavoy]

Just curious (as Canadian) why you think Nader is a crackpot?

Re:I am so sorry

[roman_mir]

I am not a liberal, if that is what you mean. I am progressive conservative - I am an atheist who is fiscally conservative. I believe 2 tier health system is better than a single tier BS health system (what we have in Canada.)

Nader sounds like a radical, and personally I wouldn't even care, but I think to general population that is unacceptable.

Re:I am so sorry

[leadboot]

There is no real difference between Bush and Kerry except for the ties to the Saudi money and the excessive war mongering.

What, stopping excessive war mongering isn't enough of a difference to win you over?

Re:I am so sorry

[roman_mir]

honestly? At this point there is no difference, the war is on.

No more soundbites!!!

[toxickiwi]

Why do these guys not answer the question directly? Example #5 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM they were asked "What are your positions on instant-runoff voting and proportional representation?" now both Kerry and Bush answer with sound bites with out answering the question. In fact reading through these questions it looks like they just looked at the heading of the question and did a copy / paste from the party manifesto. Where were the real questions!!! What do you think of the RIAA bulling average Americans? What do you think about a maximum wage? Why in the land of the free, the home of the brave can't you say 'Shit' on television, without being censored? What are your opinions of religion in American politics? Do you think the world will run out of oil? Etc.. etc...maybe my questions above aren't the best, but I'm sure you get the picture the questions asked in the article were canned, I bet you most people could read the question and already know how Bush & Kerry were going to answer..

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Dot.Com.CEO]

You are ignorant.

1. Before the Protestants went away from Catholicism, there was something called the Great Schism, which effectively happened because the Frank kings wanted more control of Christiandome. The filioque close (which is ridiculous) was only the pretext.

2. Not all Christians accept the virginity of Mary as a dogma. Orthodox Christians do not, whereas all catholic-derived Christian churches do.

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[mwlewis]

Kerry said basically what all challengers say, "If we didn't spend like maniacs, like my opponent does, and just showed a little bit of restraint, it'll all work itself out." Unfortunately, everyone knows that there's no way that will ever happen. It's just not the nature of government. The best chance for coming close is to have the goverment divided, so that they're all too busy fighting with each other to cooperate in snatching everyone else's wallet.

Whatever we do, there's going to be some serious problems at some point when the bill comes due. It only makes sense to let people start bailing themselves out a la 401k-style accounts. I don't see any way to get rid of the ridiculous social security system short of catastrophe, but we should at least have something in place for afterwards.

Thoughts from one of the questioners

[lar]

I asked the "Environment" question (as you can see here), and I figured I could let everyone know what I thought about the responses.

Considering Bush and Kerry, I don't think either of them answered my question. Bush gave some facts about what he did in office, and Kerry gave some foggy goal of "using renewable fuels for 20 percent of our energy by 2020." Honestly, I don't think either of those answers addressed the actual question, and I don't think either of their plans are very ambitious or world-changing.

Nader answered the question, but he kind of just copied text from the Apollo Alliance (something I did *not* know about when I asked the question). It would have been nice for him to show some leadership skills and use his own words.

As I say on my website, I'm very disappointed in how these candidates answered my question (and actually all 12 questions), but I think the idea of this debate/forum is pretty cool. It just sucks that this year's candidates don't know how to answer questions.

(I wrote more about my thoughts on my website. Check it out if you're actually interested.)

Thank you, President Bush...

[Raindance]

... or should I say Karl Rove? ;)

RD

mod parent up.

[Anonymous Coward]

The exact same thing went through my head when I read summary.

Dodging the questions

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure would have been more informative if anyone other than Nader bothered to answer the stated questions. Granted, many of the questions were loaded, but they're loaded because they are specific concerns that we want answered.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Kymermosst]

The most distinct difference is the acknowledgement of the Pope's authority, the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and admiration of Mary/Saints.

Technically, you mean:

Acknowledging the pope as the Vicar of Christ.

Transubstantiation (the Eucharist is God) as opposed to consubstantiation (God is with the Eucharist).

The Communion of Saints (that the dead Saints can intercede with God on your behalf).

The Assumption of Mary (that Mary died sinless and still a virgin).

FWIW, my wife is a Catholic and I am a protestant. I won't convert because I tend to disagree with all of the above. That is, the pope is a man, and a leader, but not the infallible Vicar of Christ; God is with the Communion, there is no hocus-pocus transformation; the only person that can intercede with God the Father is God the Son, non-divine dead people can't listen to me talk; finally if you really think that Joseph and Mary didn't do the nasty after putting baby Jesus to bed well... you're nuts.

Just my $.02

no child left behind ;)

[cascadingstylesheet]

They also must not have their top people working on this - at least for the Bush campaign. I did a search for some of the words used in his responses here (like "quell"), and found that Bush himself never uses them in any of his accessable online speeches. That's not a mistake a seasoned campaign speech writer would make.

You are unaware that language used in writing differs from language used in speech?

I guess there are some children being "left behind" ... ;)

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[pangloss]

since the pope doesn't even speak English (I don't know if he knows English, but it's not his native tongue), so we might ask what exactly he means by 'defects'

1. English is not the Pope's native language.
2. The Pope does not speak English.

I suppose implicit is the premise:

• One cannot speak a language if it is not one's native language.

You also posit an equally interesting corollary:

• Knowing a language is not sufficient for speaking that language.

According to Mary Schumacher, Pope John Paul II speaks eight languages "rather fluently": Polish, Russian, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and English (a figure widely cited). In this CNN transcript, Alessio Vinci, the CNN Rome Bureau Chief, echoes reports that the Pope speaks as many as seventeen languages.

It's a "Jump to Conclusions Mat"

[SeanDuggan]

Bush declined to answer, how how do you find that a respectable position. He's effectively saying he's not answerable to anyone but God and that's simply not true.

Honestly, you seem to be taking a large leap of logic going from him declining to answer the question to saying that he feels he's God's mouthpiece. He was facing a rather hostile climate and was likely aware that anything he said there was going to be twisted horribly, so he declined to answer. It's analagous to turning and walking away from a co-worker who walks up to you with cheap whiskey on their breath and asks how long you've been sleeping with his wife. Nothing you say is going to budge them, so the best thing to do in that situation is to back away.

^_^ Ok, probably a fairly extreme example, but I've found hyperbole is handy for getting points across. Nevertheless, I'm sure you've been in situations where you knew the other person asked a question when they'd already decided the answer. There's nothing you can say in your defense in such a situation. Just best not to give them ammunition.

Re:It's a "Jump to Conclusions Mat"

[mefus]

Honestly, you seem to be taking a large leap of logic going from him declining to answer the question to saying that he feels he's God's mouthpiece.

That's not an accurate representation of my argument. I said it wasn't respectable of him to consider himself not answerable to us. Kerry and Nadar might have assumed that the question wasn't even directed at them since it is fairly obvious what's on everyone's mind these days.

I did add a little color that perhaps wasn't needed, though. I wanted to put it in because he reminds me so very much of the opposite of pious and god-fearing.

you have it exactly backwards

[cascadingstylesheet]

Abstinence only education has only served to increase teen pregnancy and STD infection, because they are not being made aware of any alternatives. Kids are going to have sex. If you can't accept that fact, and think you can "educate" them into not having sex, you're foolish.

A little history - sex ed in schools was first sold in the 60's, when there were teen pregnancy rates and vd rates that we would kill for now. The very things it was supposedly going to help with rose in tandem with the growth of sex ed. And it was definitely not "abstinence based" sex ed.

Only in the last few years has there been any effort to even try abstinence based sex ed. I don't agree with the president that doubling expenditures on a different style of sex ed is the solution, but it's kind of funny how you see the problem only with the new flavor of sex ed.

Kids are going to have sex. If you can't accept that fact, and think you can "educate" them into not having sex, you're foolish.

This is exactly the hoary old argument used to sell the original, non-abstinence based sex ed. Which turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

A little history - sex ed in schools was first sold in the 60's, when there were teen pregnancy rates and vd rates that we would kill for now. The very things it was supposedly going to help with rose in tandem with the growth of sex ed. And it was definitely not "abstinence based" sex ed.


there are more school shootings now too. must be that damn sex ed.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[dalutong]

That or our culture is changing and you can't escape change to a more open culture regarding sex.

can you think of another place in the world where the government has successfully (while not actively suppressing people) reduced it?

i don't agree with "this is what a condom does" sex ed. i don't agree with "don't have sex" sex ed. i support "you need to learn to make your own decisions and not get pressured into anything. this is what happens. this is how it all works. this is how you can get around _having_ to do it if you'd like."

i'm only a few years out of high school. few of the girls in my school (that i spoke to about this) _wanted_ to have sex. they just went along with it when they felt they had to.

empowerment is the answer. i'm sure of it.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Peyna]

This is exactly the hoary old argument used to sell the original, non-abstinence based sex ed. Which turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

Do you really think that kids are not going to have sex, no matter how much you drill it into their head that it's impossible to be 100% safe doing so? Nothing in life is 100% safe. Do you drive a car? You're taking a big risk everytime you go out on the road, but you still do it. You don't have to ever get in a car to survive, but you still do it.

Should we teach abstinence from driving in school rather than driver's ed? People aged 16-18 are the most likely to be in a collision, yet instead of trying to get them to stop driving, we do our best to teach responsible driving.

In fact, the biggest complaint I have about some of the abstinence based sex ed programs in place in many states is that they forbid teachers from discussing condoms or other forms of contraception, even if the students bring the issue up in class. They have to act like no such thing exists. If two kids are going to have sex, and we have not forbidden to learn about how to reduce their risk of pregnancy or disease, we have seriously failed them. "Abstinence based" sex ed is nothing more than an attempt to push the morals of one group onto everyone else, under the guise of protecting the children from the slim chance that they'll get pregnant or an STD (if whatever device they use is used properly, which if we had taught them, it is highly likely that it would be).

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[vondo]

A little history - sex ed in schools was first sold in the 60's, when there were teen pregnancy rates and vd rates that we would kill for now. The very things it was supposedly going to help with rose in tandem with the growth of sex ed.

You have to be very careful sorting out cause and effect, especially in sociology where control groups can be hard to come by.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[cpeterso]

In a related example, I've read (blah: who needs sources? :) that there is a POSITIVE correlation between DARE classes and drug use. That is, DARE students are MORE likely to use drugs than control groups who did not take any drug classes! But when people wanted to stop funding DARE (because of its negative results), other people complained!

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[jrumney]

The facts tell a different story. The only time since the 1950's that teen preganancy rates have gone up is under Bush Snr's presidency.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[stanmann]

Kid's are going to drive drunk, we should teach them how to drive more safely when drunk so we will demonstrate safe drunk driving procedures.

NO!!! we tell them DON"T DRIVE DRUNK IT"S STUPID AND DANGEROUS AND SOMEONE WILL EITHER GET HURT OR DEAD.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[stanmann]

In fact, the biggest complaint I have about some of the anti-drunk driving programs in place in many states is that they forbid teachers from discussing driving slow or other techniques of risk reduction, even if the students bring the issue up in class. They have to act like no such thing exists. If kids are going to have drive drunk, and we have not forbidden to learn about how to reduce their risk of injury or death, we have seriously failed them. "Don't drink and drive based" drivers ed is nothing more than an attempt to push the morals of one group onto everyone else, under the guise of protecting the children from the slim chance that they'll get injured or die (if whatever technique they use is used properly, which if we had taught them, it is highly likely that it would be).

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Yellow card on your causality there:
very things it was supposedly going to help with rose in tandem with the growth of sex ed

It also rose with growth in population, population density, economic opportunity, new healthcare choices, later age till first marriage, etc, etc.

Empirical research on this has shown that rates go up for the negatives when we've switched from standard sex-ed to abstinence-only sex-ed. I don't have time to pick and choose which study to point you to, so just do a google search, there are plenty to choose from, including a Wikipedia article. Standard sex-ed actually allowed the use of condoms to increase while the amount of actual sex decreased in the 90's.

There was no reason to change from the standard sex-ed, since it was working and the empirical evidence said so. Absitenance-only is completely faith based and had no record to run on. Empirical research since it's introduction has shown that, at best, it does no better than standard sex-ed, at worst it doesn't work as well.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Peyna]

Nearly 50% teenagers aged 15-19 have had sex at least once. I highly doubt the number is anywhere near that high for having driven drunk.

Your analogy also fails, in that the fact that you are drunk severely limits your ability to make the decision to drive slow, it even limits your ability to make the decision to not drive at all. I also have not seen any statistics that show "safe driving" while drunk has a 99% chance of preventing an accident. (Where as when used correctly, condoms have a greater than 99% effective rate.)

Being horny might influence your thoughts a little bit, but not to the point that you're going to decide to forego a condom on the spur of the moment (if you have been probably educated about STDs and ways of preventing them, that is).

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Jardine]

A little history - sex ed in schools was first sold in the 60's, when there were teen pregnancy rates and vd rates that we would kill for now. The very things it was supposedly going to help with rose in tandem with the growth of sex ed. And it was definitely not "abstinence based" sex ed.

Here's another part of history. The first child of a marriage tends to be quite premature. Sometimes, the child is born only 5 or 6 months after the couple was married. Yet somehow, almost all of these children were as healthy as children who had been in the womb for 9 months. Obviously these children were premature as people back then didn't have sex before marriage. If only we could study how these 3 month early babies managed to grow so fast.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[stanmann]

Yes, when used by married adults in a laboratory setting condoms are 99% effective

However any studies on teenagers indicate 50-75% effectiveness. some have indicated effective levels as low as 30%.

I'm at work, or I would try to google for condom effectiveness teenagers, obviously not work safe, I'll try later at home for some of the CNN/FOX/Reuters articles I've seen over the last couple years.

Apparently being a horny teen impares both your choice to use and your ability to use effectively any form of contraception.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[UdoKeir]

Take a look at Chart A:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_1-02.html

Dubya is that you? Are you changing the facts again to fit your arguments again?

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[rhakka]

You are glossing over a very important aspect in your analysis.

Prior to the sexual revolution, people were still having sex young. In the last couple of hundred years you can find plenty of marriages between 13 and 14 year olds, and there have been babies out of wedlock since the dawn of time. Nothing has changed there, ever. Puberty tells you when it's time to have sex, and any restriction on that is social in nature, and NEW from a historical standpoint. No one ever expected young people at the HEIGHT of their sexual drive to abstain. They just got married young.

The age people have had sex at has not changed, only our social standard of "childhood", and sadly it does not match the biological reality.

As for the pregnancy rates, people REPORT pregnancies now. They used to send their little daughter off to a "retreat" during the visible years of pregnancy, put it up for adoption, and bring her back when she wasn't going to shame the family again. Immense pressure was placed on young women to be ashamed of any sexual urge. You don't believe me? Ask your older aunts how it went.

As humans, who have sexual urges, we should be learning how to manage them as safely as possible. Suppression and shame serve only to screw up the minds of our young and consequently the rest of society. I'd feel less strongly if the "abstinence" people weren't also against MASTURBATION, the only TRULY safe sexual release available!!!

Anyway. Sex ed is not wrong. Society changed around it. People do not have the shame they used to have, and from where I sit, that is a good thing. Sure a few pregnancies may occur because of that; I think that's a hell of a lot better than the endless psychologocial terrorism the bible thumpers and people long past their sexual prime try to pass off as "normal" to an otherwise healthy human being.

Go fuck yourself. With a condom, of course.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and in the 60's most families had 1 car that JR had to borrow to go on his date to knock up the girl.

Now days many families have a1 car per driver so JR can go knock up the girls anytime he wants.

Oh, I bet there are a lot of other factors that play in these stats as well.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

However any studies on teenagers indicate 50-75% effectiveness. some have indicated effective levels as low as 30%.

Right, because they have no reliable source of information on usage.

Are you proving my points for me?

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[upsidedown_duck]

This is exactly the hoary old argument used to sell the original, non-abstinence based sex ed. Which turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

No, the truth is that kids are the horniest apes on the planet, and the only reason those ones on the animal shows look hornier is that they aren't wearing pants. I'm very serious about this. The private thoughts of kids would even make Larry Flynt queasy, whether in 1960 or 2060. Any adult who claims otherwise is in some serious denial.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people I know, myself included, have driven drunk before. I couldn't estimate the blood-alcohol-content - probably borderline DWI - but definitely somewhat impaired. It's not fun to be careful while you're drunk but it's possible and if you're not an irresponsible asshole you'll do so if you really have to get behind the wheel. As for education on how to drive drunk "safely", most of it's pretty obvious: you avoid traffic and keep a lot of distance between you and the next car (usually easier at night which is when people tend to be drunk), drive below the speed limit, make triply sure to do things like turn on your lights, pretty much act like an underconfident new driver and concentrate like crazy. Common sense stuff. Probably the biggest deal is attitude: "shit, I have to drive home drunk, gotta concentrate" versus "WOOO I'M GONNA DRIVE DRUNK."

anyway, yeah, it's probably better just to tell people never to drive drunk. Not for sex; they do need to know how to put the condoms on and what the birth-control options are. Probably the biggest distinction is that a healthy attitude towards sex is pretty crucial to your psychological well-being, whereas no one was ever particularly damaged by an inhibition against drunk driving.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[stanmann]

The package, last I checked contains a very thorough graphical step by step procedure on a foldout and on the box. You can't get the condoms out without the usage instructions coming too. It was quite interesting to find a multilingual instructional guide along with my condoms the first time I purchased them. Of course the condoms given out at school, in my school we blew them up and threw them at each other, didn't have an instruction book. Perhaps we should stop handing them out in school.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Peyna]

I have to drive home drunk

When has anyone ever had to drive home drunk?

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job. That's what you should be saying. People will still drive drunk when they feel the need, but that's just what you should be telling them.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Spectacularly wrong? Empirical data essentially nullifies your argument.

However, even if empirical data actually supported your take on things, it wouldn't matter to me. Why? Because I don't believe in pushing religious dogma on people because it may help reduce health risks. I believe teenagers have a right to do what the hell they please with their own bodies, especially having sex. And if they do, I want them to know what they're getting into and how to minimize the risks they face.

People who don't believe this, IMO, are fascists. Or Christian fundamentalists. But it's essentially the same crap.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Dave114]

You have to be very careful sorting out cause and effect, especially in sociology where control groups can be hard to come by.

The original claim was that if the teenage pregnancy/std rate rose when abstinence-based sex ed was being more heavily emphasized then abstinence-based sex ed must be at false. Can't we apply the same logic (in reverse) to your comments?

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, I have a brilliant plan. Turn everyone into geeks! Then they'll never have sex.

Or at least, I never have, and I'm a geek...

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[Vintermann]

I wouldn't be suprised. Convictions can't be created, they have to be inspired by someone who has them. That's why the alcohol industry funds "harm reduction" campaigns (here in Norway). They get a public image as responsible entities, but of course they know that when you say to a thirteen-year old "Don't drink, you're not mature enough for that", it won't mean _less_ money to them.

In one ad there was a blurred picture of a school class with the text "I fooled around with one of these people last night" and "remember the day after".

Amazingly, people didn't see that it was blatant advertizing, illegal in Norway for alcohol. ("Start drinking, you may get sex! Oh, you may forget with whom, but who cares?!! If you don't get sex maybe you drink to little.")

Another example is the poster at every supermarket, with a foaming glass of beer and "Are you over 18? Prove it!". Let me tell you, that poster has nothing to do with showing a driver's licence.

That's malicous. I don't think the drug industry funds fake, inefficient anti-drug campaigns, though, because one should never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity...

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[will_die]

What should be happening is that schools provide free hard liquior, beer, and whatever tobacco product the teens wants.
Since we know that teens will smoke and drink you have to ask under what guise of protecting the children from the slim chance that they will have a DUI ticket or drinking related accident are we preventing them from first hand experience with alchohol and smoking additiction.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[nanoakron]

Politicians should only legislate reality, not morality.

-Nano.

Re:you have it exactly backwards

[mrbax]

can you think of another place in the world where the government has successfully (while not actively suppressing people) reduced it?

Uganda, which has had the most spectacular success in Africa, if not the world!

Where's the "Youth"?

[xplenumx]

With the average age of the questioners being ~25, including three in their thirties, I have to question the "youth" of the "Youth Debate".

By the time one reaches their mid-twenties, I would hope that they would see themselves as an adult. Many of my peers and I own homes, have children, and hold well respected jobs - we certainly are not "youth".

I certainly understand, and appreciate, that the organizers of this 'debate' were reaching out to non-senior citizens and that "youth debate" presents greater spin opportunities than "adult debate" or "pre-retirement age debate". However, labeling my age group as "youth" definitely marginalizes us and promotes the slacker Gen X stereotype that we're not ready for adulthood. Besides, I'd much rather the candidates speak to me as an equal, an adult.

Re:Where's the "Youth"?

[Grithok]

You are youth as long as you live in your parents basement and don't pay rent, like most of us here.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[stinerman]

Actually, Bush was Lutheran. He is a practicing Methodist.

I wouldn't say that

[CaptPungent]

Nader called the President a "messianic militarist" for saying that he has an active belief in God.

That's one of the most intolerant things I've ever read.

Where do you get that idea? Are you over simplifying it? Nader did not call Bush that simply for his active belief in god. If that were true, he would have said the same about Kerry. He likely said that because that is how Bush acts, pushing the ideals of his religion into Federal Policy and law. This is evident in Bush's push to ban gay marriages. Which is funny, he says, "I believe that the American people, and not activist judges, should make this decision.". So it shouldn't be the judges decision, I do agree, but Bush is saying it should be up to him, by pushing a Constitutional Amendment to enforce his religious view! THAT, kind sir, is why Nader, and myself, consider Bush messanic. Militarist, well I told my wife when Bush was elected, "we will be in active war before his 4 years are up." The man is, and was, blatent in his aggression. I regretfully cannot produce the source from the 2000 election that made me feel this way, as I've long forgotten it (damn bad memory), however the impression I felt from his campaign then was that he was a name-calling, aggressive bully. He's proven me right on that point. We are in active war. Is this is justified, or the Right Thing for us to be engaged in, is up for debate, but the point remains, regardless of the attacks on 09/11/01, he would have picked a fight with SOMEONE by now. And we are at war. Therefore I feel he is a militarist. And obviously Nader thinks so too.

Disclaimer: I do not plan to vote for Nader this election. I do respect the man though. I will defend his words, as they may be intolerant if you see it that way, but NOT for the reason you gave. I'm usually passive and I don't usually get into these political discussions, but letting that comment stand as is leaves the impression that Nader hates those with an active belief in god.

Re:I wouldn't say that

[killjoe]

Since he has repeatedly said that he will go to war with anybody anytime he feels like they *might* be a threat to *american interests* the chances of him starting another war are pretty good.

If he gets re-elected I fully expect him to attack syria, iran or North Korea. I don't think he is fully satiated yet.

Re:I wouldn't say that

[joshki]

So it shouldn't be the judges decision, I do agree, but Bush is saying it should be up to him, by pushing a Constitutional Amendment to enforce his religious view!

Perhaps I missed something, but last time I checked, doesn't a Constitutional amendment require a 2/3 vote in Congress and confirmation by 2/3's of the states? You don't think the president can simply decide one day "I think I'm going to amend the constitution", do you? Come on -- don't be stupid. The President believes strongly that there should be an amendment, so he suggests it -- then it's up to the PEOPLE of the US, not him, to decide whether they want to "enforce his religious view", as you put it (which, IIRC the house decided they would not do). That's the democratic process -- we (or our elected representatives) get to decide -- not just one person.

It's not like he came out with an executive order banning gay marriage for goodness' sake -- if he'd done that then maybe you'd have a point.

Re:I wouldn't say that

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is funny, he says, "I believe that the American people, and not activist judges, should make this decision.". So it shouldn't be the judges decision, I do agree...

So whose "decision" should it be" The people's? At one time the majority of voters in this country supported slavery.

Re:I wouldn't say that

[CaptPungent]

Please note the fact that I said "pushing a Constitutional Amendment", meaning that he is in favor of a Federal ban on same-sex marriage, and will use his influence as President to persuade Congress to do so. I agree that it has a snowball's chance in Hell of getting passed, however his intention is to ban such marriages. He is therefore in favor of using his influence as Head of State to make his religious views the Law. The fact that he would even do so is my point of his contradiction, it isn't "leave it to the people to decide", its "I'm going to attempt to persuade Congress to make my beliefs Law". If he were serious about leaving it to the people then he would allow the marriages, then the people would choose whether or not to be married to the same sex. By making or supporting a law, or an Amendment, banning anything, you show that the people cannot decide on their own and declare it illegal.

Re:I wouldn't say that

[CaptPungent]

AC's comment below so we are on the same page:

Which is funny, he says, "I believe that the American people, and not activist judges, should make this decision.". So it shouldn't be the judges decision, I do agree...

So whose "decision" should it be" The people's? At one time the majority of voters in this country supported slavery.

Yes, it should be the people's decision, where "the people" is defined as the individual's that are getting married. Not yours, not John and Jane Doe next door's, not the President's, not the court's or judge's, not "the people" as a collective whole. The individual. Those whom are homosexual have a right to choose their partners and whether they choose to marry them. I don't care what the majority says, the majority isn't the one's getting married to the same sex.

Yes, the majority once supported slavery, and that was wrong, since it failed one simple test: does this decision effect the rights of other human being's rights? Does the fact that two people of the same sex get married effect my life? Why should I or you, Mr. AC, really give two shits whether two other people are married, or if the person they love is the same sex? If it does, then WHY?! Why do you care at all? Does it get in the way of your daily life? People need to learn to get on with their own lives, and quit worrying about the lives of those whose decisions are not impacting the lives of anyone else aside from their own. In slavery, one individual's life is destroyed, and their rights and freedoms are stripped from them. In a gay marriage, whose freedoms and rights are stripped away? How does it impact anyone else's lives at all? Why do people believe they have the right to decide who is allowed to be married? (Before you start the slippery-slope argument, we are talking about two gay adults capable of making their own decisions, vote, and are not of the same family, same as the restrictions placed on hetero marriages as well) We have no right to tell a gay couple that they can't love each other the way we love our wives/husbands. Its their life, they have the right to make the choice of who to marry just as we hetero couples are.

I await the torrent of unrelated slippery-slope counter-arguments that are so common here. Its a black and white issue. The basis of sex is only an issue in marriage due to religious beliefs, which I define as those to want to force others to abide by their set of morals. Having a religion is fine, and certain morals are universal. Remember, our country was founded on the princible of every person's rights of Life, so no killing others, Liberty, stay the hell out of others business, and Pursuit of Happiness, see the last point, as long as your Pursuit doesn't step on other people's rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Don't see anything there along the lines of "Pursuit of God's Will".

Don't get in other people's lives, its really simple. Honestly, I don't understand how people can really care enough to demand it be outlawed. Don't you have enough to do? Read a book, build a table, tune up your car, learn a new skill, write a song, paint your house, clean out your gutters, walk the dog. Some work to improve yourself or your home or car or something? I have too much crap to occupy me, tons of projects and things I'd like to learn to do, getting upset that Jim wants to marry John seems like a waste of time. Ok, so you've stopped their marriage, now what? What other cause will you devote yourself to, since you still have not fixed the flaw in your OWN life that makes you feel like you must fill the void with what other people are doing?

Maybe you wonder, if I don't care, they why am I speaking out about it? Because if the religious right succeed in this crusade, what next? What else are they going to try to strip away from us? How many things do we let them strip away before it DOES effect my life? How far will they go?

Some examples:

Kill someone, well that effects the rights of the person you killed, as they are now dead. Pedophiles? Destroying the lives of young children who are not mentally developed enough to make proper decisions and realize it is wrong, therefore trampling their rights. Two men getting married? Don't see anyone's rights getting trampled there....

the Internets

[kryzx]

Glad to see Dubya is finally embracing them internets. All of them.

Re:Thanks for trolling, please try again.

[gorbachev]

"What is there to admit? He never made a mistake in regards to the war."

He wasn't asked if he made a mistake in regards to the war. He was asked to name 3 decisions that he later thought were mistakes, and how did ge go about correcting them. He couldn't name one in the debate, he refused to answer a similar type of a question in this Q&A session.

Those sort of people are dangerous and do not belong in the White House.

Judicious editing

[Anonymous Coward]

"We are fortunate in America to have the best health care system in the world, ..."

Unfortunately, he omitted the rest of that sentence, which would go something like:

"... except for Canada, Japan, the UK, all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, South Africa, probably Brazil, and a bunch of others."

Re:Judicious editing

[stanmann]

Then why do wealthy people from those locations come to the US and choose to pay cash for access to our facilities?? If the local care or service is better why fly halfway around the world for a heart bypass?

Re:Judicious editing

[TiloB]

Because the United States maybe have the best Health Care System money can buy.

Not the best Health Care System in general.

A health care system where millions of people
are not included is not really worth the name.

Re:Judicious editing

[stanmann]

And perhaps because it is a system bought with money rather than financed by taxes that causes it to be the BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM in the world.

Anyone can buy into the system. And those who cannot afford to pay to buy in there are insurance programs and other ways to get service.

Re:Judicious editing

[TiloB]

Do we have a different understanding of the word
"system"?

You are excluding an important aspect, while
characterising: You speak only of the help that this
health care system can provide.

I speak also of the people who can affort this help.

Re:Judicious editing

[stanmann]

I too speak of those who can afford the help. for over 10 years of my life my Primary physician was whoever was available at the "free" clinic.

Besides the "free" option is the other "free" option, no hospital in this country can refuse service for lack of ability to pay.

The only group in this country who consistently do not recieve adequate or better care are the working lower middle class who make between 25-38k annually and are not insured by their employer.

Re:Judicious editing

[Carewolf]

People buy into the best places everywhere. There are also americans going to specialists in Switcherland or Germany.

The american health care system is derided for costing 4 times as much as publically funded health care systems elsewhere and having less effect on the overall health-level of the country.

On average (that is important) this means that all americans could reduce there health insurance or direct costs to a fourth and get better treatment, by adopting a direct copy of the canadian system. Think about that.

Death penalty, sad situation

[RPoet]

Kerry: I believe that the death penalty should only be used for terrorists. I do not think that executing minors is good policy. I will, however, enforce the laws of the land.

What? "Only for terrorists"? What kind of populistic drivel is that?

As a non-American, I sincerely hope Kerry wins the election, but I wish he'd be more honest in his comments. It's so clear he's trying to please ALL sides, it's patehetic.

As for the death penalty, I believe you can either be for it or against it. Kerry can define "terrorist" however he wants to legally kill whoever he wants. And he's against killing minors, but he'll do it since it's the law?

It was also frustrating to hear his comments on the PATRIOT Act in the second presidential debate. He's against it because of the rights it takes away, but he voted FOR it since he believes the Act is necessary to fight terrorism. Hello?

It's too bad when you only have two real candidates to vote for and both suck noodles. I'd normally say vote third-party, but this time it's so important to get Bush out of office that I hope everyone will agree to vote Kerry instead.

Just my 0.2 Norwegian kroners. Thanks for reading, and vote Kerry!

Re:I can't believe Kerry is supporting the drug wa

[Anonymous Coward]

I just about shit when I heard Edwards took off talking about how he was going to increase money on cops to bust meth users.

Apparently you don't live in an area infested by methamphetamine users and manufacturers :-/

I'm generally against the War on Some Drugs, but I think methamphetamine is one of the things that needs to be controlled. It's in an entirely different realm than many other drugs. I'd classify it with crack cocaine and heroin in terms of its dangers and harmful consequences to society.

While I think the government's strategy to control drug abuse is fatally flawed and needs to be reinvented from scratch, I'm not so simplistic as to drop my support for a candidate simply because he points out the obvious, extremely bad problems associated with methamphetamine use in this country.

Punished?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how much the incumbent wins I don't think US politicians get punished for jack shit...

Re:Punished?

[Jerf]

AC said: Considering how much the incumbent wins I don't think US politicians get punished for jack shit...

Which actually brings up another side effect of this issue: Because we make a HUGE FUCKING DEAL about a mispronounced word, the HUGE FUCKING DEAL about, say, the President brutually murdering Congress and selling the Country to Nigeria gets drowned out, or at least put on almost equal HFD footing.

There is no way to have a sense of proportion when everything is a HUGE FUCKING DEAL, and we just tune it all out. So of course people just turn the volume up...

Are Americans "sheeple", or, as we are on the cutting edge of the advertising culture, are we just tired of hearing about your HUGE FUCKING DEAL in the same tones of voice as the HFD's from the opposition, and also the same tones used to exhort us to "Buy today, before the sale ends in the next millisecond!"? (From what I hear from other people, not even Europe can match our country's sheer quantity of loud messages of every variety.)

Re:Punished?

[snol]

Ahhh.... the right answer. Finally I can stop reading this thread.

Re:Punished?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.
I believe a huge deal should be made about the President conducting an illegal war.

Those numbers don't work!

[Ygorl]

There are fewer than 30 million teenagers in the country. That means each year more than one teenager in ten contracts an STD. That means any given teenager has about a 50% chance, tops, of making it to age 20 without contracting an STD. Wha...????

Re:Those numbers don't work!

[vondo]

Part of what they are referring to is HPV. Many forms of this are harmless, some forms cause genital warts, some forms cause cervical cancer.

Estimates are that something like 75% (or more) of the sexually active population has one form or another of this virus.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[rxmd]

the pope doesn't even speak English (I don't know if he knows English, but it's not his native tongue)

Excuse me, I don't quite get what you're on about.

English is not my native tongue. I know English. By your logic, I don't speak it anyway. Am I supposed to understand you? Maybe that's where the problem with my English is.

Anyway, the Pope does speak English, but in recent years he hasn't been speaking a lot in public, given that he's an old man.

Quality of responses

[Glendale2x]

Of the three responses for each section, I feel like Kerry had the least to say about almost everything. Bush and Nader had much more useful information, and at least tried to back up their responses with some justification.

In particular, here's Kerry's response in Social Security:

We must end the practice of robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the budget and protect savings for the future.

But HOW? Bush and Nader at least say something as to how, or have some vague idea. But Kerry just returns a idealistic line of nonsense that people think is smart, but provides no idea what we might expect him to do if elected. Responses like this make Kerry look like the clueless one. Maybe he's just saying generic stuff so he can change his mind on something later.

That, and the fact that my university is so horribly biased against the Republican party without any apparent reason (except that it's cool to hate and deface property around here with anti-Bush whatever), make me lean away from Kerry.

Re:Quality of responses

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God! A young voter that seems to get it.

Re:Quality of responses

[Anonymous Coward]

That, and the fact that my university is so horribly biased against the Republican party without any apparent reason

You mean, apart from Bush terrible record these laft four years?
Honnestly, I just don't understand. Are you blind? This guy is the worst president the US ever had!

Re:Quality of responses

[Glendale2x]

You mean, apart from Bush terrible record these laft four years?
Honnestly, I just don't understand. Are you blind? This guy is the worst president the US ever had!

Again, no examples, just a satement with nothing to back it up.

Let's talk mining industry, for example. The Clinton administration sent those jobs out of the U.S. and pretty much shut down any new mining in the country. How? By a reinterpretation of the mining law regarding how much space the processing plant can take in proportion to the size of the deposit to be mined. Thankfully, existing operations were grandfathered in, otherwise we'd be in a world of hurt and have to rely 100% on other countries for raw materials.

Mining is required. No question about it. Where do all the various metals in your computer come from? (Or all the vehicles we drive, parts of the buildings we live in, and on and on and on...) Not trees, nor plants. It has to be mined. Since mining companies aren't allowed enough space to build a plant to process the ore under the previous administration's reinterpretation of an existing law, and we require the minerals to support our economy, it must come from out of the country. Barrick Gold operates the Goldstrike mine in Nevada, one of the largest producers of gold. However, take a look at where all their new projects are going to be. Not in the U.S. In 1994 the company started to expand outside of the U.S. Previously, the company only focused on North American properties.

Sending jobs out of the country comes in many forms. The mining industry is one of them, and Bush didn't do it. I'm not blind; I can see beyind the TV ads, look up information, and think for myself.

Re:Mary, Mother of God?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah! But does Kerry believe in Mary, Mother of God?

That would be my kind of Catholic!

Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church has adopted a very sanitized version of the real Mother Godess, who is both the creator and DESTROYER of all things, but, hey, it's a start!.

All hail, the sacred red, white and black!

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

But I draw the line at "there's only one way to interpret and thats *my* way." A lot of denominations do this and it drives me nuts!

Well, it's definitely frustrating seeing people that refuse to acknowledge that any other views are even possible to sane and rational people, but there is only one right way to interpret it. Of course we don't really have any way to determine conclusively which way that is, which is why you never want to get too arrogant about it.

Why can't people just make up their own minds and agree to disagree on the non-important things (can you lose your salvation, what makes someone "saved"......etc)

Because if you really think about it, those non-important things can have very strong implications for the important things. And the two you mention have a big impact on how you live your life, so I don't see how you could ever consider them non-important.

Re: top bracket

[durdur]

In 2004, the top Federal bracket is 35% for individuals and married filing jointly, and starts at $319,100 taxable income.

audio provided by SNL

[kryzx]

My mind is polluted. Somehow I just can't read the candidates responses without hearing it as read by the guys on SNL who spoof Bush and Kerry. Our candidates this time around are so damn goofy that it's like they are self-spoofing. The weird thing about the SNL versions of the debates was that, although they were funny, they just weren't that much different from the real thing.

And tell me, how in the hell did Anheuser-Busch get their giant logo on the wall at all of the debates?

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[meme_police]

That's pretty funny because I had no idea that he was a Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, or whatever. I just picked Lutheran as an example. As a non-Christian, it's all Christian to me.

Nader said *what*?!

[ChristianBaekkelund]

Children's commercial television programming conveys that violence is a solution to life's problems, and pushes low-grade sensuality, from junk food and drink to pornography and addiction, as a way of life.

Woah!...I don't remember learning that from Sesame Street. Anyone got any idea to what Nader is referring?

Re:Nader said *what*?!

[mdfst13]

Thundercats? Sesame Street isn't commercial TV. I would guess that he is referring to afternoon cartoons: Thundercats, Masters of the Universe, and Transformers come to mind from my teen years. Presumably there are new ones now. Notice how all the females in Thundercats and Masters of the Universe wear bikinis and the men are bare chested. The ads are all for junk food. The plots are violence based (even if there is an anti-violence message).

This posts makes parent perfect.

[celerityfm]

Seriously you've hit it dead on. Condoms do not prevent STDs that live on parts of the genitals not covered by the condom! Thats why they want to put warning labels on condoms because people think its a 100% safety thing. Plus they can break/etc.

But its better then nothing. I would be VERY curious to see the incidence rates of STDs in sex eds where condom use is explained versus not explained, abstinence being the focus here.

Re:This posts makes parent perfect.

[stanmann]

Actually nothing works pretty well. As someone who married as/to a virgin at 25/25, I've never had an STD, never lost sleep over her being "late" and never had any of the other problems associated with teenage "safe" sex.

Re:This posts makes parent perfect.

[apanap]

Actually nothing works pretty well. As someone who married as/to a virgin at 25/25, I've never had an STD, never lost sleep over her being "late" and never had any of the other problems associated with teenage "safe" sex.

Well no, but you lost your virginity at 25... And you will go your whole life wondering what it would be like with someone else, though you probably wont admit it, ever. (Or maybe I'm just jealous of you cause I'm single... ;)

As a non-american (I'm swedish, but living in Germany) I must say I can't at all understand the way many ("christian") americans think. In sweden for example, most people "do it" long before they're 18, and have many many partners during their lives (before marriage) yet STDs and teen pregnancy is not at all common, no where near the case in the US. The reason why? Because the kids KNOW what sex it and they KNOW how to protect themselves. I have friends who have lived/now lives in the US and the things they tell me are downright scary. One friend studied at Virginia Tech for a year, and told me girls there would happily have oral and some even ANAL sex before marriage, as long as they "technically" where still virgins. In my opinion having your daughter butt-fucked (condomless at that) before she even tried (safe) vaginal sex would be way way way worse than her loosing her (vaginal) virginity at an early age...

The thing is, teenagers WILL have sex (not all, but many, many), especially if you tell them they can't. Would you rather they do it without even knowing about the need to protect themselves against STDs and unwanted pregnancy?

Re:This posts makes parent perfect.

[stanmann]

Why should I wonder what it will be like with someone else, it's wonderful, and has been for 3 years. I see no reason for that to change. Go look at the disease and pregnancy statistics, the National health produced ones, last article I saw, said they were highest in the world and rising.

Re:This posts makes parent perfect.

[apanap]

Go look at the disease and pregnancy statistics, the National health produced ones, last article I saw, said they were highest in the world and rising.

My point exactly. That's not the case in the parts of the world with proper sex-ed, where protection is thaught...

And I'm sorry about the mean remark, had a bad day yesterday :)

Re:This posts makes parent perfect.

[stanmann]

SWEDEN HAS the highest disease and pregnancy(aborted mostly) statistics in the world. And they have been rising. google for sweden national health std pregnancy.

Re:This posts makes parent perfect.

[apanap]

SWEDEN HAS the highest disease and pregnancy(aborted mostly) statistics in the world. And they have been rising. google for sweden national health std pregnancy.

Yeah right... Heard of Africa? Anyway, I tried googling for it. Couldn't find anything saying the rates are high, what I did find however was this:
Although Canada's teen pregnancy rate has declined since the 1970s, other Western industrialized countries such as France and Sweden have much lower teen pregnancy rates than Canada. These countries also have lower rates of both teen births and abortions.

So Sweden is here used as an example where the numbers are LOW.

Source: here

Numbers from that site:
Teen pregnancies per 1000, Sweden: 25.0
Teen pregnancies per 1000, US: 83.6
Teen abortions per 1000, Sweden: 17.2
Teen abortions per 1000, US: 29.2

Sure, a much higher percent of the teen pregnancies end with abortion (which I personally consider a good thing, you may disagree), but both abortion numbers and pregnancy numbers are no where near the US. Numbers from mid-90s. So please check your facts before comming with accusations.

I also found this:
The U. S. leads industrialized countries in rates of STDs. For example, in 1996, the reported gonorrhea rate for the U.S. was 50 times that of Sweden, and the primary and secondary syphillis rate was 30 times that of Canada.

Again, Sweden is used as an example where the numbers are low...
Source: here

Thank you for playing.

No Fair!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush received coaching for this debate through an electronic device.

Really?

[brokeninside]

What evidence is there that the polygamy of the Hebrew patriarchs didn't exist before recorded history?

Re:Really?

[nberardi]

Well there is none and it probably did happen pre-history. But we as a society have decided not to practice that any more, to "forget" if you will. But that really isn't the point, the point is we are talking about monogmous marriage, and we are dating it back before marrige. How many societies before the 20th century do you know that had or wanted a union between same sex couples. There are none, it is totally a new thing to have a commited relationship between same sex couples. It however isn't a new thing for an aristocrat to take a male concubine, the Greeks did it, as well as many other cutlures. So I say if they want to be in a commited relationship take over the work civil union, and make that the gay marriage.

All that the gay movement wants to do is force their culture onto a culture that doesn't want to embrase it. In America the people decide what is best for the people, that is why the consitution starts off "We the people...". And we the people don't want gay marraige, at least 90 or so percent of us, so it is really unfair to force something on a culture through activist judges that we the people don't want.

clue stick

[d34thm0nk3y]

If leaders form their opinions based on a set of facts and they learn that those facts are wrong, it is appropriate to change their position.

Enough of the stupid act, he is obviously talking about his stance on Iraq.

Re:SlashDot = Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they seem to be overwhelmingly Libertarian. Just look at the questions they asked Badnarik and the responses to his responses. Then look at what they asked Cobb. I find that slashdotters overwhelmingly never even gave Cobb a chance. They asked stupid questions and then ridiculed his responses. People ridicule Bush more, and Kerry not as much. But Badnarik is apparently untouchable around here.

HAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I heard that joke, I laughed so hard I fell of my dinosaur and broke my wooden underwear.

What do the length of the comments tell us?

[hshana]

It's too bad Bush can't seem to remember all of this stuff when he stands up on the stage. Or maybe he didn't write the answers... His answers seemed to me to be much more reasoned than Kerry's. And does the fact that most all of Kerry's answer's were one-paragraph, no real substance spin indicate a condescending, young-adults-don't-care-about-the-facts or can't-follow-the-argument-anyway attitude on the part of the challenger? That's what I took from it.

Show me the money!

[greg_barton]

Here's what we're getting from our "conservative" president:

"I proposed $236 million in Federal funding in FY 2005 for my Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology initiative, part of a total five-year funding commitment of over $1 billion."

"I signed the Help America Vote Act, which has provided $3 billion to states and local governments..."

"My 2005 budget requests a record $73.1 billion in financial aid to help nearly 10 million students attend college, an increase of $25.9 billion (55%) since I took office."

"My budget supports $1.7 billion over five years for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative..."

Now, I'd expect a Democrat to propose billions in new spending, but a "fiscal conservative"? Where's the money going to come from to pay for all of that?

Re:Show me the money!

[smcavoy]

They'll just print more money :)

Re:Show me the money!

[bnenning]

Now, I'd expect a Democrat to propose billions in new spending, but a "fiscal conservative"?

Bush is not a fiscal conservative. Don't even get me started on the "free drugs for Warren Buffett" plan. One of the few benefits to a Kerry presidency would be that assuming Congress stays Republican, gridlock would prevent a lot of these vote-buying programs.

Surprised

[n54]

This is very subjective and not intended as a flamebait - vote for what you think is best.

I'm european (and pro Bush) and writing this as Nader surprised me. I though he was a bit more "grass-root" conservative but at least the answers to the questions here shot down that notion (not that I think he or any of the others answered themselves). I imagine he would fit pretty well for all subscribing to a "Michael Moore"-like view of the world, and any europeans voting for radical socialist parties or european "green" parties (which is mostly "reformed" ex-communists imo).

I wouldn't vote for him but it will be interesting to see how many will. He's obviously much further away from the Republicans than the Democrats are, and his retoric reminds me of your garden variety communist. I've allways thought american politics could benefit from a third party but reading some of Naders stuff I'm reconsidering that notion as it only seems to make politics even more of an unintelligent dogfight of "each their own definitions and solutions" rather than pragmatic cooperation and common analysis.

This was probably all no news for the rest of you but I'm stil slightly disappointed and shocked. Sorry if I just stated the obvious :)

It seems Strange...

[haplo21112]

...that none of the questions concerned one of the Most burining issues amoung younger voters. The DMCA and all that entails, and the corrupt power that it gives the media corporations.

Concise is not the same as shortest...

[hshana]

...which is what I think you should have said since there was very little substance in most of Kerry's short answers.

The problem with Bush

[LynchMan]

As President, I make decisions based on what I think is best for the country.

The President should make decisions on what the American people want, not his own self-centered goals.

Re:The problem with Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority isn't always right. The President shouldn't be afraid of making the unpopular decisions. Unlike Kerry who fluctuates with the polls.

Re:The problem with Bush

[TheShadow]

Bullshit. If that were the case, we wouldn't have representatives and everyday we would be voting on what the government should do about every issue that arises.

We elect representatives to do what is right for the country/state/county/etc... popular or not.

The Funny Thing Is

[thelizman]

I don't know whether to mod this as Funny - because it is - or Insightful - which it is.

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[pclminion]

Even if I just stash the same amount of money under the bed I can be guaranteed to still have that exact amount in 40 years, ignoring the effects of inflation.

Ignoring the effects of inflation over a period of 40 years is insane. Stuffing money in a sock is a worse investment strategy than no strategy at all. You deprive yourself of value now, in return for vastly decreased value in the future.

I don't see it that way.

[khasim]

First off, what is a "mistake" in politics (aside from invading a country ... you know the rest)?

How often does someone vote "yes" for a bill when they meant "no"?

Almost everything in politics comes down to your personal beliefs. You vote your beliefs. Whether it be abortion or taxes or defense.

The real question is goals. And the methods you'll use to achieve those goals. And how effective/efficient those methods are. And the side effects of those methods.

The reality of the situation is that different people have different goals and even people with the same goals can have them in a different priority.

Instead of "mistakes", it comes down to "have you ever changed your beliefs / goals".

Same for CEOs. We punish people for apologizing or admitting fault and reward them for bulling through until the problem just goes away.

Well, in theory, the "market" is supposed to punish the CEO's who choose a strategy and/or goal that isn't effective for their company.

And I can imagine no way for this to occur, since people currently benefit greatly for mocking politicians dress, speaking ability, or face shape. (I mean, come on, what is a guy supposed to do about that?)

I think that is because the average person does not understand nor does he want to understand the complexities we face. He wants simple solutions that fix all the problems and he wants them delivered within an hour long sitcom. The bad guys have to be easily discernable as bad guys. So lots of focus is put on the visual/auditory elements.

If someone effectively and efficiently achieved his goal, but that goal was not one you shared, did he make a mistake?

If he was working effectively and efficiently towards a goal, but then something changed his belief system and he discarded that goal, was that a mistake?

About the only "mistake" is when someone chooses a path that will not lead to one of his goals.

Re:I don't see it that way.

[Anonymous Coward]

How often does someone vote "yes" for a bill when they meant "no"?

Stuff like this happens whenever completely unrelated laws are heaped together in the same bills. So something like raising funding for education might be bundled with something the candidate is strongly against, like an anti-gay marriage or anti-abortion law. So in order to vote against what he/she feels more strongly about (anti-gay marriage/anti-abortion in this case) they have to also vote against something they might otherwise support. So in order to support one part of his platform, a candidate has to "vote against education", which just shouldn't have to happen. What we really need is to put an end to this kind of ridiculous law bundling!

1000+ deaths and still no mistake

[flyingace]

1000+ deaths and still no mistake. 'Nuff said.

Re:1000+ deaths and still no mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

It's war you fucking morron!! God damn. For the love that all might be holy. You sir are HOPELESS. The means, your without hope.

This war on terrorism is like fighting cancer. You will kills some cells at the expense of saving the body. But I suppose you would rather let the world shrivel up and die then let Bush do the "right" thing.

Re:1000+ deaths and still no mistake

[Mr. Arbusto]

I have mod points, but I think I need to ask you a question.

Is the measure of a mistake in deaths?

If so, who's mistake was it that 3000 people died in a single attack in 2001?

If so, who's mistake was it that 40,000 thousand people died in auto related accidents last year?

If so, who's mistake was it that 6 people died in an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993?

Perhaps you just need to elaborate more. But in your current comments state, I can't believe you were modded Insightful.

Poofread? Why?

Re:1000+ deaths and still no mistake

[Minna Kirai]

If so, who's mistake was it that 3000 people died in a single attack in 2001?

President Herbert Walker Bush.

If so, who's mistake was it that 6 people died in an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993?

President Herbert Walker Bush.

Re:1000+ deaths and still no mistake

[Mr. Arbusto]

I was looking for an answer, not a political scapegoat. I'm not silly enough to thing events like that are one person fault, or even one person, or one organizations responsiblity.

Why do you think it was President Herbert Walker Bush?

Forgot Links

[jrumney]

News report from early this year claiming 10 straight years of falling rates, and analysis of statistics from 1950 to 2000.

Re:Thanks for trolling, please try again.

[Anonymous Coward]

The public wants a leader, not a spineless jellyfish.

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[Shotgun]

Kerry gives non-answers because he's having a hard time conveying the clearest answers he -does- have through the Republican haze of accusations. That, and because in many cases he may not have an answer he's comfortable with. And what's wrong with that? It would be vastly better for those of us who understand that acknowledging that you don't -have- an answer to see him admit it, but the vast majority of people out there are being brainwashed by the Republican "Always solid, always decided, always right, always inflexible, always AMERICA!" media blitz that Kerry can't afford to show those weaknesses.

Could that be because the man has supposed to have been working on the answers for the past 20 YEARS!! Call me brainwashed if you will, but I would expect the man who has made the decision and then spent 2 years campaigning to have a plan in place.

Conservativism has morphed into facism.

[Adolph_Hitler]

George Bush is an objectivist, his goal is to do what in his own best interest. He doesnt have to answer to you, this country or anyone else.

Dickety-six?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the Kaiser steal the word twenty or something?

Re:I can't believe Kerry is supporting the drug wa

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah well the problems of meth, coke and heroin are primarily related to the fact that they're illegal. That IS the problem.
Why do you think meth users get all paranoid and shoot people up? You don't suppose it's because meth is illegal and they are facing major prison terms for doing a drug that gets them wigged out to begin with?
I know all about it man. I've been there. I've lost friends and family to the stuff. I've lived in ghettos and I've been strung out myself. The problem is not the drug, the problem is the illegality. That is a fact that has been demonstrated a million times over.
I damn well will not vote for Kerry and Edwards if Edwards is going to talk about doubling up the drug war. No fucking way man. They lost me. I'll go Nader. I know he can't win, but that's fine.
If these guys are going to continue to prosecute the drug war, they're no better than Bush in my opinion and I intened to show it with my vote unless I hear something serious about ending the drug war.
Fuck Iraq, we've killed hundreds of thousands of our own people over this issue and wastes billions of dollars and disrupted millions of lives. This is the only war that matters.

Re:Thanks for trolling, please try again.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, YOU'RE dangerous, and don't belong in this nation. Close your windows and doors, peer out between the blinds. They're coming.

(Ah say... Ah say... Ah say... That's a joke, son)
(in my best Foghorn Leghorn voice)

Do the math

[HardCase]

The sum of his income was $659,000. He paid $90,575 in federal income tax. That's 13.7%. Pretty damn close to 13%.

Re:Do the math

[dietz]

Uh, no.

In 2003, Sen. John Kerry had $395,000 in taxable income

Capital gains are "taxable income". So were the royalties from his book. You don't ADD those to the 395K; those are PART OF the 395K.

Check his tax return for yourself if you don't believe me.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[D3]

I really feel sad for those who misunderstand Catholics so much as to believe the President would be in the pocket of the Pope. John F. Kennedy was not in the pocket of the Pope and neither would Kerry be.
Also, what most of you don't know or understand is the difference between the Catholic Church in America and abroad. The Church in America is far more liberal, forgiving, and "live and let live" than abroad. Someone in a previous post mentioned Episcopalians. I jokingly call my wife "Catholic Lite" because she is Episcopalian. The differences could only be distinguished by those who are members.
Again, the idea of the Pope having direct influence over our elected leaders is ridiculous.

That was different...

[alexhmit01]

The people that moved on generally thought "this was retarded behavior, why is he a jackass attacking people for acusing him." He accepted his responsibility, and people thought "that was retarded behavior, he knows it was retarded, let's go celebrate the high earnings from Enron and Worldcom and spend out paper profits on bigger houses." :) Some tongue in cheek comments in there.

However, ANY time this administration (or any administration) comes out and says anything was done wrong, by anyone, the other site JUMPS on it, and the MEDIA jumps on it.

Look at the accounting scandels. These things blew up, restating earnings back to 2000 (when Clinton was in office) and some into 2001 (before Bush's people were everywhere), and got caught. All of a sudden, the Democrats went on the ATTACK for the corporate friends of the administration.

When anything wrong happens, if the White House orders and investigation, the media and Democrats jump on it.

How do you expect anyone to admit a mistake when it becomes a point of attack.

If Bush came out tomorrow and said, "Based on our intelligence, we believed that Saddam was a grave threat and could have weaponized WMDs in months, and the faulty inspection process was undermining our allies and allowing the summer heat to jeopardize operations. We feared that if we didn't move then, we would have needed to wait 8 months, at which point we would have had troops in Kuwait and other Arab nations for nearly a near, destabalizing the regimes. Had we known that Saddam wasn't going to get WMDs until 1-2 years after France and Germany successfully undermined sanctions, we would still have wanted to remove Saddam, but might have used our military operations against other dangers in the area first."

If he said THAT, Kerry would say, "See, the Administration lied about the justification, have been lying for months, and are continuing to lie for you. Your sons and daughters died for a mistake."

As a result, no one acknowledges errors, that just quietly adjust policy and deny mistakes.

Alex

Re:That was different...

[geekpolitico]

Oh c'mon. Both parties constantly bring obfuscation and intentional misunderstanding to new levels. There is no doubt that Dems do it as much as Repubs. I happen to think that Repubs do it much more than Dems, but many feel the other way, but we both have to admit that they do it way too much.

That being said, the non-party die hards, will often accept a mistake .. when you admit it was a mistake. The Pres and Veep don't ever admit mistakes. Even when they (sometimes wisely) change their mind, they pretend like they never did. It's ridiculous, and they deserve to catch hell for it. Public policy is very complex, and sometimes you misread things; it's a fact of life. To pretend that you have never done so is ridiculous.

While it is true that Kerry would criticize Bush for making a mistake, moderates across the world could take some comfort that the "leader of the free world" takes some time to review his decisions.

The fact that most politicians hide from criticism instead of trying to take it head on shows a) their lack of faith (possibly deserved) in the voters, and b) the cowardice of their convictions.

Re:That was different...

[PatientZero]

If Bush came out tomorrow and said, "Based on our intelligence, we believed that Saddam was a grave threat and could have weaponized WMDs in months, and the faulty inspection process was undermining our allies and allowing the summer heat to jeopardize operations. . . .

No, what I want to see is the truth, not backpeddling and justification for the war. It should start like this:

Based on our intelligence, Saddam had neither viable WMDs nor sources for rebuilding his WMD programs. However, I as President of the United States took it upon myself to ignore those reports and instead tell the American people and Congress that he had active WMDs and posed a serious threat to the U.S.

You see, he's evil, and though the U.S. signed the U.N. Charter which delineates the specific cases under which one nation may use force against another (posessing WMDs not being one of those cases), evil must be vanquished. Yes, even when we as civilized nations have agreed that nations tend not to be good at discerning between good and evil.

And God is on my side. He told me so. Therefore, I made no mistake. I purposefully misled all of you for your own best interests. Clearly, I know your best interests better than you, and I certainly know the best interests of companies like Haliburton. How? They tell me every time I meet with their executives.

Yes, that would be an admission I'd tune in to hear. Trying to claim it was a mistake of intelligence when he flat out dismissed the intelligence he received is disingenuous at best.

Re:That was different...

[geekpolitico]

Yeah, I tend to agree with your sentiments, but for the sake of arguing with a more Republican (not conservative viewpoint), I was trying to be polite. *smile*

Not only that...Bush typo

[macshune]

Bush made a typo:

President George Bush Responds:

...I support the separation of church and state, but I do not believe our Founders intended for the State to discriminate against the church and banish faith from the public square. Our Nation was based on founding principles; the decisions I make as a leader are sbased on these principles and not my personal faith. Marriage, for example, has been the foundation of our society and of societies and cultures throughout history -- and it has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. I believe that the future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic process, rather than by the court orders of a few.

Re:Not only that...Bush typo

[fucksl4shd0t]

Bush made a typo:

Nevermind the election, let's impeach the whiny little fuck.

Maybe she could just sell the kids to you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem solved! That'll be $500.

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[TellarHK]

As has been demonstrated in recent years, the administration has a pretty strong tendency to couch as much information as possible in the best possible political light. Say what you will about previous administrations doing the same thing or not, but the fact is the last few years have had more than one relatively infamous example of the administration pushing inaccuracies.

The rush to war based on faulty and -known- inaccurate intelligence (which was what Kerry based his stand on at the time) sources is just the best example of these. Then you can look into the medical and scientific determinations the government has made, and the fiscal ones, and see just how the projected reality has matched up -with- reality. If I were in Kerry's shoes, I wouldn't say I had -exactly- -this- -plan- to do -exactly- what needed to be done for sources of program funding, because for all I'd know the current administration cooked the fucking books in order to attack him with yet another new interpretation of the numbers as soon as he takes the bait. With Karl Rove in the White House, I wouldn't put that past them at all.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

[G. Waters]

Of all the questions posed, why not anything on illegal immigration?

It has become the central issue for many voters here (Arizona) this year.

Re:ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

[SocietyoftheFist]

You're kidding right? Illegal immigrants provide American businesses with the necessary cheap labor they need to remain competitive.

But you just described bush!

[poptones]

Think about it. No one can accuse Bush of being "nuanced" or even particularly good at the politicking. He basically says "this is what I'm about, take it or leave it" - and for some silly reason, a LOT of americans seems to be all about that.

So if what you say were even a little true Kerry should win this election bigtime - and no third party willl ever stand a chance, because they actually have to run on issues.

He might lie to cover his ass, and he definitely lied to lead us into this war - but I knew, you probably knew - everyone with half a fucking brain KNEW he was lying from the first time he said the guy who put down fundamentalism in his country with an iron fist was supporting a fundamentalist terrorist organization. I mean, fucking duh. So even though he lied it can easily be argued he is so simple and transparent that even when he is lying you have to be an idiot not to know it.

By your argument, then, sems you should be voting for Bush. Maybe you're right, because it seems a lot of people are. I'd like to believe they're all smart enough to know he's lying, too... but knowing what I know about the Bush supporters around me here in the bible belt, I have my doubts.

Re:But you just described bush!

[nomadic]

By your argument, then, sems you should be voting for Bush. Maybe you're right, because it seems a lot of people are. I'd like to believe they're all smart enough to know he's lying, too... but knowing what I know about the Bush supporters around me here in the bible belt, I have my doubts.

No, my argument says, don't vote against Bush because he's a liar, vote against him because he's incompetent.

Re:A use of the term "debate" I was unfamiliar wit

[FirstTimeCaller]

... that doesn't look like a debate to me. In a debate, there should be some interaction between the parties . . . some followup response and rebuttal.

Hence the "We're supposed to get candidates' rebuttals on or about October 17" comment.

Re:Thanks for trolling, please try again.

[ViolentGreen]

It was a trap question meant to give ammunition to his opponant. There was one directed at the other side as well. He's not going to go on national television and list three things that can be pointed to as failures of his administration. This is commen sense.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Telastyn]

God probably doesn't exist, and the Pope most certainly does. Further, I would wager an omnipotent, omniscient being such as the Christian God is likely to make better decisions than a man.

I thought that was the designated driver thing.

[khasim]

There are no such things as "safe drunk driving procedures".

If you drink, you don't drive.
If you are the designated driver, you don't drink.

NO!!! we tell them DON"T DRIVE DRUNK IT"S STUPID AND DANGEROUS AND SOMEONE WILL EITHER GET HURT OR DEAD.

Isn't that like telling kids "If you're going to have sex, then use protection. Otherwise you can end up pregnant or infected." ? Hmmmmm?

Re:I thought that was the designated driver thing.

[stanmann]

Except protectin doesn't prevent pregnancy or disease it "reduces the risk of pregnancy or disease".

SO instead of a 2 out of 3 chance of pregnancy or disease you have a 1 out of 12 or so chance. GREAT. vs Abstinence(the real kind not the clintonesque kind) you have a 0 out of 0 chance of pregnancy or disease. I like those odds. So sure, include contraception and barrier information, but use real numbers not blue sky laboratory numbers. Give them all the facts and make sure they understand all the risks. Then if they drive drunk, they know they have a good chance of dying and a condom is only going to reduce that, not eliminate it.

Maybe if we stopped saying things like that...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder...

When politicians, teachers, etc, say "Kids are going to have sex anyways."

Politicians admit affairs and people say "Everyone does it."

When television stations air shows with people having sex and NOBODY denounces it... hell, ads during 90210 (then)/The O.C. (now) as public service messages claiming that this behavior is unusual would help.

When we learn that pregnancy isn't a result of sex, but a result of "choice" because nobody will talk about abortion honestly...

OF COURSE TEENS HAVE SEX.

If a teenager wants to abstain, they've been told by AUTHORITY FIGURES, not just television, but the President, Senators, etc., that "Teens are going to have sex." When you talk that way, doesn't the teen that wants to abstain think "I'm a freak, all teens are going to have sex?"

This is bizarre. Children/Teens don't grow up in a vacuum. Our cultural changes are NOT inevitable, they are a function of a society THAT TELLS ITS YOUTH that they SHOULD engage in moral depravity, that it is okay.

Oral Sex isn't sex, kids have sex anyway, a trip to Planned Parenthood makes pregnancy go away, sodomy is an alternative life style...

Factor that all in, and WHAT messages are sent to America's youth?

If you are a 16 year old boy/girl that hasn't had sex, what do you think? Are you common, or a freak?

Who the hell wants to be a freak?

Re:Maybe if we stopped saying things like that...

[snol]

Even if the average person waited until marriage to have sex (as if that was ever the case) teens should still be educated about birth control and basic facts about sexuality. Ideally it should be done by their parents and start at a very young age, but if the parents aren't going to be responsible about it then the schools should (lots of parents would probably rather the schools took care of it anyway.) If it wasn't such a big deal with conflicting messages about how it's both highly universally desirable and yet filthy and bad and not a topic for civilized conversation, kids might understand for themselves that it wasn't something they wanted to get involved in until they were more mature. Clinton's surgeon general got fired because she dared to say that masturbation should be acknowledged to exist, and yet the porn industry continues to explode. Conservatives wanting to censor the world for their teenage kids are just compounding the problem.

Word Limit

[michaelepley]

At least Kerry observed the requested word limit:

We've asked that the candidates limit their responses to 300 words, and we've given each candidate the opportunity to add one 500-word rebuttal by the end of October 19th. (emphasis mine)

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote: The better standard is this: "Christian" is a self-designated label. If you decide you are one and claim to be one, then you are one.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ himself says:

(Matthew 7:21-23)

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

The measure of Christianity is not what a person says, but what a person does.

Quote: Just like Republicans who support Kerry or Democrats who are pro-life.

This is the major failing of our two party system. The vast majority of people will agree with one party on some issues, the other party on some other issues, and potentially agree with both or disagree with both on yet other issues! This forces many people to "choose their battles", supporting the candidate/party that we can agree with regarding our most important issues.

My wife has declared that she will never vote for the Democratic party, because they are pro-choice. Kerry, though a Christian and personally pro-life, will not receive her vote because he is running on a pro-choice platform. This is her most important issue, so everything else falls aside.

Oh, we *do* have a two party system.

[km790816]

Read about Duverger's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law)

It's nearly impossible for a 3rd party to gain visibility in the US because plurality elections. The Electoral College makes this worse because a candidate won't even gain visibility unless they reach the plurality of votes in any given state. It's possible that a 3rd party could get the largest popular vote across the country but not win a single individual state.

Solution:

• Eliminate the Electoral College
• Move to ranked voting (IRV, Condorcet)

Check out a simulation of IRV http://fixthesystem.net/

Re:Oh, we *do* have a two party system.

[jmccay]

I stick to my original statement. Actually, things would not improve without the Electoral College. Then America would definately be a majority rules place because then the candidates would only go to the big states. Th EC insures that small states count too. At one time I want the EC gone too, but the was the stupidity of youth.
I don't want any form of ranked voting. Too easy to get messed up. It's bad enough that the Democrats were caught in COlorado get a mentally impaired man to registar to vote 35+ times, and I bet the records thrown out in Nevada were probably the dead people who have been known to register as Democrats in the last few elections.

Re:Oh, we *do* have a two party system.

[km790816]

Really?

How much time have candidates spent in Wyomming? Alaska? The Dakotas? Montana? Wyomming?

The truth: the EC does not give "small states" any more visibility. Worse, they avoid New York, California, and Texas.

Is it unfortunate that no one goes to Cheyenne or Sioux Falls? Sure.
Is it unforgivable that no candidate goes to NYC or LA? Absolutely!

Re:Oh, we *do* have a two party system.

[GhengisKron]

How do you eliminate the electoral college? Right now, each state conducts it's own elections, and if they screw it up, they can only screw up their own electoral votes.

Either this is replaced with an enormous federal system that duplicates the state systems (there will still be state elections) or we continue to let each state conduct it's own election and report it's popular vote total to Washington.

However, if the national popular vote determines the winner, but state governments are conducting the elections, states can skew their weight much more than the electoral college does now. What would we do on election day if the Deleware election officals reported that the state had 300 million votes for Kerry, and 200 million for Bush? Now your vote REALLY doesn't count (unless you live in Deleware.

Also, if you are for abolishing the Electoral College, shouldn't you also be for abolishing (or reforming) the Senate? Every criticism of the EC applies to the senate, only more so. The Senate gives voters in small states disproportionate power (and how, population isn't even a factor).

The leadership of the senate is chosen by the senators, just as the president is chosen by the electoral college. And the popular vote isn't even an afterthought when it comes to chosing the senate's leaders (including all committee chairmen). The Senate "popular vote" in this case means per party sums of all the senate races. If senators were anonymous but the leaders they elected were famous, the electoral college parallels would be clearer.

A minority of people, in the right states, can elect a senate minority that has veto power over the appointment of all federal judges and all federal offices of any importance, including all military officers. But my Senator Clinton, who favors abolishing the electoral college system, does not seem to mind this!

Re:Oh, we *do* have a two party system.

[km790816]

Slow down turbo.

You make two arguments:

1) Switching to national popular vote is hard.
2) The Senate is not democratic.

Answers:

1) First, saying its hard doesn't make it not right. You know what an easier voting system would be? Let the oldest son of the guy in power take over when that guy dies. Are we going for easy or fair here?

Secondly, we sent a man to the fucking moon! Canada has federalized elections and they work fine. India some how gets 1.2 billion people to vote. It's not an intractable problem.

2) You assume the Senate is a good model. It's not.

16.3% of the US population elects half the Senate.

Let's assume for a second that the House and the Senate have equal power (most would claim that the Senate has more, but let's keep things simple.)

So if the Senate has half the power then half the Senate has a quarter of the power, right?

Basically we could climate all of the Representatives from the House from least populated 25 states AND A THEY WOULD STILL HAVE DISPROPORTIONATLY MORE POWER!!

If anything the Senate is MORE unfair than the Electoral College.

An important lesson that they don't teach in school, kids: the political structure of the US wasn't set up to be fair; it was set up to be agreed upon. (And, maybe, slightly better than a monarchy.)

Re:Oh, we *do* have a two party system.

[GhengisKron]

I agree with your last point - the US Senate and electoral college were created as a compromise so that the constitution could exist, not because it's the fairest system (a lesson i was taught in school).

I never said the Senate is a good model or "fair". I agree that it is more unfair than the electoral college. But you didn't suggest scrapping the senate, just the electoral college. Why is the same flawed model worth scrapping in once case but not the other?

The Canadian example is not on point. Canadians are divided into districts and each district elects 1 member of parliament. No matter how badly a province or district botches its election, it cannot change its proportional weight in parliament. Each province chooses parliamentarians the way way Maine chooses its presidential electors. They do not have a national election for one person - which would allow provinces/states to distort their weight.

And their head of state is chosen in the following way:

"Let the oldest son of the guy in power take over when that guy dies."

Except they also allow girls - the current one is Elizabeth II.

Re:Oh, we *do* have a two party system.

[km790816]

Now we're just getting into details.

I think both the Electoral College and the Senate should be scrapped. You had referred to the Senate as an example of why the Electoral College model was acceptable. I was simply saying it's not a good measure of an effective voting model.

As far as Canada, while they don't have a nation-wide election for one candidate, they do have federally run elections pointing out that the country-wide system can work.

Re:Oh, we *do* have a two party system.

[putch]

the senate is at least balanced by the house.

it is all about compromises. every other elected office in the land is directly elected. except for the presidency. even that has been reformed. originally it was just that state legislatures that chose electors.

maybe it's time for another baby step towards a true democracy. you know, a step like expanding the vote to non-landownders, non-whites, women and 18-20 year olds.

just cause it's been so for 200 years doesnt make it just, fair, logical, democratic, or tolerable.

Re:Oh, we *do* have a two party system.

[GhengisKron]

My problem with a federal direct election for president or prime minister is that, without setting the proportional weight for states/provinces beforehand, the incentive for fraud is huge. And not just fraud, voter turnout differences among the states/provinces also change their respective weights. If Canada had a direct election for prime minister, and quebec made voting mandatory under penalty of jail, but no other province did, quebec's influence over the election might be double what it would be if it were limited to their proportion of canada's overall population. Israel actually tried directly electing prime ministers, but it was a mess. They went back to the normal parliamentary system quickly.

The US is not alone in not having a direct election for its head of Government. Britain and Canada do not, their prime ministers are elected by parliaments. Well, technically they're appointed by the queen, but that's another story. No parliamentary democracy directly elects their head of state or head of government.

France does directly elect their president. Although if Le Pen comes in second again, perhaps that will change to add a geographical distribution requirement, like we have with the Electoral College.

By far the most common argument against the EC is that someonce can win the popular vote but lose the election. But this is true in any situation where a legislature is chosen by district, and they in turn elect a head of government. It could happen in Britain, Canada or any other country with a district based parliament. I believe that fixing the proportial weights of districts (or states or provinces) before the election is very important, and this is a worthwhile trade-off.

I'm glad you're consistent in your criticisms of the Senate and the electoral college. You're one of the good ones. But practically, the electoral college can be scrapped or modified pretty easily with an amendment, but the senate cannot by scrapped by amendment. The constitution requires that no state lose its equal representation in the senate without its consent, and that this rule can't be changed by amendment.

I'm for sticking with what we've got. It's pretty good, and we won't know what the unintended consequences of a change are until it's too late. The direct election of senators (17th amendment) must have seemed like a good idea, but without state governments having a veto over federal judges or laws, the result has been the end of federalism. There is no longer a built in check on federal power over the states.

If I HAD to change the electoral college, here's what i would do:

1) The term "electors" would refer to electoral votes for a presidential candidate, not actual people who meet for 1 day to elect the president. The state governments would send to congress a report of who each of their electoral votes are cast for.

2) D.C. would be allowed to have more electoral votes than a state. Right now they are assigned the amount of electors they would have if they were a state, BUT no more than those of the least populous state. If Whyoming wants more electors than DC, they can start screwing more.

3) Assign each state electoral votes equal to the number of representatives they have, not representatives + senators.

4) Require that states choose electoral votes the way they choose representatives. So if states have congressional districts (they all do), then each congressional district gets to vote to assign their electoral vote. Like Maine does, without the extra two votes.

there have been polls,

[mckwant]

and the youth tend to skew republican at the moment. One generic problem with the young vote is that they tend to be enormously fickle.

Check out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5 05 36-2004Sep25.html

Re:there have been polls,

[Anonymous Coward]

and the youth tend to skew republican at the moment.

Right, because they all really want to get drafted.

Re:Thanks for trolling, please try again.

[gorbachev]

There's nothing spineless about admitting to making mistakes, quite the contrary.

Additionally, if you can demonstrate what you've learnt from those mistakes by answering a simple question "how would you have corrected it", that would show wizdom as well. It would most definitely impress me.

I can understand why it's so difficult for Bush to do that, though. It's hard to grow a spine after all those years of having your daddy bail you out of difficult situations.

Re:Thanks for trolling, please try again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh ya, suuurrreee. Bush is bailed out by his daddy as much as "Hitlery" will be running the shots if Kerry gets elected. You fucking nutcase. All you libs make me sick.

Cognative Dissonance

[gaijin99]

How does the man not go insane from mind-shattering cognitive dissonance?

[ultra snarky mode] You're making a pretty big assumption there, bub. [/ultra snarky mode]

The truth is that people have held bigger dissonances than that throughout history. The typical pro-death penalty, anti-abortion person usually explains that "sanctity of life" is only for innocent life, or that the (accused) murderer violated that sanctity so it doesn't apply to them. Personally, I agree with you, but obviously the logic of our position doesn't seem aparent to a fairly large chunk of the population. Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty on the simple grounds that the judicial system cannot be perfect. A wrongly convicted person serving a life sentence can be released with an appology, you can't bring someone back from the dead if you execute them for a crime they didn't commit.

Re:Cognative Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

But W knows that Jesus could.

Re:Cognative Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

The typical pro-death penalty, anti-abortion person usually explains that "sanctity of life" is only for innocent life, or that the (accused) murderer violated that sanctity so it doesn't apply to them.

Doesn't original sin make us all guilty? How can there be innocent life? How can a fetus be saved if it hasn't personally accepted Jesus yet? I mean, isn't it just as damned as it's heathen mother??

So many questions!!

Re:Cognative Dissonance

[fucksl4shd0t]

A wrongly convicted person serving a life sentence can be released with an appology, you can't bring someone back from the dead if you execute them for a crime they didn't commit.

C'mon dude, any geek who's worth his salt knows damn well that when you get executed for a crime you didn't commit, you become the execution arm of the supersecret organization CURE.

Shah. I thought everyone knew that.

Re:Cognative Dissonance

[SirLanse]

Oh but opposing the death penalty but supporing abortion is sane?

Re:Cognative Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

People that share this mindsent generally don't view the fetus as human.

In a way it is equivalent to the other mindset where murders are not soncidered human.

On the one hand "religion" is used as the validation, on the other hand "science" is used as the validation.

There is no cognitive dissonance in either case.

I disklike Bush even more now

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush: Yet despite the energy and activism of many youth, less than half of eligible voters, ages 18-24, voted in recent national elections.

A hell of a lot of them are casual illegal drug users. Virtually all candidates' policies consider them as criminals for this. If you want them to vote for you, how about not supporting policies that make them criminals?

Bush: Unlike the legal systems of many other nations, the law assumes innocence unless guilt is proven before a jury of peers.

Two words: Guantanamo Bay. Two more words: unlawful combatants.

Bush: I support the death penalty for heinous crimes, but only where the process is fair and guilt is certain.

Then you cannot support the death penalty in its current form, as trials in the USA's current justice system are only designed to prove guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That's not certainty. What's the legal definition of "heinous", anyway?

Bush: To increase the level of certainty regarding the guilt or innocence of the convicted, I have substantially increased funding for DNA testing.

Leaving aside the issue of how reliable DNA testing is, "certain" is not something on a sliding scale. You are either certain or not. Bush seems to think that 99% "certain" is good enough. 99% "certain" isn't certain.

Bush: The best way to prevent youth crime is to attack its causes

No. Look at your own goddamn statistics. The best way to prevent youth crime is to decriminalise the act of putting certain substances into your own body. Not only will it directly reduce youth "crime" by a vast amount, it will also reduce connected crimes. There's no need to carry a gun to transport ganja if it's gone from being a black market drug to a regulated, taxed, free market drug.

Bush: The violent crime victimization rate is at its lowest level in 30 years.

What the hell is "the violent crime victimization rate"? I take it that's some insignificant statistic that is not the same as the violent crime rate?

Nader: The Nader/Camejo campaign opposes the death penalty in any form, particularly the odious practice of executing minors.

Now that's what I like to hear.

Questioner: 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.

Bush: we believe the freedom we prize is not for us alone - it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.

...and Goddamnit, they'll have our style of government whether they like it or not!

Bush: And, today, as we have for decades, Americans are amply displaying our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.

Yeah, but it's other peoples lives you are sacrificing! We don't want you to be willing to do that!

Nader: It is time to control some illegal drugs through regulation and taxation. Ending the drug war will dramatically reduce street crime, violence and homicides related to underground drug dealing.

That's what I like to hear!

Qesutioner: Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance.

Bush: President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor

It has appeared to me in the past that Bush is incapable of admitting fault. This merely reinforces that notion.

Bush: I signed a law reaffirming "one Nation under God" in our Pledge and "In God we trust" as our Motto.

Leaving aside the fact that you've basically said "tough noogies" to the person asking about separation of church and state, why the fuck does a country need laws about pledges and mottos?.

Re:I disklike Bush even more now

[Anonymous Coward]

So who do you like as a candidate? Do you actually believe the Democrats would be any different? And lets face it, Nader is a wasted vote.

Kerry / Edwards the two lawyers turned Senators controlled by PACs would be much worse.

As far as your stance on legalizing drugs, look to the other countries that have looser laws than the U.S.. Not quite the paradise you would think it would be. They just end up trading one set of problems for another. Talk about companies running things -- lets create another tobacco like industry / pac. No thanks!

Re:I disklike Bush even more now

[Anonymous Coward]

So who do you like as a candidate? Do you actually believe the Democrats would be any different? And lets face it, Nader is a wasted vote.

So basically, what you are saying is that if I vote for somebody who I want to represent me it is meaningless because they won't get in, and if I vote for somebody who I don't want to represent me it is meaningless because they are no different to the "other" side? So my vote is meaningless no matter what I do? How democratic! I'll just quote Bush again:

Yet despite the energy and activism of many youth, less than half of eligible voters, ages 18-24, voted in recent national elections.

Is it any fucking wonder? What's the point in voting if it's meaningless?

As far as your stance on legalizing drugs, look to the other countries that have looser laws than the U.S.. Not quite the paradise you would think it would be.

Actually, the few western countries that have loosened laws are quite a lot nicer than the USA.

Re:I disklike Bush even more now

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I am saying that you are not going to find the perfect candidate who matches 100% of your criteria. So given the choices that will make an actual difference, you should pick one. Just like the President, you gotta make the tough choice between two candidates - neither of which you care that much for.

Your statement that countries with loosened drug laws are quite a lot nicer than the USA can't really be substantiated. The evidence is very subjective at best. Most of these countries end up with higher health care costs and as a result higher taxes.

Re:I disklike Bush even more now

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statement that countries with loosened drug laws are quite a lot nicer than the USA can't really be substantiated. The evidence is very subjective at best.

They are different countries with different cultures. If you want to see the American consequences of legalisation of formerly illegal, yet widespread, recreational drugs, take a look at what happened after prohibition ended.

Re:I disklike Bush even more now

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like different countries with different cultures, prohibition occurred at a time very different from now. The America now does not equal the America then.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Led Zepplin isn't just a cult member, he's a satanist! Haven't you ever listened to Stairway to Heaven played backwards?

A couple thoughts

[spitzak]

Both Bush and Kerry completely ignored the election methods question. They did not say anything about changing the system, instead talking about cheating in elections.

All of them completely punted on the "made a mistake" question. I guess they were all told by their advistors to never, ever admit making a mistake, no matter what.

The best answer was the actually short and meaningful one Kerry did for sex education. In this case he was well aware that he agrees with the majority of Americans so for the first time ever one of the candidates gave a short a non-hedging answer.

I also thought Bush's answer to the health plan question was very good and very specific. It sounds like he has people really working on a method to make a system that is not national health care. Because some people disagree with this it sounds like he has real, non-partisan experts working on how to make this as appealing to everybody as possible, and thus can come up with real concise and non-hedging answers.

Other than that I can't say I was too impressed with anybody...

Alternate reality Bush

[humankind]

Is it just me, or do the responses from Bush seem to be radically different from his presence on the televised debates? It's obvious Rove or someone else carefully crafted these responses.

I know that most presidents have had speechwriters, but when there's such an obvious disparity between the intellect of the president and his prepared responses, am I the only person who finds this heavily disconcerting?

Re:Alternate reality Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really have to be as articulate as a professional speech writer to be smart? These are the President's policies.

Re:Alternate reality Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because Karl Rove gives a shit about the ultra-left commies on Slashdot.

mod parent up

[gaijin99]

Well said, I wish I had mod points.

Divorce becomes complicated then.

[khasim]

There would also have to be "due diligence" allowed. So each individual would have to have all of his/her financial records open to the other(s).

Right now, the system is fairly complicated because so many people just do not deal with all of the legal issues. Lots of couples do not have wills nor have they made arrangements for the care of any children should they both be killed.

Civil unions with multiple individuals would be okay, but all of the legal aspects have to be settled first and kept up-to-date.

Suppose a triad with two children broke up. Who would pay how much child support and how would that amount be determined? Would the non-biological "parent" be expected to pay?

Re:Divorce becomes complicated then.

[stanmann]

Divorce should be complicated. IMO divorce should be MUCH more complicated than we allow it to be today. Civil unions as a new area of law would allow for a much more effective "pre-nuptual" contractual arrangement.

Clauses could include nonseverability for anything other than violent crime until all offspring reach majority. Details can be worked later, getting action taken should be the first priority

Re:Thanks for trolling, please try again.

[gorbachev]

lol, glad to be of service.

Background of the hot dog story

[hackwrench]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q= nader+%22hot+dogs%22+ingredients+cancer Apparently Nader did research into the ingredients of hot dogs and discovered some/many of them were carcinogenic. It seems not unreasonable to me that if a product that many Americans consumed contained a substantial amount of carcinogens, that would be of national interest.

Re:Background of the hot dog story

[Rimbo]

"It seems not unreasonable to me that if a product that many Americans consumed contained a substantial amount of carcinogens, that would be of national interest."

I don't believe the people who eat hot dogs, those who eat enough so that the number of carcinogens in hot dogs would have an effect on their health, make what they eat a priority.

Electoral reform - no answer from W

[fiannaFailMan]

To the candidates, you talk a lot about the importance of promoting democracy in other countries. However, I have never heard 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 without winning 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?

Bush didn't even attempt to answer this question, maybe because he didn't understand it. He just waffled about the so-called 'Help America Vote Act,' (nothing to do with reforming the electoral college or spolier system) and went off on a tangent about campaign finance reform.

Re:Electoral reform - no answer from W

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do the parties, Dems or Reps, fall on this issue? Why do you think either would say more than the party line? This is an issue that needs more debate / thought than a one or two paragraph response in an election year.

Maybe the Senators that show up to work can start the ball rolling. Guarantee you they won't.

Wonder how many raises Kerry and company voted for themselves throughout the years? Where were all his plans then?

mod down

[Anonymous Coward]

uninteresting

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Rostin]

possibly Southern Baptists

I tip my hat to you for at least admitting this only as a possibility. This tiny similarly between Roman Catholicism and Mormonism is not shared by any largish Protestant group. I would leave out the "largish," but then someone would pipe up and insist that the Branch Davidians are Protestants.

From the Southern Baptist Convention's Constitution:

"Article IV. Authority: While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, associations, or convention."

And in case there is any confusion about what the Convention's "own sphere" is, read Article III.

Isn't it better to know what he did?

[SuperKendall]

Good or bad, isn't a track record far more informative than a statement of what someone "plans" to do? If you dislike what he did, then you can turn a more skeptical eye to future plans if it does not continue in the same vein.

I personally thought each had some they answered better than others, but GWB had a thought the most interesting response for the health care question, and the most realitic fo socail security (though I still don't expect to ever see anything from that system).

Re:A use of the term "debate" I was unfamiliar wit

[entrigant]

And that's not all: We're supposed to get candidates' rebuttals on or about October 17, so don't touch that dial!

Umm... ya.

Indeed.

[c0p0n]

3. FOREIGN POLICY:

Question
The U.S. has been accused of cultural and economic imperialism in the past...

President George Bush Responds:
...It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy.

I, for one, welcome our new French Overlords.

short sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you wouldn't benefit from lower crime
(funded by better education and such)

Sure you wouldn't benefit from better health
(obtained by making sure everyone is in better health - remember a lot of diseases are transmitted by someone)

Sure you wouldn't....

And the list goes on and on.

Clear case of short sigthedness.

Just because the money you pay in tax is not directly going to you does not mean that you don't get any benefits!

aol users for the electoral college!

[putch]

Then America would definately be a majority rules place because then the candidates would only go to the big states.

yeah, this might have been the case when we all traveled by horse and buggy and telegraphs were the communication medium.

but i don't see how a 35 minute layover at an airport means 'attention'given to a particular state. in this century we have information at our fingertips, what difference does it make? in fact without the electoral college maybe they would travel LESS and talk more about issus.

also, it doesn't change the fact that the 18 least populous states which represent approx 6% of the population get almost 12% of the electoral votes.

so, what's wrong with one person one vote?

of course an aol user wants to keep the electoral college. idiots are idiots, not matter what they're talking about.

Re:aol users for the electoral college!

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're saying is that 36% of the states only account for 12% of the electoral vote. You're right, that is unfair.

Re:aol users for the electoral college!

[putch]

i was under the impression that people vote. not land masses.

i guess your idea of democracy is a little different than mine.

maybe only landowners get to vote in your worold.

shithead.

Re:aol users for the electoral college!

[Anonymous Coward]

shithead.

Ah, another fine, well thought out comment on Slashdot. Why do I bother?

My point is that the electoral college was designed to give voting power partially based on population, and partially based on statehood. We were nominally designed as a federation of independant states. California should not be given power over what goes on in Minnesota, because it is a very different place and an independant state of equal standing. We have largely shifted in our view, to where we think of states in the country much like counties within a state, small subordinate units of government. However, that gives rise to the belief in a straight, numerical popular vote, which means that the opinions of the people of Alaska are meaningless compared to those of California, because we have 100x the population.

I don't know what the right answer is. I'm not a historian or a political scientist. I do see an argument that a straight popular vote could disenfranchise states that are supposed to be on an equal footing.

I'm sorry if I have offended you by using reason and logic instead of harsh language and simplistic comments. "Fuck you, idiot", if that makes you feel better.

Re:aol users for the electoral college!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's some of the most busted logical reasoning I've witnessed in a while.

California should not be given power over what goes on in Minnesota....ok, buddy. So does that mean that if Bush is elected, every state that voted for Kerry shouldn't have to acknowledge Bush as their president? After all, why should the Bush states have control over what goes on in the Kerry states?

So, according to your reasoning, Alaska should allowed to have a disproportionate representation as compared to California precisely because Alaska's population is 100 times small?

This is a simple question: Should we allow people to vote or should we base our presidential decisions on arbitarily drawn lines on a map? I, along with all rational people, am going with the former.

Re:aol users for the electoral college!

[putch]

well,
1) we have the senate where small states are given a disproportionate say. why should they have a disproportionate say in two branches?

2) i am a poliical scientist and i do know

3) so why should there be 1 elector per 400k wyoming residents and only 1 per 600k ny residents? are the opinions of wyoming residents more important because they choose to live in a rural location?

4) why should our 'democracy' be scewed because of imaginary colonial/territory boundaries arbitarily set hundreds of years ago? should we cling to outdated standards? why keep blackls, women and non-landowners from voting?

5) at one point the electors in the electoral college were chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote on a state by state basis, why not go back to that?

I do see an argument that a straight popular vote could disenfranchise states that are supposed to be on an equal footing.

again, why should a land mass be more important than a person? you say you don't know but yet you defend it? do you just want to argue (that i can actually respect)? or do you honestly believe that dirt has more rights than people?

i could give a shit if big block of land is being disenfranchised. but if 1/3 of the PEOPLE (not land) in most populous states in the union are being misrepresented, then i do care.

i'm, sorry if i offended you with math, statistics, fairness and a yearning for a real deomcracy.

i'll give more thought to dirt nextime.

shithead.

Re:aol users for the electoral college!

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that you're the one criticizing someone for being an "AOL user", you really should try to pretend that you're not one. Capitalization would be a start. Not calling someone who you know nothing about a shithead would also be a good thing.

If you really are a political scientist, then I am out of my league on all accounts, because frankly I don't give a shit. I looked through a dozen or more presidential candidates for my state, and I didn't like a single one of them. The popular vote in this country is 80% Christian, and I am atheist, so when the people decide, it is often counter to my belief system, but very democratic. The political game in this country has gone so far from beyond what it was meant to be that I have lost faith, and lost interest, and I hope I die before they find me in my hole and try to make me be like them.

I can try to answer your points by a hypothetical. Suppose we gave the UN real power, and held popular elections worldwide. China and India would have an enormous amount of influence over the world at that point, because they hold a lot of people. I think most people in the USA wouldn't go for that, because we are an independant state, and we want to be recognized as equal to anyone else, even if they have more people. Actually, we want to be special due to our economic and military power. It's certainly not democratic, but I belive it would be the view of this country. Why should it apply externally, but not internally?

To answer your question, though, I kind of just want to argue. Politics is one of the many areas that people like to try to paint in black and white, and I have yet to find an issue that I see as being quite that obvious. I can almost always see at least two sides to any issue. I often try to play Devil's Advocate, because when I see someone who is 100% on one side of an issue, I have to believe that they just haven't thought it through. If they have thought it through, and chosen a side, that's fine, but they should be in a position to acknowledge the other side, and point out its strengths and weaknesses, not just attack it as idiotic.

Pres. Bush likes to say that "It's hard work", but then he claims to have the right answer every single time, usually in sound bite form. I'd like to find someone who admits that they don't always have the right answer, but always tries to work toward it. That sometimes taxes need to be raised to support spending. That sometimes the majority is wrong, and should not be allowed to impose their will on the minority unjustly.

And my arm is getting sore from carrying this lantern.

Neither does driving sober.

[khasim]

Except protectin doesn't prevent pregnancy or disease it "reduces the risk of pregnancy or disease".

The same as driving sober reduces the risk of getting in an accident. But there is still a risk. And lots of people die every year in car accidents.

So sure, include contraception and barrier information, but use real numbers not blue sky laboratory numbers.

So you've moved from "abstinence" education to generic sex education.

Give them all the facts and make sure they understand all the risks.

Again, that's generic sex education.

The "abstinence" programs do not teach about condoms or foams/gels or diaphrams or anything other than abstinence.

Re:Neither does driving sober.

[stanmann]

And the "generic" program I got in jr/sr High school didn't include abstinence

WHEN you go out and have sex, here are your methods of eliminating risk.

Abstinence ONLY programs aren't the way either, but an Abstinence BASED program focused on abstinence but addressing briefly and to the point, no need for 60 condom covered bananas, the other areas and issues is one way we can do better.

Separation of Church and State

[einhverfr]

I am not sure that this has its roots in nor can be synonymous with a separation of faith and state. Additionally if you take the argument too far, you will find that the US state has a religious orientation in ways which are not considered a problem because they are not based on a church....

Fur example--- phrases like "In God We trust" and the iconography on the $1 bill aside, I think it is interesting that the majority of mythological/religious symbols which our state utilizes are of a pre-Christian nature. For example, we did not invent Lady Liberty-- she is a Graco-Roman goddess. The Eagle is an old Germanic (and probably Indo-European) symbol of sacral kingship. So I guess if you ban God from the public square, I guess one should dismantle the Statue of Liberty, rename the Capitol (and remove the statue of the goddess Liberty from the top of its dome) etc. We should also dismantle the Washington Monument (obviously patterned after ancient Hametic sacred symbolism), and others.

But strangely, only "Under God" and "In god We trust" become controversial because they represent the majority. Although I understand the problems with these (and why the 10 Commandments should not be displayed at schools) I can live with it given the other more inclusive religious symbolism endorsed by the state.

I know that some will say that although Liberty was a goddess with the same trappings depicted on Roman coins, that this represents a concept rather than a being for our people today-- something like a different manifestation of Plato's forms.... But I have argued elsewhere that this was the essence of Indo-European myth-- that the gods and goddesses represented concepts and ideas every bit as much as they represented beings (reading the story of Cupid and Psyche with the understanding that this is the effect of Love on the Soul is a simple place to start, esp. when comparing it with Plato's Phaedrus). In this way, perhaps, the government could be seen as endorsing ancient Greek religion or at least a cult of Liberty.

I, for one, am much more comfortable with a government being a cult of Liberty rather than an extension of Christianity....

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Doc Ruby]

An ancient abstract symbol of liberty that represents an intangible in which all decent Americans believe is a lot different from a stone Ten Commandments as big as a man in a state government building. There's a difference between icons of belief, which are essential to organizing hundreds of millions of Americans and our neighbors, and an establishment of religion.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[einhverfr]

An ancient abstract symbol of liberty that represents an intangible in which all decent Americans believe is a lot different from a stone Ten Commandments as big as a man in a state government building. There's a difference between icons of belief, which are essential to organizing hundreds of millions of Americans and our neighbors, and an establishment of religion.

Would it matter if some people were to pray to Liberty?

Does it matter that I use the Indo-European framework as the basis for my religion? Are these statues an endorsement of my beliefs?

Does it matter that Liberty is called a goddess not only by academics but by our (Christian) senators themselves?

Also I would argue a couple of things:

1) you can argue, perhaps compellingly, that the whole Mitzvah and the Commandments 3-8 in particular are/were important for social reasons and not particularly religious.

2) If the absense of a large organized church or collection thereof endorsing the symbolism makes this irrelevant from a first ammendment level, then the fact that the ancient Greeks for example, had a very fragmented religious scene allow the US government ot endorse all Greek gods (and worship of the ideals that they represent)... Or the Norse gods....

Or maybe we can have a Pagan Idols in the public square, but Olympus forbid we have a cross there with them....

I have argued that abstract symbols and concepts were the core and cornerstone of Indo-European religion and that of their decendents (Celtic, Greek, Old Iranian, Hittite, Vedic, Germanic, Italic, etc). This concept of faith and practice of religion is fundamentally different from that of the Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Rastafarian, Baha'i, etc) traditions which are derived from an older Afroasiatic tradition.

I am happy to provide a more technical analysis of the difference of this concept based in part on the work of Dumezil, Watkins, etc. Just as a point, I think that Dumezil's points are best made when looked at as an analysis of iconographic and liturgical formulas.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Doc Ruby]

Spirituality and faith are one thing, the government "respecting an establishment of religion" is something else. If you were talking about a pagan sanctuary for worship of the goddess of liberty out under the statue, built and maintained by the government, you'd have a point. But the government isn't directed to prevent people from informal, unorganized spiritual or other beliefs. Don't confuse our freedom of private religion, and freedom from public religion, with the Soviet orthodoxy enforcing athiesm, science, and faith only in the infallibility of the state as the incarnation of the inevitable progress of history towards communist perfection.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[mink]

The problem with "In GOD we trust" and "Under GOD" to me is both of those were added by McCarthyism to keep "godless commies" for going to schools and using money (and workes as well as raping a virgin cures AIDS). There is no spirituality or faith involved in money or the pledge. We need to finish dismantling the 1950's era crap that jams up our lives.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[fucksl4shd0t]

There's an interesting argument embedded in there. You see, the pre-Christian Gods and Goddesses frequently represented a single concept or phase of a personality. So it makes sense that using symbolism of those gods and goddesses to symbolize the concepts they represented is ok.

Now, the Christian God is all-encompassing and represents every concept and every phase of a personality. So it also makes perfect sense to use His symbolism in our government.

He represents a politician.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[fucksl4shd0t]

You know, I wouldn't give a flying fuck if they made a man-sized monument to commandments 3-8. :) The ones I remember, anyway, do a good job of setting a foundation for our legislatures to pursue. I'd modify them, of course, if I were the one making the foundation, but for an already imperfect system where nobody can agree what to do, it's better than nothing.

And having a monument to it wouldn't be such a bad thing.

The parts I object to would be the inclusion of these other commandments that have absolutely nothing to do with government. There is no logical connection between "Thou shalt have no gods before me" and the office of the Presidency.

Aaa, well, I wouldn't be a radical if I didn't think things through. :)

Re:Separation of Church and State

[GenSolo]

The problem with "In GOD we trust" and "Under GOD" to me is both of those were added by McCarthyism...

The Star-Spangled Banner, verse 4, line 6, written mid-September, 1814, adopted officially by the Congress as the national anthem of the United States of America in March 1931:
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Now, maybe following this idea and adding said motto to currency was done by McCarthyism to force athiests into a lower status in society, but it's certainly not 1950's era crap because it predates the 1950's by a hundred and thirty-five years.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[mink]

Sorry I was not talking about the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner. I should have been more clear in that I was talking about the Pledge and Money.
So yes the stuff I was talking against was McCarty era crap.

Mass tax donation

[flicken]

why he didn't check the check box on his MASS state tax return to pay the higher rate.

In 2004, out of 1.9 million Massachusetts tax payers, less than 1000 selected to voluntarily pay the higher tax rate. Kerry has no obligation to pay a higher tax rate than legally necessary.

Re:Mass tax donation

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry has no obligation to pay a higher tax rate than legally necessary.
He has no legal obligation, but he (in my opinion, of course), does have a moral obligation. If he wants to raise the legal obligation on others, he has the moral obligation to pay more himself to start with. If he wants to oppose the Bush tax cuts, he has the moral obligation to oppose them in act by paying a higher tax rate rather than merely opposing them in word by whining.

RE: 12. TOLERANCE FOR THOSE WHO ARE DIFFERENT

[c0d3h4x0r]

To protect the rights of minorities, and to protect our natural rights, this country desperately needs the following constitutional ammendments:

• DEFINITION: For purposes of legal interpretation, race, ethnicity, physical appearance, gender, physical disability, and mental disability are all considered physical characteristics.

• DEFINITION: For purposes of legal interpretation, religious beliefs, political position, sexual orientation, and lifestyle are all to be considered matters of individual opinion.

• AMMENDMENT: A person's lack of religious or spiritual beliefs constitutes a set of beliefs, and those beliefs are to be treated equally under the law alongside any other set of religious beliefs.

• AMMENDMENT: The Government, and no state government, shall enact any law or issue any verdict that either explicitly or consequentially grants or denies rights exclusively to a subset of citizens based on matters of individual opinion or physical characteristics.

• AMMENDMENT: No branch of Government, and no state government, shall enact any law or issue any verdict that infriniges upon the natural rights of a person to terminate or protect his or her own life, or to assist in terminating or protecting the life of another person at that person's request.

Is it possible?

[gumpish]

Is it possible that he's just a very poor public speaker, but given the chance to sit down and think over his answers, can provide at least coherent responses?

No.

GWB

[Anonymous Coward]

Amending the Constitution against gays? Abstience-only education? Freedom is the calling of our time? Multiple simultaneous wars? "armies of compassion"?

He is a nutjob. Why don't people see how dangerous he is?

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[nine-times]

All I had in mind was, I've known non-native but fluent English speakers who translate well, but sometimes, due to the inner act of translation (if you don't think in that language), they get the connotations a little wrong. What I mean by that is, not knowing the pope, I don't know for a fact what connotations the English word "defect" has for him, even though it's gained some strong connotations in these days of political correctness.

Either way, doesn't change my point that you have to ask what he means by 'defect'.... people on slashdot seem to pick apart the most inconsequential sentence in posts....

how is it not an honest answer?

[putch]

Q: When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion?

A:If leaders form their opinions based on a set of facts and they learn that those facts are wrong, it is appropriate to change their position

that seems like a direct answer to a direct question. where is the dishonesty?

Short answers

[Shotgun]

This being /., I realize that most readers are somewhat younger than I, and maybe not used to politico-speak. Some are also more impulsive, and ill-equipped to deal with long-winded blowhards. The long list of people claiming that the questions weren't answered testifies to this observation.

For the convenience of all such readers, I have tried to cut through the bull and present straightforward answers. For those of you who think I have misrepresented the candidates answers, please respond with quotations from what they have said in this article. This does not concern whether they are correct or not, only what they have said in this specific instance. (We can proceed to ripping them apart once we have figured out what they have said).

Death Penalty: Why is the United States on this list? Do you believe executing minors is a good policy, and if not, what will you do to change the law?

Bush:
I support the death penalty for heinous crimes,
Nader:
The Nader/Camejo campaign opposes the death penalty in any form,
Kerry:
I believe that the death penalty should only be used for terrorists.

Social Security: 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 in a Roth IRA.

Bush:
I favor the establishment of voluntary personal accounts for younger workers.
Kerry:
My Social Security plan is based on three pillars; growing the economy, restoring fiscal discipline and working in a bipartisan manner.
Nader:
We would defend Social Security from risky privatization plans, ensuring its long-term fiscal solvency. Social Security needs no "saving," only improvement through gradual changes to the benefits and revenue structure.

Foreign Policy: what would you do to restore our nation's reputation around the world, including any actions you would take that you haven't previously mentioned?

Bush:
The United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East, which requires the same persistence, energy, and idealism we have shown before. The advance of freedom is the calling of our time,

Nader:
Other low cost-high yield (compared to massive costs of redundant weapons) that extend the best of our country abroad include public health measures for drinking water safety abroad, tobacco control, stemming soil erosion, deforestation and misuse of chemicals, international labor standards, stimulating democratic institutions, agrarian cooperatives and demonstrating appropriate technologies dealing with agriculture, transportation, housing and efficient, renewable energy.

Kerry:
First, I will launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world. Second, I will modernize the world's most powerful military to meet the new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, I will deploy all that is in America's arsenal -- our military, our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth and finally, to secure our full independence and freedom, I have a plan to free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil.

Draft: What are the chances of you supporting such a drastic change in our drafting process, and under what circumstances would you institute a draft, or any other national service, to fight a war?

Kerry:
I oppose reinstating the draft

Bush:
We will not have a draft so long as I am the President of the United States.

Nader:
American youth must act now to prevent forced conscription.

Voting Reform: Do you currently, and would you in the future, support any reforms to encourage a greater diversity in our political system?

Bush:
I was also proud to sign into law campaign finance reform, which is helping to improve the integrity of the electoral process by preventing unions and corpo

Re:Short answers

[RazzleDazzle]

Civil Rights: Why won't the candidates address the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage?

Kerry: (deciphering this is left to the reader, 'cause I couldn't)

To me it seems Kerry is morally against same sex marriages, legally does not want to allow it but not neccessarilly crimilize it legally, just morally. He said he is FOR civil unions, which is ok but they are not federally recognized, only on the state level so if you move or travel, you are screwed. You would have to get a CU in every state, which I am sure would not be free or simple to accomplish.

Living in MN I had the pleasure of heardin Jesse "The Mind" Ventura as Governor. He often times answered the questions as they were asked. For example if someone asked "Are you against TOPIC_A?" and his response was "YES" or "NO" with no other crap affiliated with it.

All politicians spout the rhetoric that they are FOR the american people, they want to keep everyone SAFE. Well DUH, no one is going to say I am against safety or working for the American people! That is the double standard, say one thing do something else. I don't feel any safer than before 9-11, before the draconian laws that sprouted from 9-11, after the draconian laws came to be. I do however feel less safe knowing there are more ASSAULT WEAPONS available to people. Let's look at the definition of assault:

• from dictionary.com
• A violent physical or verbal attack.
• An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
• The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.
• Sexual assault.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Jardine]

Ultimately though, Catholics are much more liberal on issues of spirituality than most Protestants. The only issue that they come down on the conservative side is abortion. And that's just a huge clusterfuck, so I can't entirely blame them.

That depends on where you are. The United Church of Canada is the largest Protestant church in Canada and they allow gay ministers. I believe they also allow their ministers to perform marriages for gay couples.

It falls apart then.

[khasim]

If man and woman have a civil union, and he gets drunk all the time and won't keep a job, under the current rules, she can dump him, take the kid and get her life together.

Under your rules, she's stuck with him until the kid turns 18.

The thing is, you have to look at all the aspects, including how to end the contract, and take all of them into account. This is complicated with just two people, it becomes extremely complicated when more than two people are involved.

Details can be worked later, getting action taken should be the first priority

Rather, the details need to be examined now rather than hoping that they'll all work themselves out because everyone will be nice and mature about it.

Our current marriage system has evolved over hundreds of years of people being total jerks to the people they've married. And that's only with two people married.

Re:It falls apart then.

[stanmann]

Simple enough, the contract today(traditional marriage) includes an implied support agreement.

A civil union contract would of necessity include a detailed support agreement listing responsibilities and priviledges.

I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can Kerry claim to be a practicing Catholic yet support abortion and civil unions? FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP! The Bible says no to both. You can only serve one master.

Kerry's writing has some parsing warnings

[GQuon]

Kerry's writing has some parsing warnings:

Debug_level=2
Warning : Statement has two contradictory meanings:

We must (end the practice of robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to (balance the budget and protect savings for the future)) .

We must (end the practice of robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the budget) and (protect savings for the future) .

Warning: Variable leaders of the future assigned to two different values. Assuming "youth" to be proper value. Alternative value "The New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate and Anthony Tedesco" rejected.

I would like to thank The New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate and Anthony Tedesco for allowing me the opportunity to address the concerns of the youth of today because they are the leaders of tomorrow.

Do not disparage purple!

[cfalcon]

For it is a mighty, imperial color!

You are not worthy to insult such a suffusion of blue and red light!

Let's see some stastistics for this odd theory...

[GojiraDeMonstah]

You are vastly overlooking the effects of movies, music, pop icons, celebrities, TV shows, magazines, and just about everything else that has an influence on young people's sexual mores over the last 40 years. Even more importantly, what about the availability of birth control pills (which became widespread in the 60s - coinciding with your claim about sex ed's history). Many of the historians I've heard actually attribute the pill more than anything else to the explosion in sexual activity since the mid 60s.

Yet you attribute the rise in pregnancy and STDs all to a rinky dink health course that most high schoolers probably slept through, giggled at, or ignored completely?

This is your idea of setting is all straight on our history???

How can it not include abstinence?

[khasim]

Did it cover the bits about a penis and vagina and sperm and egg?

Then if you don't put the penis and vagina together, you don't get pregnant. That's "abstinence".

Abstinence is what you've been doing all those nights until the first time you had sex. How much does it need to be explained? I haven't met anyone who didn't understand what "abstinence" meant.

Abstinence ONLY programs aren't the way either, but an Abstinence BASED program focused on abstinence but addressing briefly and to the point, no need for 60 condom covered bananas, the other areas and issues is one way we can do better.

Again, abstinence is the easiest concept to explain to teenagers. I can explain everything there is to know about abstinence in less than 5 minutes. That includes the 4 minute question and answer session after. That leaves the rest of the class time to cover the other subjects in the detail necessary. Yes, that includes learning how to put condoms on and when to put them on and what types of condoms will block viruses and what types won't and how to use condoms in conjunction with foams/gels, etc.

Re:How can it not include abstinence?

[stanmann]

Ok, so you spend 5(forgetable) minutes on abstinence and 29:55 hours(thats a 6 week term) on condoms and birth control, and expect an impact.

How about we spend 27 hours on abstinence and its benefits and the risks of unprotected sex and 3 hours on a survey of the various birth control methods and how to find them at the supermarket... Oh and if you need to know more, read the insert, it gives instructions.

President George Bush Responds:

[Turmio]

We are fortunate in America to have the best health care system in the world

A funny one :) Maybe if you're filthy rich. The US of A is the only modern western country without national health care. Even Cuba beats The States hands down on this issue.

Re:President George Bush Responds:

[Anonymous Coward]

So you wanna live in Cuba or the US of A?

Re:President George Bush Responds:

[SocietyoftheFist]

Does that invalidate the claim about our health care system?

Re:President George Bush Responds:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not completely, but things come at a cost. What would the cost be of a national health care system here in the U.S.? The closest I came was an HMO and that sucked! I want what I can afford. That said, there should be a safety net for those who cannot afford anything. But we need to be very measured in our steps in this area.

Re:You couldn't make this up!

[Black Acid]

AAS shutdown? Interesting. I remember that site from several years ago. Their eulogy seems to end on a positive note, but if you scroll past their copyright notice the remarks on chilling effects become apparent:

SOME ADDITIONAL FACTORS...

To be perfectly honest, there are other factors in our decision to shut down, and although those factors are a little embarrassing to admit, they are important enough that others need to know about them. Speaking now just for myself as the creator of this site and primary owner, I have had other things to consider in keeping AAS open the last year or so including the fact that I now have a wife to consider and a family of my own to start, and negative opinions about this site (even though we rarely hear any) no longer affect me alone. Also, sadly, the political climate in America has changed so dramatically since the Bush Administration and the Tom Delay Congress came to power that people no longer feel that they can speak out freely on controversial issues - especially if one is daring to disagree with the current political forces. Free Speech in America has been chilled by the Bush Administration in ways I did not think was possible in this country.

Obviously I am not a fan of President Bush - no secret there - but my dislike is not based on anything personal; it is based on the sweeping policy changes related to sex education and reproduction issues in area after area of our government. In order to push their religion-based idea that there should be no sexual activity outside of marriage (between a male and female only) they have issued Executive Orders and quietly issued new policies to department after department in the U.S. Government, and most recently has begun targeting for investigation organizations and websites speaking out against their "abstinence-only" programs and ideology. As much as I hate to admit it, this is very intimidating, especially for a couple of individuals who could be ruined, financially, just attempting to defend themselves against such an investigation, even if no wrong-doing is ever found. Below is a clip from a Salon.com article :

"Only a few weeks after No New Money went live last August, 24 House Republicans, led by Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., jotted off a letter to HHS Secretary Thompson asking that both SIECUS and Advocates for Youth (which was listed on the site along with more than a hundred other 'supporting organizations') be investigated."

And that is just one small example of what the political climate has become... SIECUS is now under further vicious attack by Republicans in Congress and a score of Religious Right groups. Keep in mind that SIECUS has been writing the sex education curricula for public and private schools in America since 1964 and is hardly a "controversial" group. To get a better idea of exactly what is going on, you can read the complete last article posted on the AAS site in December 2003. You can also visit the SIECUS website for the latest news.

On the up-side, All About Sex has never taken grant money to operate and there was nothing illegal on this site. However, neither of these organizations are anywhere close to being as controversial as some of the content on this website and we cannot afford the high-powered attorneys they can in defending themselves.

In past rulings about Free Speech by the United States Supreme Court they have talked about situations like what the Congress and Bush Administration is doing and said that such intimidation and censorship "chills" the air for those speaking out against government policies. This is what our elected officials are doing - and will keep doing until the American public decide's they've had enough. Well, the way I see it, when it comes to talking honestly and openly about teens and sexuality in North America, it has gotten downright freezing, and is likely to remain that way until a new, less conservative Administration is voted in. And American children will be the ones paying the price for years to come.

If you still want to see the site was about, check it out on Archive.org.

Now you're at the point I made previously.

[khasim]

Simple enough, the contract today(traditional marriage) includes an implied support agreement.

A civil union contract would of necessity include a detailed support agreement listing responsibilities and priviledges.

Yes, I said that in my previous post.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si d=12552 4&cid=10517273

Again, these issues need to be worked out and codified BEFORE implementing "civil unions" with two or more people. Until they are addressed (and saying that a contract would be necessary is NOT addressing them), then I cannot recommend changing our existing marriage laws.

It's easy to say how something "should" be, but it's a lot harder when you have to consider all the ramifications and how immature and petty people can be.

Re:Now you're at the point I made previously.

[Anonymous Coward]

No way
you would get two mothers in law :)

But like the idea, There was a german that had something like that some time ago in a comune

damn i live in the wrong era

I don't know how this comment was modded insightfu

[GQuon]

I don't know how this comment was modded insightful.

"I don't know how this comment was modded insightful."

(I don't, but I suspect that it was modded insightful because many people agreed with the complaint.)

Before anyone else replies...

[halivar]

Yes, I know that I was wrong, and that David Cobb is the Green Party candidate.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[mefus]

And just to troll, the catholics are technically the FIRST Christians.

The fact the other FIRST Christians were crushed into oblivion by the Catholic Church as heretical deviations from the One True Way isn't a distinction worth drawing attention to, it's true.

No...

[SuperKendall]

wow - Bush has no response to this? Does this man think he can never be wrong? Be afraid. Very, very afraid.

Bush just chose not to send out any rope that anyone could hang him with. Unlike the other two candidates. It's the kind of questions you just can't answer well.

So would you rather vote for someone with sense enough to stay quiet when the situation demands it, or someone who feels compelled to provide an answer to every question even where he has no answer to give?

Myself, I like hot dogs.

Re:No...

[dcam]

Everyone should be able to admit they have made mistakes. No exceptions.

What can you say about abstinence in 27 hours?

[khasim]

Ok, so you spend 5(forgetable) minutes on abstinence and 29:55 hours(thats a 6 week term) on condoms and birth control, and expect an impact.

Of course. It isn't like the concept of abstinence is new to them. Again, they've been living it for most (all?) of their lives so far.

How about we spend 27 hours on abstinence and its benefits and the risks of unprotected sex and 3 hours on a survey of the various birth control methods and how to find them at the supermarket...

#1. They can find the condoms at the supermarket. They don't hide them.

#2. If you talk about abstinence for 27 hours, you'll be doing a LOT of repeating yourself.

#3. If you cover the various diseases for 27 hours, you'll be doing a LOT of repeating yourself. Unless you go into the very rare ones that the kids are even less likely to catch than to have a condom fail.

Oh and if you need to know more, read the insert, it gives instructions.

Yes, but it doesn't answer questions. If your class isn't already teaching everything in those instructions, then why are you wasting their time? They can pick all of that up talking about it in the parking lot.

Of course, they'll also pick up a lot of incorrect information, but they'll be stuck with that anyway in your program.

Re:factualEven better

[rxmd]

Bush:

"We are fortunate in America to have the best health care system in the world..."

Nader:

"The U.S. is the only industrialized country without universal health care..."

Quite the difference, eh?

Where were you in the Democratic primaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's assume that people really thought like that, that people really cared only to vote out Bush.

If they felt that strongly, they should have worked early for the Democratic primariy to champion a viable contender - like some did with Dean, who I would have voted for. And some did champion him, but obviously not enough.

But now you have Kerry, who is basicaly Carter: The Next Generation. I'm supposed to vote for that?

If you are voting just to vote Bush out, then you sir are a potato head, pure and simple.

Strongest disagreement with Nader over cliffs

[SuperKendall]

Both corporate-controlled political parties are taking our country over a cliff, the Democrats are just doing it a little slower.

Mr. Nader is dead wrong here - They are entirely seperate cliffs. The important thing to consider is which bottom looks better to you.

Nader is the option of flying to the moon. Nice if you can manage it.

MOD PARENT UP

[InferiorFloater]

Seriously. I mean, if you want to get back to the good-old-days of the 50's, maybe you better stop companies from using sex to sell product. The fact of the matter is, our culture is becoming saturated with sex, and when kids see their idols and role models engaging in wholesale booty-tapping, they're gonna wonder what the fuss is about. Now, you can tell them what the fuss is actually about, mention the risks associated, and tell them how to protect themselves, or you can cover their eyes and tell them "Nothing to see here". For an inquisitive kid in a sex-drenched culture, which do you think will be more effective?

What I'd like to see is more education focusing on critiquing popular culture's use of sex imagery and encouraging kids to think critically about this stuff.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[AoT]

Sorry, what I meant is:

What's the difference between a Politician believing that god told them to do it and the Pope actually telling them?

closest thing to 1st century christians today is..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at all of the religions today that claim to spring from the christian faith, they all carry the baggege of 2000 years of change and modification. The Reformation of the church done by Martin Luther, Calvin, and antibaptists like Meno Simmons, was the first attempt to return the church to what they thought was the original intent of Jesus Christ. This reformation resulted in the creation of what is now called the Protestants and the Baptists. This wasnt a "revolt", it was people being able to read the Bible and understand that what the Church(Roman Catholic only at this time) was teaching is not the same as what is in the Bible. But all this reformation did was look at the text contained in the Bible and not understand or read it, in its original context. They got it half right.
Today there is a small but growing minority within the "Church"(by this I mean the whole body of belivers in Christ) who attempts to read and understand the Bible in its original context. They try to understand all of the idioms that are found in both the new and old testement. This new but growing group can be found in several different groups. Both the "Messianic Jews"(the largest)and the "Hebraic Roots" movement would good examples.
And if any group can claim that they are the original Church, I think that it would be one of these groups. The Messianic Jews, worship Jesus but call him "Yeshua". They worship him from the point of view of the original followers, who were all Jews. Think about it both Christ and all of his original followers were Jews and Worshiped in a very Jewish manner. They celibrated all of the Jewish festivals and holidays. If you dont believe me then just do a google search on both of these groups and educate yourself about it.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[mefus]

In my experience (As a former born-again Christian with formerly-religious parents[1]), many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian.

I was not a born-again christian, I was a protestant evangelical. And in the years of Bible study and years of "Catechism" (we went to classes for two years twice a week in order to observe the sacrament) I was never, ever, exposed to such intolerant doctrines against another church. This is a side of Protestantism I'm unfamiliar with, although I recognize that things have changed remarkably since I was in the fold.

We were merely taught that non-believers in Jesus who had not accepted Him as their savior were destined to go to an eternity of blinding pain and immense psychological tortures.

Regarding your fathers story, I had a similar one but not violent. When I was asked (after the public examination preceding my acceptance to the taking of the sacrament) if I would die rather than deny that Christ was a living force in my life, I said I had never been put in a life-threatening situation and could not honestly say if I would react in the way I thought I believed. He got his back up there and acted all upset and stood up to rail at me. He threatened me with public censure, what would my mom think. So I did what he wanted, just to calm him down. I suppose if I were consistent with my rationality I would have continued to defend it but I could also see that's exactly what he didn't want, so I backpedaled. There in the warm woody smell of his lush office, I sold out. I could have tried harder to have a discussion about it, I suppose.

Now, I live in apostacy.

What a waste!

[divisionbyzero]

Bush didn't even answer most of the questions. Kerry was somewhat on topic, but typically non-comittal, trying to play both ends to the middle. Nader actually stayed on topic most of the time and had some interesting answers. Nader also was the only one that talked to us like we were peers, not little children.

These folks had an opprtunity to write a response that could have been insightful and informative. They were not on the spot and could have ensured that they said exactly what they wanted to say, but instead we get talking points. Really, how hard is it to answer a simple question?

Bush's answer or lack of it to the mistake question speaks volumes about his character. Somebody else mentioned that we crucify people when they admit mistakes, or more accurately the press crucifies them for public enjoyment and to warn the public against taking risks and making mistakes, but its more than that. You can tell by listening to him and watching his body language. He is contemptuous and arrogant.

Is this the character of a leader? This is not a partisan bash. It is a fact. Anyone who can't see the difference between stubborn, prideful arrogance and strength of character is clearly blinded by partisan beliefs or ignorant. I'm a conservative and I can see that.

The one thing he has got going for him though is the ability to make his weaknesses into strengths:

"Tough on Terror!" : 9/11 happend on his watch and he failed to capture Osama bin Laden before getting us involved in an elective war that made the world more dangerous and caused the world to no longer respect us.

"Huge tax cut!": That mostly benefited the people that least needed it. Even worse, it has created the biggest fiscal deficit in history. So much for fiscal conservatism. And the government has grown larger during this administration than it has been ever.

"Passed the Patriot Act!": So much for civil liberties and freedom. I though conservatives valued freedom? And while we are on the topic of freedom: what about the fact that he wants the government to tell us who we can marry, have sex with, and what to do in general with our own bodies? Freedom?

Conservatives should be outraged, except for maybe bible-thumbing, fundamentalist, born-again Christians. However most Christians should see that Bush is apparently guilty of the worst sin, pride. Of course only god knows, but anyone who votes for Bush because he supports some of the goals that some Christians do is making a truly Faustian bargain.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[mefus]

The United Church of Canada

Are you sure that isn't Unitarian/Universal?

s/youghts/youths/

[danalien]

small correction

Wasted Time

[IanDanforth]

Except for the responces from Nader I was extremely unhappy with the candidates responces. They could have easily been cut/paste transfers from past speeches. I specifically draw your attention to the Question regarding Marriage. Even taking the time to rephrase your views makes me feel like you care about the issue. Politicians have become so obsessed over "Message Discipline" that they lose sight of the fact that their words should reflect constant thought, not just good memorization skills.

-Ian

Don't know about chiled molestation,

[GQuon]

Don't know about chiled molestation, but here's Mr. Jackson Kirk Grimes, your candidate for president.

Actually, I'm not sure if he's really fascist. :-)

Concisely unsubstansial, then?

[GQuon]

Concisely unsubstansial, then? :-)
Like consistently inconsistent? (Bush campaign boilerplate.)

Enough Of the Back Door Draft Nonsense!

[mirio]

Ok, there is no such thing as a back door draft. I did my four years in the Navy so I know what I'm talking about. When you enlist, the very front page of your enlistment contract has in bold letters that you are actually enlisting for 8 years, with 4 (sometimes 3, sometimes 6 according to the rating/job your gonna be doing) years active service. It states very, very clearly that if the president so orders, you may be required to stay in longer than your four years.

I'm no Bush fan either, but let's state the facts. It's a volunteer military. People voluntarily sign that contract. I want to bring our kids home too, but they signed the contract! It's no surprise to any of them!

Wow...

[Tesko]

Repetitive responses...

George Bush: That is something I've voted for

John Kerry: That is something George Bush did wrong, and ill do right

Ralph Nader: Ill give everyone hybrid cars, hot dogs are icky!

Do as I say, not as I do...

[chudmung]

Bush : "Illegal drug use can have devastating consequences.

This is coming from a man that was HIGH AS A KITE for many
years on end and never had anything bad come from it.

Bush : "Taking responsibility for one's actions is another important part of becoming a successful adult."

The other is having a very well connected father who can cover any records of your misdeeds.

Vote Kerry! If you don't do it for the world...

[mb77]

do it for you and your children.

s/chiled molestation/child molestation

[GQuon]

s/chiled molestation/child molestation /me is posting while sleepy

We're talking about child molestation.

Not about a chiled mole station, where the mole daemons of Chile get on the train.

Just like Bill Orielly

[Anonymous Coward]

It is said that if someone lie often and consistantly enough that they begin to believe thier lies and it become increasingly more difficult to prove the person is actually lying.

I was at work at didn't feel like posting under my user -Shuz

Teresa's Taxes

[sybert]

The problem with Teresa's taxes, what little we know about them, is that the contradict Democrat's rhetoric. First she reports only $6.8M of income on a growing fortune of $1B. This means that most of her fortune is sheltered, which Democrats disfavor. She pays less taxes because much of here reported income is from tax-exempt interest. This means she holds lots of government bonds, which means that the government has lots of her money from borrowing and not taxes. Democrats say that the rich should pay higher taxes, and ignore bonds as revenue. She pays lower taxes on capital gains and dividends. Investment creates jobs and taxing investment is bad for the economy no matter who invests. Also her charitable contributions go mostly to activists (Tides, etc.) and not to the needy.

I think that Teresa should be made an example that deficits don't matter. We can cut everybody's involuntary tax burden and those who can afford to pay more can voluntarily lend their money to the government like Teresa. Bonds are voluntary and are the most progressive way for the government to raise money. Taxes are involuntary and regressive. Anyone who thinks the government needs more money should buy bonds instead of trying to get taxes increased.

Government spending, not deficits, matters. Taxes and bonds both take the same amount of money away from the public, and debt roll-over just transfers money and does not increase the money taken away from the public. This is why increasing the deficit by increased spending is much worse than increasing the deficit by cutting taxes.

PARENT IS A TROLL SHILL

[Anonymous Coward]

View comment history for further details.

talk to your state legislature

[gad_zuki!]

Your state decides how it wants to pick its electors. The exective branch nor congress cannot force IRV (which has flaws too btw).

Nader talks about it because it serves him, but makes no effort to work on the local and state level to implement change. Nader is aiming for the presidency with no party. A real third party could work with the state legislature to make changes in this regard. Nader just bounces from party to party.

Where is the libertarian candidate?

[teetam]

Where is the libertarian candidate? I believe LP has a far bigger presence than most people think. On this forum alone, I have seen a lot of libertarians.

Re:Where is the libertarian candidate?

[rleibman]

Where is the libertarian candidate? I believe LP has a far bigger presence than most people think. On this forum alone, I have seen a lot of libertarians.
Precisely for that reason, Badnarik was interviewed by slashdot directly, and anwsered so.

Re: Uniformed people ?!? Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

(or, after he loses on Nov.02, maybe that should read "Uniformed people are what keep him in office")

Interesting typo. I'm sure you meant "uninformed people" but lets' supposed you really meant "uniformed people," as in Bush being kept in power by men in uniforms...such as the Army.

Bush declares martial law before the election? You wouldn't be the first to suggest it...

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[EnronHaliburton2004]

I love how many religious authority figures get angry about situations like this. Don't blame yourself for selling out-- you were forced to defend yourself against an unethical attack from a man who claimed to be an agent of god.

My last argument against one of these people (10+ years ago) "Just who do you think you are? What makes you so special that you have a special relationship with god and I do not?

This argument is between me and god. YOU are not god. Buzz off."

When I left the church the Sunday School teacher was pretty angry with me-- something about hell, turning away from Christ, etc.

Soon after, his daughter was drunk & stoned, had unprotected sex and ended up pregnant. The guy who got her pregnant (well respected football jock) fled town.

Myself, I was never irresponsible in that way and I have never hurt anyone like that.

If there is a god, he knows I'm a nice guy. It's between me and him, not me and some religous freak.

Executing juveniles

[h4x0r-3l337]

In response to question #1, Bush said "Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed".

Today CNN reports: "more than 70 people who committed crimes as 16- and 17-year-olds are on death row".

So what's up with that? Does Bush not know the law, are these convictions illegal, or is there a loophole?

Re:Executing juveniles

[Beolach]

Not entirely sure, but I think this is the 'loophole'. Bush says "Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed, and I see no reason to change that statue. The Supreme Court will soon consider whether the Constitution requires states to follow a similar rule." So I think this means that for federal offences minors are not subject to the death penalty, but for states unless/until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, each state can decide for itself whether or not to allow the death penalty for minors. The CNN article begins "Nineteen states allow capital punishment for juveniles", so I think that supports this.

green and libs

[gad_zuki!]

>The Libertarian and Green candidates not only agreed to be interviewed directly by a random nerd website (/.), but gave well thought out answers to the questions.

And when they become a national party busy with larger groups to talk to and with many compromises they won't have time to talk to slashdot. Oh, they will but just like Bush does, with copy and paste speechwriter crap for the "voting kiddies." At least the Kerry stuff looked and sounded fresh and attempted to stay within the confines of the question.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[nine-times]

Ok, everyone who responded to my post picked apart this one statement, but you win the cake for the most extreme misunderstanding. You see, sometimes, when we wish to explain what we're saying, we put the explanation in parentheses. Make sense so far?

So, I said "the pope doesn't speak English" and backtracked to say "What I mean by that is not that he doesn't know English, but only that it's not his native tongue". So, like, yeah, I can speak spanish, but when I speak in my day to day life, I don't speak Spanish. And no, speaking a language "rather fluently" is not necessarily the same as being a native speaker. Language is rather complicated, especially English (and no, I'm not saying that out of bias to my native tongue, English is among the more complex languages).

That a man who speaks English "rather fluently" could fail to catch the connotations of many English words is not the slightest bit hard to imagine, even if that man is the pope.

But no, by all means, let's choose to ignore the general thrust of what I'm saying in my post as a whole so we can pounce on the fact that I said I don't know if the pope speaks English.

OK? So, I know, comprehensive reading is a skill, and I know we don't all have it. So if you're having *trouble* understanding my post, please understand the quoted sentence to mean:

I know the pope, day to day, does not speak English. The degree to which he speaks English is unknown to me. Therefore, I might ask what his understanding of the word "defect" is. However, it doesn't really matter, because....

Does that help?

*sigh*

Re: Uniformed people ?!? Uh oh...

[User 956]

Yes, that's the joke, get it? UNINformed people will vote for him, but UNIformed people will make sure he keeps office.

That's not an answer

[pjt33]

The question was about changes of opinion on a matter of national importance. A private individual's drug abuse is not a matter of national importance, so he wouldn't actually have been answering the question.

Questions I'd like to see more of..

[superyooser]

The questioners sounded like a bunch of flaming liberals.

Here is the kind of questions I'd like to see. Below is a sample.

18) What are your general feelings on immigration and the need for "border control"?

19) What do you believe is the most effective manner for fighting terrorism?

20) Which countries would you most seek close alliances with, and are we currently allied with any countries which you'd rather us not be?

21) Why is education the responsibility of the president and/or federal government?

22) Why is health care the responsibility of the president and/or federal government?

23) Why is individual retirement planning the responsibility of the president and/or federal government (e.g. social security)?

24) Why is job creation the responsibility of the president and/or federal government?

25) Why are "family values" the responsibility of the president and/or federal government?

26) Why is research and technology the responsibility of the president and/or federal government?

27) Why is "compassion" (e.g. 9/11 fund for families of victims) the responsibility of the president and/or federal government?

Re:I can't believe Kerry is supporting the drug wa

[Anonymous Coward]

You are insane. On all levels.

The only problem with those drugs is that they are illegal? What planet do you live on? Are you high right now? (I'll make a bet). That might at least explain your completely incoherant ranting.

Mod Parent "Insightful as hell"

[SoulPatch]

This sums up the candidates position on pretty much everything.

Sneaky Bush on the Draft Issue

[Gudlyf]

Bush says: "We will not have a draft so long as I am the President of the United States. In fact, current law prohibits reinstatement of the draft absent legislation and such legislation was recently defeated in the House of Representatives 402 to 2."

Translation: "There will be no draft! I should know -- I tried to reinstate the draft and the House defeated the legislation I handed them, those bastards!"

Re:Sneaky Bush on the Draft Issue

[Dave114]

How about a a draft bill introduced by a bunch of democrats?

Re:Gay "marriage"- IRAN

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago i saw a documentary from a journalist about the freedom in Iran.
He talked with a woman about freedom, because of the shaira islamic riules.
The woman said she was happy to live in Iran because there was real freedom of religion in her point of view. In Iran all marriage, divorce, death birth etc are arranged by religion in contrary to the state, in contrary to most western nations where this is a state affair and there is no choise on which religion/condition you want to be married. Each religion has his own way. In Iran there are Yews, Christians among others besides the major moslim belief. And they are allowed in contrary to Saudie Arabia and Kuweit where you can get the death penalty for having a bible.

Most people don't know this.
I hope this gets modded as interesting.

PS i am an atheistic dutch.
PS2 Though i think it is not wise to tell you are gay in Iran :)

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[amightywind]

Its not your parties beliefs that amaze me, its their inability to defend them logically and then have the unwashed masses follow your leaders around like their the damn pied piper.

Intellectual elitism is a hallmark of modern liberalism. It only serves your vanity. The democrats used to lay claim to the vote of the "unwashed masses". We Republicans are happy to bring them into the fold, and win presidential elections.

hey wait you forget the Black Panther Party

[Adolph_Hitler]

since you are going to list all the radical parties no ones ever heard of.

90575 / 395000 == 13.7%....

[Anonymous Coward]

or else it doesn't and if you look at a calculator instead of wrongly copying other people's posts you'll see you're wrong.

perfect for slashdot too

[Trepidity]

If it's longer than a paragraph nobody here reads it. So Kerry wins this round.

not very much more any longer

[Trepidity]

Nader's support is down below 1% nationally, which is comparable to Badnarik. Badnarik might even pull more in some states...

Yes they should but which ones?

[SuperKendall]

As I said, there's no good way to answer that question.

If you simply say "I have made mistakes." and say nothing more people assume the worst.

If you give specific examples all you are doing is giving ammo to the other guy.

The only viable options for any kind of answer is the one Kerry gave, which makes you look like a car salesman, or Naders approach of a parable that makes people go huh? (though I liked it generally it will not do well to gain voters).

I still maintain that no answer is the best one. As WOPR says, sometimes the only way to win is not to play the game.

Present a better response that you seriously think would win more voters than it would have lost - from ANY of the candidates!

Re:Yes they should but which ones?

[dcam]

The question was actually a twofold question. The first half asked when is it appropriate for leaders to change their opinions. The second half asked for an instance of them changing their opinion on an issue national importance.

None of the candidates answered the second and Bush didn't answer the first. Or rather by not answering, and given his actions he said there is no appropriate time to say you have made a mistake.

I understand the difficulty that being in election mode adds to the problem, however that doesn't change the fact that first question can be answered. In election time you pick an issue that is a dead issue, or one in which you all agree on, and use that.

Here is a good answer for Bush to give:

"If a mistake has been made it should be admitted. [blah blah]. Early in my administration we sought to disengage from the world to become less involved in peace keeping missions, and trouble spots around the world. Since 9/11 we realised the errors in this policy and have moved to engage issues around the world as they arisen. [spin on Afghanistan, sudan and to a lesser extent Iraq]"

This answers the question in a way that does not bring on controvesy. Everyone agrees that isolation is not a good policy, so why not make some hay out of the fact?

The fact that Bush cannot admit that he makes mistakes is a huge issue. He has appropriated the doctrine of Papal Infallability.

Who's typing versus the what they REALLY say.

[shanen]

Sorry, but unless someone can certify that the candidates actually sat down and wrote or even READ the answers submitted in their names, I think you have to regard this as a really meaningless substitute for poking in their heads. A hefty shot of truth serum and a lie detector would be useful aids, too, though we can stop short of Abu Ghraib techniques. We already know they're going to tell us whatever they think we want to hear, even without torture. In reality some staff hack handled it, and it's barely possible they even mentioned the /. crowd's interest to the actual candidate. Only reason the candidate would really be interested would be if the staff member could say something like "... and here are some questions from /. which reaches about 7,000 undecided voters in the crucial undecided state of ...."

Kerry has said the right things in the usual way, so whoopee. The important thing to me is that I'm pro-science and Dubya is VERY clearly anti-science, and LOTS of real scientists of every stripe are endorsing Kerry or opposing Dubya.

Dubya is completely out of it. His recent discovery of the "internets" says pretty much everything in his case. Remember that Dubya is NOT a reader. He gets his information by listening, and presumably by asking questions, though the reports are that he rarely bothers to ask. Still, if he was asking any questions about computer-related issues he would have learned how to say "Internet" by now. You might want to dismiss it as yet another stupid slip of his tongue, evidence of excessive medication, or even senility, but it doesn't matter. If you are a scientist or a computerist or any stripe, Dubya is NOT your real friend.

Nader has samply fallen off the wall too many times and no one is going to be able to put his head together again. It doesn't matter that he's right on many issues. What matters is the way the system is set up and the fact that you have to play the game by the rules. If Nader is not simply crazy, then I think his real game plan at this point is to help Dubya stay in the White House so the system will collapse and Nader is hoping the resulting revolution will produce a better system. Putting on my historian's hat, I think that on the average that is what happens, but there's no guarantee--but it is guaranteed that a lot of people will get nastily stepped on during the revolution whether or not the new system is better.

Re: Bush tax cut's mythical(?) $1,000 tax savings

[matthewd]

Obviously these things are complex, and to come up with a generic phrase like "saves each middle-class family about $1,000" you probably rely on a series of assumptions that aren't spelled out. So here's a real life explanation/example:

The child tax credit is now $1000 per child. This is a credit towards your income tax, not a deduction from your wages when figuring total taxable income. Consequently, this can make a big difference on your tax owed, depending on how many children you have of course and what you are used to paying.

As an example, my total tax for 2003 was $4,411. In the summer of 2003 the feds issued checks to families as an "advance" on the child credit when it was changing from $600/child to $1000/child. So I got a check for $1200 ($400*3, having three kids reported on my 2002 return). In October my wife gave birth to our fourth child. So on my 2003 return I got to claim a total credit of $2800 ($1000 for the new guy, plus $600*3).

So yes, have a lot of kids, and you can get a nice break on your taxes. The trade off is, over time, you will lose your sanity. As long as your income stays below the phase-out levels for the child tax credit and/or you don't get hit by the AMT. With $4000 in total child tax credits, my taxes when from $4,411 to $411. I am one of those people who actually pays more--much more--in social security and Medicare taxes than in federal income taxes.

AFAIK I am in the so called "middle class". ($60K-70K annual income)

Obviously my case is an extreme example, but it's pretty easy to see where the $1,000 average savings comes from: if an "average" family has two kids, then the change in the child tax credit works out to an additional savings of $800. The balance probably is coming from the creation of the 10% tax bracket and reductions in the rates in the brackets above that.

Who's typing versus what they REALLY think

[shanen]

Okay, I confess I haven't read all of the answers, but... Unless someone can certify that the candidates actually sat down and wrote or even READ the answers submitted in their names, I think you have to regard this as a really meaningless substitute for poking in their heads. You want the truth? A hefty shot of truth serum and a lie detector would be useful aids, too, though we can stop short of Abu Ghraib techniques. We already know politicians are going to tell us whatever they think we want to hear, even without torture. In reality some staff hack handled it, and it's barely possible they even mentioned the /. crowd's interest to the actual candidate. Only reason the candidate would really be interested would be if the staff member could say something like "... and here are some questions from /. which reaches about 7,000 undecided voters in the crucial undecided state of ...."

"Kerry" says the right things in the usual way, so whoopee. The important thing to me is that I'm pro-science and Dubya is VERY clearly anti-science, and LOTS of real scientists of every stripe are endorsing Kerry or opposing Dubya. Dubya is fundamentally a non-scientific fanatic--Dubya already knows what he thinks and isn't going to allow himself to be confused by any contradictory facts.

As far as computers are concerned, Dubya is completely out of it. His recent discovery of the "internets" says pretty much everything in his case. Remember that Dubya is NOT a reader. He gets his information by listening, and presumably by asking questions, though the reports are that he rarely bothers to ask. Still, if he was asking any questions about computer-related issues he would have learned how to say "Internet" by now. You might want to dismiss it as yet another stupid slip of his tongue, evidence of excessive medication, or even senility, but it doesn't matter. If you are a scientist or a computerist or any stripe, Dubya is NOT your real friend.

Nader has samply fallen off the wall too many times and no one is going to be able to put his head together again. It doesn't matter that he's right on many issues. What matters is the way the system is set up and the fact that you have to play the game by the rules. If Nader is not simply crazy, then I think his real game plan at this point is to help Dubya stay in the White House so the system will collapse and Nader is hoping the resulting revolution will produce a better system. Putting on my historian's hat, I think that on the average that is what happens, but there's no guarantee--but it is guaranteed that a lot of people will get nastily stepped on during the revolution whether or not the new system is better.

Re:Libertarian Vote?

[FleaPlus]

It should be noted that Michael Badnarik also "ain't Bush."

Re: Clarification

[matthewd]

IIRC and FWIW, the child tax credit was first enacted under Clinton, but it was only $500. The original round of Bush tax cuts (2001?) had the child tax credit increasing gradually through the rest of the decade to $1000, and then because these changes weren't "permanent" the next year it went back down to $500 per child. This is part of the phase-in effect that pundits claim delayed the economic recovery--because the full tax cuts had not really taken effect, effects were limited. What happened in 2003 is that tax cuts were basically accelerated, so that they would have a more immediate impact.

So depending on the baseline you are working with, you have to figure different savings amounts. Accelerating the tax cuts that were already in place saved me $1600 in taxes over what I would have paid ($400 extra tax credit x 4 kids). From the Clinton-era baseline, I'm saving $2000 in income taxes ($500 extra tax credit x 4 kids).

That's all the questions?

[JRSiebz]

Why didn't anyone ask about patent reform, and how the patent system does not work properly with today's technology? I want to hear the canidates' reposonses to this whole SCO mess, assuming they can understand it.

What about this whole RIAA trying to get laws passed so that taxpayers pay to prosecute the RIAA's own civil law suits? What are the canidate's stances on the RIAA, the DMCA, copyright law, ssuming they can understand it properly.?

What are their stances on the parts of the Patriot act which remove the requirement of needing a judge isssued warrant before someone can be searched, or wire-tapped?

That's what I care about, beacase it affects me directly ;-)

Re: 12. TOLERANCE FOR THOSE WHO ARE DIFFERENT

[yourmom16]

That is a very bad idea. Being a serial killer is a lifestyle too. If you dropped the part about lifestyle or defined it narrowly enough then that would probably be a good amendment.

Well when you put it that way...

[ttfkam]

Think of it like the arguments about capitalism and democracy. Both are terribly flawed and even perhaps downright terrible. They are the absolute worst except for the alternatives.

I can see how IRV isn't perfect. In fact, it suffers from many of the same problems as what we have now. As far as being 2% away from a landslide versus a close race, who cares!?! In both your cases, the candidate preferred by the majority of the populace is chosen. In addition -- and this is the most important selling point -- it keeps the nuances of public sentiment in full view instead of making decisions seem either-or. The current system allows for deeply divided populaces and candidates who are elected contrary to popular mandate.

Let's say we have a strong two-party system (stretch of the imagination, I know) and a minor 3rd party.

45%: R
44%: D
11%: G

Here, R wins by a slim majority even though everyone KNOWS that supporters of G would rather have D by a huge margin. But let's say that even though a small group prefers G, they absolutely hate R, and so they vote for the electable candidate D contrary to their real preference.

45%: R
46%: D
9%: G

Here, D wins. Wow! A 2% shift changed the outcome. Even better, because many supporters of G hate party R, they are torn between voting for reform or playing a part in moving in a direction quite the opposite of what they want. At least in your IRV example, you could see the collective thought processes involved in the choice much better. It may have been a landslide versus close, but even minor analysis like yours demonstrated that at least we could see what was going on.

No matter what voting method is used, strategic voting will play some part. However with the current plurality voting, transition to other parties is basically impossible. When federal matching funds come into play, IRV becomes much more important. The difference between 10% of the vote and 15% is negligible to the outcome. But it terms of visibility, funding, and access, that 5% makes a world of difference.

IRV is not anywhere near perfect. Then again, we're dealing with people and populations here. No solution will EVER be perfect. But I encourage you to take another look at your example. In both cases, the candidate that the majority does not like will not take office.

Most plurality elections don't represent the exact will of the people. You think Republicans would have preferred Gore to just about any other Republican in the primaries? Ditto for the Democrats.

Try this thought on for size: IRV makes primaries obsolete. With the demise of the primaries, parties become diluted. 3rd party doesn't mean what it means today anymore.

And let's face it, the outcome of the last election may very well have been similar. Ultra-liberal votes for Nader, Bradley, Gore. Ultra-conservative votes for Buchanan, Forbes, McCain, Bush. It would still take some time for people to shake off their stereotypical political ideologies. The last election would still be liberal vs. conservative with the moderates pulling them both to the center. In the end, the result would probably have produced someone not quite so reviled by half the populace.

At least with IRV, the least wanted candidate in a three-way race is guaranteed not to win. This isn't the case today. Given sufficient time, two-way and three-way races would go the way of the do-do anyway. (See note about primaries.)

-----

And before someone mutters Condorcet, I must say, 'shut up.' Not because Condorcet isn't better. Mathematically, it's great! However, it is complicated. One of the requirements of an election is that a populace trusts the election process. If a large proportion doesn't understand the mechanism (for better or for worse), that mechanism isn't viable. IRV is simple enough to understand but markedly better than plurality.

Re:Well when you put it that way...

[fleacircus]

My numbers aren't THAT contrived, just because they are specific. When you imagine there being three viable parties, roughly how much of the vote do you imagine each one having? There's actually quite a bit of room where the effect I showed happens.

IRV chokes when there are two parties with roughly equal sizes, and one of the parties (G) 'feeds' heavily into another party (D), but not so much the other way around. In this easily imagined setup a small point swing decides whether G or D is knocked out first, and that causes either a cascade of votes into D, or all the votes fleeing both G and D because G cannot get enough votes from (D) to stay alive. The G people think their votes will feed harmlessly into D, but this can't happen if G knocks out D first, and in fact the G people are in for a rude shock: they just screwed themselves out of their second choice.

You say: In both cases, the candidate that the majority does not like will not take office.

This isn't really true because no one had a majority among the first choices. If you're just saying that the majority of LAST choices didn't win in my examples (meaning G), that's not saying much, and not always true in IRV, and how do you know what the last choices are in standard voting?

Sure, it looks ugly when someone wins without a majority of the vote, but I think my example of the 2% shift from G D R to D R G producing a 36-point swing from R to D shows that the final tally in IRV is bullshit anyway.

In your supposed counter-example, your 2% swing produces a 2% swing. I don't think you understand. I'm not complaining that it's possible for 2% to swing the election; I'm pointing out that in a standard vote it's easy to know what you need to do (assuming the public knows generally who is more popular and there is time to campaign), whereas IRV is LESS representative of your preferences because it tricks you into thinking it will represent them accurately.

People who voted G D R got their least favorite candidate because they ranked their favorite first; the problem isn't that R wins in a close count, the problem is that a glitch in IRV is chosing R over D, when the relative ranking of D and R didn't change in those 2% anyway.

Also consider this: if that 2% had changed from G D R to R G D (having some epiphany that R was the one true leader) then the vote looks like this:

31%: G, D, R ("We lost 2%? Pshaw!")
32%: D, R, G ("We've been united for clarity!")
2% : R, G, D ("We're with you, R!")
35%: R, D, G ("No! Get away get away!")

Now instead of D being eliminated and R winning as in the first example, G is eliminated and D wins.

If that 2% REALLY wanted R to win, they shouldn't have placed him first like that. What fools! Don't they realize that sometimes in IRV that putting someone as your first choice can make them lose?

The straight up vote system has the virtue that most people can understand that you don't back the loser, and the benefit of voting strategically is apparent to everyone and so very many people DO vote strategically. Casting a 3rd party vote in the current system is effectively saying "yes I know my guy can't win, but I actually don't have a preference between the other two."

(You can even argue that it helps third parties by giving them more leverage and power against a more mainstream party because the votes really are being taken away; in an IRV where G is only 11% of the vote and D knows that it can get almost all of G's second votes -- it pays no attention to G whatsoever.)

Try this thought on for size: IRV makes primaries obsolete

I seriously doubt it. The party that concentrates their efforts on one candidate has a huge campaigning advantage and is likely to win. Anyway it could easily still boil down to a 3-way race at some point between two R-ish people and a D, say, and you're back in wacky land.

The current voting system is like a car without any doors. Yes, it's a piece of crap car and you

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[Belgand]

Yes, I agree with you entirely. However, I never meant that this was a wise strategy. My point was that the government will not necessarily even provide the same amount of uninflated return. This is due, in part, to a system where regardless of how much I put in I still get the same amount out.

While I am not wealthy (and considering I'm planning a career in research it's not likely to ever be an issue) I still find it fundamentally wrong to discriminate against those who have more.

Executing "retarded" criminals is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

The ends justify the means. Whether a capital criminal knows what he is doing or not, execution is just fine by me.

Either way they will not be a repeat offender.

If you are religious, God can sort it out.

If not, it doesn't matter. Dead is dead.

By the people, for the people...of Mexico.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is as good a place for this question as any.

Why is it the responsibility of the US government in general, and the american people specifically, to do what other governments can't do? Take care of their people. Shouldn't Mexico be the one setting up conditions that favour it's citizens having a living wage? What about all the rest?

Bush is a decisive leader

[sonamchauhan]

President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor

Such a decisive leader!

Correct.

Insurance...HCA

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a heath care system built on personal action and responsibility?

A HCA (Health Care Account) were you put money in for...health care? You decide what goes were "fiscal responsibility". Couple that with an overall general government health plan devoted to preventive medicine "a better deal than the present system".

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as a president (or politician, for that matter) not accepting compromise. To be a career politician is to compromise your beliefs in order to get elected to office. These compromises may be influenced by your political affiliation (i.e. democrats are more likely to vote democratic), the people that you're supposed to represent, or lobbyist throwing money at you. It's all about compromise. In the specific instance of the president, he's not the one making all the decisions ... he may have the last say, but his cabinet members have great influence over the decisions he makes. (DISCLAIMER: I use "he" only as a grammatically correct pronoun - not to exclude the female gender from presidency) The whole political system is based on compromise. Saying that someone would not accept compromise is unrealistic.

The above statement not withstanding, is it so bad to elect somebody not as willing to comprimise his beliefes? What harm does it cause? While he may propose some radical changes, there is still a concept that our government was founded on called "checks and balances". Maybe the reason Nader isn't affiliated with a major party, and hence the reason he has no chance of being elected, is because he's unwilling to compromise.

Of course, I say his unwillingness to compromise is a good thing - but the things I hate about Bush (banning gay marriages, war mongering) represent his unwillingness to compromise on subjects he finds important. *shrug*

For most people I know, it's the opposite

[Trepidity]

The students here in Georgia, which has uniformly conservative people everywhere, tend to be pretty liberal. Meanwhile, the students I knew in California, which has liberals everywhere, tended to be pretty conservative (comparatively, anyway).

Also, I'd have to say until I got to college, I had no idea what my teachers thought of any politicians. It just didn't come up.

he didn't say why

[Trepidity]

Bush didn't defend any of his actions, or give any of his reasons for his viewpoints. He just said what he did. I know what he did, because I read the news. I want to know what his reasons are, how he thinks it worked out, what he'd do differently if he had to do it over again, what he plans to do in the next four years, and so on.

Re: Bush tax cut's mythical(?) $1,000 tax savings

[rhakka]

how the hell did you get away with 4.4k in taxes on 60-70k income???? (pre child credit)

I was at 20k and paid that. Apparently I'm doing something wrong....

Re: 12. TOLERANCE FOR THOSE WHO ARE DIFFERENT

[megalomang]

The government cannot enact a law based on matters of individual opinion??? You mean, they can't ban smoking, or speeding, or fighting, or stealing, or killing, or raping, or vandalizing?

This may just be the dumbest law ever proposed. You forgot this one:

DEFINITION: For purposes of legal interpretation, feelings are now considered part of my personal liberties.

AMENDMENT: No laws can be made that might hurt my feelings.

Waah, waah... now go back and join the rest of your third grade class.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Nader is realy wants to be president. Why doesn't he start running lots sooner?

Kerry is fighting for the same audience Bush wants

[jbn-o]

Nader did a good job saying what Kerry would love to say but cannot.

Kerry would not love to say the things Nader says because those things scare away Kerry's corporate campaign funders. Kerry is pro-war and pro-corporate, and he has no problem saying yes to ugly campaign practices. Kerry can afford to march to the right because the left (most notably the "anyone but Bush" crowd) has pledged to vote for Kerry unconditionally (and they're actively encouraging others whether in swing states or not to vote for Kerry). In fact most of the ABB crowd was willing to support any Democrat before they even knew who would win the Democratic primary and before they knew what the winner's policies would be. Few of the ABB crowd supported one of the few truly anti-war Democratic Party contenders.

On the war, Kerry doesn't want to end the war or call the President a liar (which Nader/Camejo have no problem saying). He and his running mate insist on fighting the war better, not ending the war. Regarding the bill to give the President war-making power (which Kerry voted for), Kerry said that if he knew then what he knows now he still would have voted for that bill. He wants that power for himself. Nader/Camejo call that bill unconstitutional. Kerry might object to Bush's take on the invasion of Iraq, but Kerry's no less the hawk, in fact he's doing what he can to prove he's more of a hawk than Bush by committing to sending in more troops (and people were wondering where Bush was going to get the troops to maintain the fighting he has committed to). If Kerry takes office this war will end up adversely impacting two presidents before it's over.

On health care, Kerry has no intention of giving American citizens with what every other Westernized country has given their citizens--universal single-payer health care. Western Europe did this coming out of a war that left them in far more dire straits than the US has been in post-9/11. PNHP (the organization Nader referenced) says that US is paying for universal health care but not getting it; Americans pay more per capita for health care than other countries that have it. But Kerry wants to keep HMOs alive and well with his complex health care plan that even progressive voters don't want (most progressive Kerry voters are supporting him to get Bush out, not because they like Kerry despite how this makes their anti-war message lose its authority).

Kerry claims to be for abortion rights but he voted to confirm Scalia, one of two Justices who are repeatedly identified by the pro-choice supporters as a reason why Americans should vote for Kerry and fear who Bush might get the chance to appoint in the near future. Kerry voted to confirm Scalia with the rest of the Senate instead of making a signal vote that he could take to the voters (had Kerry voted to reject Scalia he could have said something like "I voted to preserve the abortion right which I know is so critical to my voters"). Nader, by contrast, objected to the confirmation of Scalia (I realize Nader is not an elected official so his objections are not as weighty as a vote).

On the so-called "debates", Kerry isn't fighting for a real series of debates where the two major party representatives have to let the American public weigh alternatives. Instead his party is colluding with the Republicans to keep any alternative candidates out. Furthermore, Kerry's campaign tacitly supports some remarkably dirty tricks to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot or tied up in court (Nader's website goes into this in some detail). These go beyond what I've seen Republicans do to Libertarians or the Constitution Party who might compete for the same voters on some issues.

Kerry isn't the leftist/liberal/progressive so many take him to be. He's just putting a different face on supporting many of the same ends as Bush.

So which is better?

[violet16]

What I find bizarre about criticism of IRV is that it concentrates on a few very mild quirks that only ever arise in odd, carefully constructed hypothetical situations -- like your example where you have three candidates who each attract almost exactly 33.3% of the primary vote. Because IRV only provides small or arguable benefits in these contrived situations, you say it's "no good."

So instead you stick with a voting system that quite clearly has one giant problem: vote-splitting. It is astonishing to me (an Australian) that Americans tolerate a system in which if two candidates support the same ideals, it's more likely that a third, less preferred candidate will win. This isn't a quirk--it's a major defect that frequently affects (even decides!) US Presidential elections.

Re:So which is better?

[Minna Kirai]

What I find bizarre about criticism of IRV is that it concentrates on a few very mild quirks that only ever arise in odd, carefully constructed hypothetical situations -- like your example where you have three candidates who each attract almost exactly 33.3% of the primary vote.

It's not contrived. That 33% split is exactly where things would head in an IRV system.

The current, most-votes-wins system also has a breakdown when there is a 49% split (because in that case, a 3rd party can spoil the election, causing the less-favored #2 candidate to win). It's no coincidence that the USA electorate is split at 49% now.

So instead you stick with a voting system that quite clearly has one giant problem: vote-splitting.

To address this problem, the USA would have to change its voting system, but IRV isn't the best way to do it. "Approval voting" would work better. Not only does it avoid some of IRV's defects (like how voting for someone can make her lose), but it also can be used with today's existing ballot machines.

Today, voters can pick only one candidate. With Approval, they can choose to pick as many as they want. But IRV would require a more complex ballot, so you can sort all candidates in order. Concordet would need this too.

Re:So which is better?

[violet16]

It's not contrived. That 33% split is exactly where things would head in an IRV system.

Well, I live in a country that uses IRV for every State and Federal election (Australia), and I can tell you it's just not like that. The two major parties attract around 40% of the primary vote each and the rest is split between many much smaller parties.

I'm not saying IRV is the best system ever invented. But I object to how people point to small imperfections in IRV as reasons to stick with a system that is far inferior to it.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[pangloss]

If you need more than five paragraphs to try to clarify a sentence fragment, perhaps you should consider using the preview button to quell your written diarrhea. There's no need to be petulant about the fact that people don't care about the general thrust of your post. There's no evidence to suggest you are a misunderstood genius. But you might be petulant about the fact that your reasoning is still a miserable failure.

You assert that your parenthetical statement ("I don't know if he knows English, but it's not his native tongue") meant "What I mean by that is not that he doesn't know English, but only that it's not his native tongue". But those statements do not have the same truth conditions.

Writing clearly is hard work. Admitting one's mistakes is hard work. Not everyone can do it. But you might take comfort knowing the company you keep: you are bedfellows with President Bush.

Where are they going to defect to?

[khasim]

You have massive troop defections in Iraq, and the country falls apart even more.

And just where are they going to defect to?

Admitting a mistake at this point would also entail changing the goals and the methodology.

That's my point. He cant just come out and say obvious/relevant things on this type of question.

So our troops should die for a lie?

If there is one group of people the President needs to be honest with, it is the people who will die following his orders.

The troops already know what the reports say. They know there aren't any "WMD's". They know there weren't any.

Yet they still do their job. Even if it costs them their lives.

Our troops have more honour and courage than Bush ever will.

I can field that one.

[khasim]

Is the measure of a mistake in deaths?
No, but deaths raise the stakes.

If so, who's mistake was it that 3000 people died in a single attack in 2001?
That seems to have been a planned attack by terrorists. It's been in the news frequently but you might have missed it.

If so, who's mistake was it that 40,000 thousand people died in auto related accidents last year?
The people involved in those accidents.

If so, who's mistake was it that 6 people died in an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993?
Again, that was an attack. You might have missed it in the news coverage.

Bush is the better Catholic

[catstack]

I know I can kiss my karma goodbye, but I firmly believe this needs to be said...

Senator John Kerry Responds:

"Teresa Heinz Kerry and I are practicing and believing Catholics. If you're a person of faith as I am, faith is your guidepost, your moral compass."

Excuse me, Senator Kerry. If you really are a practicing and believing Catholic, you would be against abortion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Life begins at conception. Respect for Life is one of the most important principals in Catholism. You can't pick and choose which of the Church's teachings you will ignore simply because its politically expensive to be Pro-Life. Abortion kills unborn babies. You know that, I know that. Anyone who doubts that fact ought to see a fetal ultrasound or listen to a baby's heartbeat on a doppler heartbeat monitor. I saw my unborn son suck his thumb on an ultrasound monitor. He's 4 years old now and still sucks his thumb on occasion. This is a habit he's had since before birth. I defy anyone to claim he wasn't a person 4 1/2 years ago.

Millions of babies have been killed in a Holocaust of unrivaled proportions. Supporters of abortion rights say that our unborn children are not human, they are just fetuses, so it is OK to terminate them.

My friends, if you want to kill someone (or some group), you must dehumanize them. We have seen this happen many times in our Western culture:

• In the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a slave, didn't have standing to bring a lawsuit challenging his enslavement to court because African slaves weren't legally people.
• In Nazi Germany, after an orchestrated campaign painted all Jewish people as a subhuman people, they were systematically killed by the millions.
• In Bosnia, Moslems were ruthlessly massacred by the Serbs for much the same reasons.
• Even today in this country, a group of people, the most helpless in society can be killed for no good reason, simply because some people call them fetuses.

President Bush has had the courage to speak up for our nation's unborn children. Senator Kerry, a believing Catholic would use his/her moral compass to proclaim to the world that this horror must stop. Don't let President Bush be the better Catholic.

Re:Bush is the better Catholic

[PlazMan]

Who cares which is the better Catholic? I thought we were voting for a president, not an altar boy.

Bush has been in office for four years and hasn't saved any fetuses as far as I can tell. However, he has sent many young men and women to their death unnecessarily.

I suppose he might get a chance to replace a supreme court justice if he's re-elected, but the cost to the long-term American economy and foreign relations will be catastrophic.

I'm a registered republican who believes in fiscal discipline, individual liberty, and small government. The current administration is the most fiscally irresponsible, liberty-eroding, and government-increasing group of idiots imaginable. Mortgaging the future of the entire country in the hopes of stacking the supreme court for one issue is foolish.

Re:Bush is the better Catholic

[catstack]

You're right. We are voting for President, but John Kerry comments make him look like an altar boy. I just wanted to point out that he likes to talk the talk, but never walks the walk.

I wouldn't call the sacrifices our servicemen & women have made unnecessary. Saddam is history. He certainly acted like he had WMDs. He won't kill again.

The UN sanctions against Iraq have been lifted. According to Unicef , those sanctions are partially responsible for 500,000 deaths among children between 1991 and 1999. That's about 5000 kids a month. At that rate, our involvement in Iraq has saved over 90000 Iraqi children. For each soldier lost, we have saved 90 kids. That's not a sacrifice made in vain.

Re:Bush is the better Catholic

[dfranks]

In my opinion, that is exactly the type of person you want as President. Someone who has considered individual aspects of their faith and decided which ones they wish to subscribe to, and which ones they don't. Anyone who looks at faith and a black and white, all or nothing issue should not be making decisions on behalf of the population of a secular state.

I suspect that a very small percentage of the population would be comfortable with a President that blindly follows the edict of the Pope and his cohorts.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Jardine]

The United Church of Canada

Are you sure that isn't Unitarian/Universal?

They're different churches. From what I understand of the UU Church, you don't have to be a christian to belong. The United Church has what you would expect of a normal protestant church. Hymns, a choir, a minister giving a sermon about Jesus, Sunday school classes where they tell the kids the kid-friendly stories while leaving out the dirtier stuff, etc. It's just that the church as a whole is a lot more tolerant and accepting of differences when compared to say a Baptist Church.

Proletariat of the world, unite to ... WHAAAT ?

[Gopal.V]

> Proletariat of the world, unite to cast your vote against Bush

Are you confusing America with the World again ?...

Might have been true in 1940 , but recent events have proved that America is not THE WORLD .

Coalitions are not a solution ....

[Gopal.V]

I think a healthy system should have place for somewhere between 5 and 10 parties, ranging from greens, labour, religion based, conservative, liberals, etc. You will probably require a coalition to rule the country, but that is the whole idea of democracy: to make compromises between the various wishes from society.

That's till you end up with a Coalition government. India has a coalition government with at least 7 parties in the ruling side and around 13 opposing. The result is a confusing mess where no-one can take any strong decisions for the good of the people.

A coalition is an endless stream of appeasments to allies....

for your good, what you need is Benevolent Dictator ... but it might be too bad for the rest of the world .

Re:Coalitions are not a solution ....

[photonic]

I said a healthy system has BETWEEN 5 and 10 parties (roughly). At least that is my experience with the Netherlands, where I come from. Your numbers for India add up to 20. I might be biased, but I think our political system and of most of the surrounding countries is reasonably stable. We typically have 9 parties in parlement, of which only 4 or 5 have more than 10% of the seats. For as long as I know coalitions consisted of 2 or 3 parties, so that is manageble.

Justice ?

[Tom]

[Bush] The justice system of the United States has long been a beacon and example for the world,

Can I get some of whatever he's smoking? Everyone outside the US I know alternates between laughing at and being shocked by what the US calls "justice".

Ouch. Thats's interesting.

[Vintermann]

What can we do about this sort of problem?

What makes it especially egregrious is that in economic issues, how people believe things to be will often affect the way they are. I'm not an economist, but let's say labour was elected, everyone expected interest rates to rise, therefore they spend less, and so the interest rates actually rise!*

Try explaining that to the electorate.

"No, you mustn't believe that the interest rates will rise if you vote for us, because if you do, they will, but if people seem to believe it, it may be true after all, in which case it's not our fault, but interest rates will actually rise if you vote for us, even if ... "

* This may be wrong, I am not an economist. It's just an example that beliefs affect economics

Re:Ouch. Thats's interesting.

[Goonie]

Basic economics and statistics training in the education system, for starters.

Condorcet is easy...

[qieurowfhbvdklsj]

Condorcet is easy, it's just that no one knows how to explain it. Look at it this way: You have everyone create their ordered lists of candidates just like with instant runoff voting. The you take each pair of candidates and put them in their own elections, using the ordered lists to decide how to cast each person's vote. The winner is the person who wins their election against every other person. While more complicated than IRV, it's still simple enough to understand, and no one can argue that the candidate who would win going one-on-one against all of the other candidates is the one who should be the winner.

Re:Condorcet is easy...

[ttfkam]

You can understand it. I can understand it. Then again, I thought Calc 1 and 2 were really interesting and fun. My idea of a good time is whipping up a photo gallery web site for my friends.

We are not representative of the general population.

The advantage of IRV is that anyone who likes football (read: a much higher number than the ones who code or enjoy higher math) can understand it. You make analogies to the playoffs. The team with the lowest number of wins gets dropped. Repeat until there is one left (SuperBowl). Condorcet requires more.

I like to think of it as IRV being like the person who checks stats at the end of the season to see what the win-lose-tie record is. Condorcet is like the person with the clipboard keeping tallies of all the games, injuries, and draft picks during the season and calculating up to the minute propabilities. If I had to rely on the judgement of only one as to who would win the SuperBowl, I'd obviously choose the latter. But not all of us have that much time and interest so we just check the win-loss stats before the game, drink beer, and enjoy the show.

Condorcet is quite possibly the best in accuracy. That unfortunately doesn't make it the best once people are added to the equation.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

speaking many languages doesn't make someone intelligent. many people in europe speak multiple languages, and some from the smaller eastern european languages also speak around 5 or 6 languages.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Cybrr]

But wasn't the Holy Bible of Christianity written/compiled around 600AD?

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Ignignot]

That's why I said, "most Protestants." :-)

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[nine-times]

...and clearly you're brilliant, since you spend your time reading crap other people post on the internet without caring about the general thrust of what they're saying? Or, what, you aren't interested in the subject matter? Then why are you picking around this thread in the first place?

I know, it's a sure sign of a superior intellect that you can pick apart a person's grammer while utterly failing to understand what they mean, and that must be such a thrill for you. However, since you seem to have trouble not reading things that you don't care about, I give you permission to not read my posts at all from now on. OK?

PAYGO (The Banana Boy Song)

[Anonymous Coward]

paygo (the banana boy song) - with apologies to harry belafonte

pay-go, pay-ay-ay-go
watch the monkeys fly outta his butt
lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, no exaggeration
watch the monkeys fly outta his butt

working hard the boy still smirks
(election come and we send him home)
unemployed are just dumb jerks
(election come and we send him home)

come little bubble boy, freepers love your gigglin'
(election come and we send him home)
come little bubble boy, watch his spittle flyin'
(election come and we send him home)

it's sputter, stutter, mutter, grin!
(election come and we send him home)
sputter, stutter, mutter, grin!
(election come and we send him home)

pay-go, pay-ay-ay-go
watch the monkeys fly outta his butt
lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, no exaggeration
watch the monkeys fly outta his butt

oh bad osama bush is gonna get 'em
(election come and we send him home)
but now bush says he can forget 'em
(election come and we send him home)

it's sputter, stutter, mutter, grin!
(election come and we send him home)
sputter, stutter, mutter, grin!
(election come and we send him home)

pay-go, pay-ay-ay-go
watch the monkeys fly outta his butt
lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, no exaggeration
watch the monkeys fly outta his butt

come little bubble boy, come and slap the table
(election come and we send him home)
come little bubble boy, show us you're unstable
(election come and we send him home)

pay-go, pay-ay-ay-go
watch the monkeys fly outta his butt
lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, no exaggeration
watch the monkeys fly outta his butt

Re: Bush tax cut's mythical(?) $1,000 tax savings

[matthewd]

You may be doing something wrong, unless you are including some other taxes in that figure? I'm talking about federal income tax.

If you are single, no dependants, had a gross income of $20,000, your taxable income should be $12,200 (with a standard deduction of $4750 and one $3,050 exemption). Tax on $12,200 is $1,484 if I've read the chart right.

Paying $4K in taxes on an income of an AGI $20000 is absurd. That's 20%! You should be in a 15% tax bracket. That 25% income bracked doesn't even start until your taxable income hits $30,800 for single, $64,750 for married.

If you really payed that much, I'd look into seeing if you can file a corrected return and get that money back.

Re:Kerry is fighting for the same audience Bush wa

[Minna Kirai]

Furthermore, Kerry's campaign tacitly supports some remarkably dirty tricks to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot or tied up in court

Bush's supporters explicitly supports some dirty tricks to get Nader on the ballot.

Whenever a competitor starts supporting you, you need to take a hard look at the possibility your own efforts are counterproductive.

Re: Bush tax cut's mythical(?) $1,000 tax savings

[rhakka]

Well, I'm self employed, but I don't see anything on my returns that indicates a breakdown of what my $771 quarterly payment is, and that was on an adjusted income of $15k last year actually. Numbers are different than what I spouted last time and I'm sure that number includes social security and such, but still yes, I am paying out the nose. perhaps it's time for a new accountant....

Listen to Nader Talk... Convention speech

[scoobrs]

Go here to listen to the man talk. He gave an amazing convention speech, but ONLY CSPAN covered it because all the other stations are rooting for either Dumb or Dumber. It's awful hard sometimes to find information about Nader in the media other than Democrat stations saying what a bad man he is for running against their candidate and possibly splitting the vote in spite of 25% of Nader's vote coming from registered Republicans, only 38% from Democrats, and the rest wouldn't vote otherwise (according to exit polls).

Re:Kerry is fighting for the same audience Bush wa

[jbn-o]

Bush's supporters explicitly supports some dirty tricks to get Nader on the ballot.

Nader says he has rejected organized Republican ballot signature collection. He says he has accepted money from some people who vote Republican (each contribution abiding by his max donation limit which he applies to any other donor). Do you have information to counter this?

It's interesting that with all of this alleged Republican help, Nader is still fighting lawsuits in many states launched by the Democrats (in some cases the Democrats are hiring lawyers who ordinarily defend Republicans) and this goes over without a peep from the Democrats. In Illinois, Democrats control the state Congress and yet they changed the law to let Bush on the ballot and not a peep from the Left, not even those on the Left who are sympathetic to the Greens who also fight enormous obstacles just to get on the ballot.

Do you have information on where the millions of dollars come from that support Bush and Kerry's campaigns? Besides opensecrets.org, that is (but that's quite damning as it is). How many millions is Nader taking from corporations? He says he takes no corporate money.

Whenever a competitor starts supporting you, you need to take a hard look at the possibility your own efforts are counterproductive.

Counterproductive for whom? The Democrats?

mod parent up as informative

[artifex2004]

This week, the PBS TV show "Frontline" included an excerpt of Kerry's speech a couple of days before the vote in question as to his reservations, and why he was going to vote yes. He basically said he would vote yes, but that Bush needed to pursue all avenues before war. This speech should also, therefore, be a matter of congressional record, if you care to look it up.

This sounds like what he's repeatedly said in every debate: he voted yes, with the understanding that war would be the last option. That's not a flip-flop. That's not even a "nuance" - it's pretty black and white. It's what's known as forming a thoughtful stance, and then sticking to your guns, so to speak.

Re: 12. TOLERANCE FOR THOSE WHO ARE DIFFERENT

[c0d3h4x0r]

Nonsense. Being a serial killer is not a lifestyle -- it is committing a series of illegal acts.

Re: Bush tax cut's mythical(?) $1,000 tax savings

[matthewd]

Well, the Social "Security" and Medicare make up the bulk of your taxes, really. When you are self employed, you have to pay both the employee and employer "shares" of these taxes, which is out to 15.3%.

There is no way to reduce or eliminate these taxes unfortunately. Unless Bush is reelected and he is able to get some kind of personal accounts legislation passed. But even then, all you will be able to do is take a portion of your social security taxes and save/invest it in some kind of retirement account. At least you will be keeping the money.

How is this "Insightful"?

[rfischer]

Bush's core voters oppose stem cell research, but accept IFV because they don't know that it implies the same thing

Stem cell research implies IVF?

Tell me, can you fog a mirror?

Re:How is this "Insightful"?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Bush's core voters oppose stem cell research, but accept IFV because they don't know that it implies the same thing

Stem cell research implies IVF?

Can you read? A implies C. B implies C. This is not the same as A implies B.

W on marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage, for example, has been the foundation of our society and of societies and cultures throughout history

Slavery makes a perfectly acceptable substitution for marriage in that sentance.

I believe that the future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic process, rather than by the court orders of a few.

Yeah, since the democratic process did such a good job with discrimination against african-americans

Mod parent "TROLL" (no "BRAINWASHED" mod)

[Tau Zero]

The question is, is it worth creating a market for abortions just to further the research?

I can't tell if you're brainwashed or just trolling. If that's your honest picture of what embryonic stem-cell research entails, somebody has lied to you up, down and sideways.

Here's what really happens:

• Woman is treated with ovary-stimulating drugs to get several ova at once.
• Ova are removed from the body using a needle.
• Ova are fertilized in a Petri dish.
• Fertilized ova are allowed to divide and are observed for proper development.

At this point the process can take one of 3 branches:

1. The dividing ball of cells, now called a blastocyst, is implanted in a woman's uterus. (It may be the same woman, maybe not.)
2. The blastocyst, which has never been inside a woman and has never been part of a pregnancy (no abortion even possible) is broken up for its component cells.
3. The blastocyst may be treated with cryoprotectants and frozen for later use.

IVF procedures usually yield several ova at once (I believe the average is 6), and most people don't want to risk triplets or more so doctors only implant one or two blastocysts at a time. The rest get parked in liquid nitrogen so that the woman doesn't have to go through the ovulation procedure again. Once the couple has had the children they want there are often frozen blastocysts left over. Something has to happen to them eventually, and that something usually involves thawing out and going down the drain. Donating a few thousand a year to laboratories for stem-cell research is certainly better than just being flushed.

Except to the blind zealots.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[MBraynard]

What you have effectively done was create a new Church where you get to decide who is 'Christian' or not according to your standard. Hence the difficulty with 'book' centered religiouns. Books are open to interpretation. A living, breathing organization is not.

Totally

[yem]

5. ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

.. 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?

Bush: blah blah fair voting blah blah soft money

Kerry: blah blah florida blah blah election observers

Nader: Major electoral reforms are needed to ensure that every vote counts, all voters are represented through electoral reforms like instant run-off voting, abolition of the electoral college, none-of-the-above options, and proportional representation, non-major party candidates have a chance to run for office and participate in debates, and that elections are publicly financed.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure all the protestant faiths understand that they made a break with the existing church, rather than the other way around.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why list Bush as a Christian? Why not get more specific in the question and ask Bush how his specific denomination will affect his presidency?

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

people on slashdot seem to pick apart the most inconsequential sentence in posts....
well, when one can't argue against the main point, one tends to attack the only weakness one can find ;)

Troll? TROLL?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Troll? TROLL? How can that be a Troll.

It's offtopic, but not a troll. Learn the difference.

Christian Fascist fuckhead mods. (That is a troll).

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, the idea of the Pope having direct influence over our elected leaders is ridiculous.
That the Pope is the Vicar of the Christ is one of the basic tenets of Catholocism, is it not? If this tenet is accepted by one who accepts the absolute authority of the Christ in his life, does this not imply that the Pope, as said Vicar, would have absolute authority? Now, in practice, nobody ever said the Pope has direct influence over our elected leaders, but the fact is, it's theoretically possible because it's a basic tenet of the faith.

Re:Kerry on Social Security

[Anonymous Coward]

Good points. I'm surprised that no one here mentioned that we should be choosing a President that will represent our country to other nations in a respective, professional nature. I mean, there are many other nations on this planet.

Then again, being a big bully on the block does bring up Roman empire excessiveness, and oh, didn't that empire fall?

That is exactly the point

[brokeninside]

``we as a society have decided not to practice that any more, to "forget" if you will''

Modern monogamous marriage is no less convention than the polygamy of antiquity. Monogamous marriage isn't especially ancient when compared to other forms of familial structure in the ancient world. The concept of marriage has undergone a tremendous evolution just within the confines of recorded history. If we are, as right wing thinkers are prone to do, to use tradition as our guide, then polygamy ought to be acceptable. But the fact is that conventions change over time and the idea of monogamy has no more claim to be the best form of marriage than polygamy.

The notion that marriage is, and always has been, one man and one woman is a religious principle at best and outright deceptive at worst. Nobody, not even a majority of the American public, has the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who dissent. This is guaranteed by the US constitution.

BTW: you're wrong on the numbers. Even the most conservative polls show that, at most, about 60% of people oppose gay marriage. But even that is deceptive as a sizable percentage of those who oppose gay marriage support civil unions that are comparable with regards to the law, but only balk at the using the term *marriage* to describe same-sex unions.

Lastly, do you really want to hand the state the power to define marriage? The definition of marriage is, and ought to be, religious in nature. The state ought not to be in the business of deciding which consenting adults can or cannot get married. To do so is to impeded both the freedom of conscience of the individual *and* to usurp the power of the church on issues of morality.

Re:Wow I feel sad for the future

[winterdrake]

And recompiled numerous times since then, under a number of different languages. Pity noone bothered to document the damn thing.