Slashdot Mirror
Be Part of the 2008 Presidential Youth Debate
We participated in this project back in 2004. This year it's hosted by Walden University, and the format is a little less cumbersome than it was four years ago. So go ahead, ask some questions you'd like to see McCain and Obama answer, and they'll go into the pot along with questions submitted through other channels. Later this week you'll have a chance to help moderate the final questions chosen from all sources, and on October 20 you'll be able to see video responses from the two major party candidates. Please limit to yourself to one question per post, and note that questions must be posted no later than 4 p.m. US EDT on Monday, September 29, to be considered.
Do you believe that a supreme being has influence over your day to day affairs?
Currently the Minerals Management Services in the Department of the Interior has companies pay between 12.5% and 18.75% royalties to use United States public land, depending on the mineral being harvested. Senator, do you believe that the amount of royalties they pay should also vary depending on environmental sensitivity, such as when drilling offshore?
This is not a question as to whether we should, and it is addressed to both candidates.
You also won't get that impression by listening to his running mate.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
John McCain, you've voted for a law to legalize torture for suspected enemy combatants. Do you regret that decision? Does your decision imply that the actions of your captors in North Vietnam were appropriate?
John McCain, you were neck deep in what was up till now the biggest banking scandal and bailout in US history. Does this experience give you any special insight into the current credit crisis?
John McCain, in a recent interview you apparently did not know that Spain is a European country and a close ally. You spoke as if they were some kind of potential enemy in Latin America, even though you were reminded three times that you were discussing Spain. Later, your spokesman said that your dissing of Spain was intentional. Is either interpretation of the interview correct?
What kind of man calls his wife a "cunt" in public?
Play Command HQ online
Don't you feel that elections in the USA are a sham these days, and that for the most part, there is no real difference between the two major parties - beyond superficial ones that get blown out of proportion in an effort to make it seem like people actually have a choice?
Senator Obama, you voiced limited approval for the Supreme Court's Heller decision, overturning the handgun ban (as it related to self defense in the home) in the District of Columbia. You stated, "As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
Given that the streets of Chicago were deadlier this summer than the streets of Baghdad, is the handgun ban 'working' in Chicago? And, is it Constitutional?
Change has had a major spotlight in this campaign, and I think it is obvious everyone in the country is hungry for "change" in politics. What, specifically, will you do to bring noticeable, positive change to the office of the President of the United States of America?
When did yelling "bias" become the automatic first move for you guys? All news channels except Fox News, all newspapers except the wall street journal (and then sometimes), education at all levels, educated people, any author, republicans who disagree with the administration, people with above average intelligence, blue states, slashdot, Reddit...
Or is it maybe not intentional? You're so far right that everything looks left?
In the long term, since FDR, the country has moved in the direction of socialism.
At what point should this drift be made explicit via Constitutional Amendment,
to shut up the cranks like me
who think that Social Security is a 10th Amendment violation?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Do you support the inclusion of creationism alongside evolution in high school curricula? If so, how can you justify teaching a science class with creationism's Christian slant? Also, how can you justify the potential unequal representation of Christianity's story when compared to creation stories told by other major religions?
Hear, hear! It always annoys me when my choice of candidate doesn't get the bias he deserves. I am a registered [pointless political affiliation], and I will of course be voting for [same recycled trash seen every four years]. I mindlessly eat whatever my comrades feed me and stand on that as my own principles. Without divisiveness, what else could we devote our time to in this great country? Science, education? Why? The TV contains all knowledge! Thank [Object/deity I worship] that they put the little letter beside the name. Otherwise, I would collapse in the voting booth from actually applying my brain.
For both candidates:
In the past 10 years, the Internet has brought consumers more options than ever for communication and entertainment. Our current laws regarding copyright and intellectual property don't adequately describe or encompass intangible digital content which can be infinitely copied with out impacting originals. Do you support the massive entertainment lobby in effecting legilsation that promotes the erosion of consumer rights and choices of a free market or do you believe that the market itself should decide which business models are successful?
They're using their grammar skills there.
I am conservative and even I am irritated at those two posts. If they are not intended to be trolls, they shouldn't feel the need to post anonymously.
Where is the congressional accountability for the subprime loan mess? The Bush administration, as well as democratic members of congress, pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to make more loans to poor people, inner city hispanics, african americans, etc. Not surprisingly, they defaulted (maybe that's why they weren't given loans in the first place?) and everyone is suffering as a result.
All I hear is complaints about greedy wallstreet types. What about the people who signed up for loans they couldn't afford? What about the congress that ignore Allan Greenspan's 2005 testimony that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were a serious problem? What about the congress that didn't believe poor credit meant an increased risk in defaulting on a loan?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I'm saddened by the initial slate of questions proposed here. Instead of sending rhetorically-charged questions about the hot button issues that will assuredly be addressed in any debate (spending, healthcare, the economy, gun control, abortion, the war/military, outdated ideological labels, and vague issues of credibility, change, responsibility and accountability), why don't we mod up questions about issues that affect the kinds of news stories we see on this site each and every day? I'm talking about issues of copyright, net neutrality, science funding, patents, the FCC, e-voting, space exploration, and open source adoption in governmental agencies.
So my question is: Sen. McCain, why'd you put that turtle on that post?
Are you trying to determine if he's a replicant?
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
Senators McCain and Obama;
Will you demand the inclusion of other candidates in the remaining presidential debates, as the majority of the American public does? Namely, the ones with sufficient ballot presence to win are; Cynthia McKinney (Green), Ralph Nader (Independent), Bob Barr (Libertarian), and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, states:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Currently, copyrights last 50-70 years after the creator's death. How does this advance Science and useful Arts?
Do you plan on making changes to the antiquated voting system, especially its tendency to give minority voters (whether third party or just the unfavoured party in their state) no ability to influence the outcome of an election? Do you think the voting system does or does not have an influence on the feeling of disenfranchisement among voters and the low voter turnouts?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Iran is the second most vibrant democracy in the Middle East, and the USA's invasion of Iraq has allowed Iran to make a shot at becoming a regional power. How do you plan to broker friendship between Iran, the USA, and Israel?
Senators McCain and Obama by your actions in the last year to two years you have demonstrated that campaigning for President of the United States is a full time job. So what is your justification for not resigning your Senate position and allowing another person from your State to devote their full attention to the duties of a Senator?
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
No, that's not how it works -- even if I wish that it did.
This story is categorized in the Slashdot backend as Interviews; the other topics named for it (in order) are Politics / United States / Republican / Democrat. (And there's no way to put topics *next* to each other, or I'd be happy to.) There's honestly no significance to the order (other than the top-level section topic, in this case Interviews) that topic icons appear. It's just an artifact of the way icons are displayed that you see the Democrat icon on top; don't take it for more than what it is.
Of course, Slashdot's [left-liberal / arch-conservative / phoney-progressive / ...
anarcho-libertarian] slant is obvious to anyone with eyes
Cheers,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I've submitted the following: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a legally binding set of basic rights for minors (http://www.unicef.org/crc/). The only two countries which are not signatories to the CRC are Somalia and the United States. Somalia has not had a functioning government for some time. As President, would you seek the ratification the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Senator Obama, given that Medicare is an even bigger drain than Social Security and will go bust along with it as the Baby Boomers retire, why are you proposing to nationalize the health coverage of the entire country in a style similar to Medicare?
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Senator Obama, you claim to want to give the "middle class" a tax cut, but at the same time you propose to raise capital gains taxes, the death tax and corporate taxes, among others. Wouldn't your tax scheme harm many small businesses and small investors, indeed much of the "middle class" you claim to want to help?
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Senator Obama, why are you opposed to Health Savings Account plans, which would protect people from catastrophic illness costs while giving them a monetary incentives to seek treatment early and stay healthier?
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Was getting rid of Glass-Steagall act a good idea. This act meant banks and brokerages were separate entities. Banks could not deal in risky transactions (such as underwriting corporate or municipal securities), keeping private money safe.
Additionally, which of the candidates believes that a well-informed and well-educated voter base constitutes a boost, rather than a threat, to your job security? How much money will you put where your mouth is?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Given that the US Military is already involved in IRAQ (Whether you agreed with it or not), and if we leave the country it could disintegrate into a full Civil War and millions could die, what is your plan for removing the troops without this occurring?
Do you believe that including third party candidates - such as the Constitution, Green, Independent, Libertarian and Socialist parties - in the presidential debates would improve the debates and make our election more democratic?
If no, why not? If yes, why have you not announced that you support the inclusion of third party candidates at any point in the primary or presidential campaigns?
Property is theft.
To both candiates:
At times both of you have expressed support for the idea, and organizations promoting the idea, of Mandatory National Service, whereby all adult citizens under a certain age would be forced to work for government agencies or government-approved entities for a certain period of time. Senator McCain, you've stated your agreement with the idea that we should re-institute a draft to go after Osama bin Laden.
Could you both please clarify, for the record, the conditions under which you believe a government has the right to conscript its citizens, and the degree to which your administration would do so?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I watched the debate, and neither candidate seems to want to scale down government spending: Obama wouldn't admit to wanting to cut anything, and McCain paid some very unconvincing lip service to the idea. Why are we stuck with choosing between two candidates that both want to increase the scope and cost of the federal government?
Barack Obama, for four years in the 1990s, you were on the executive board of an education foundation named the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, founded by ex-Weather Underground Organization leader William Ayers. In a spring debate, you claimed he was "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis", and just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood". Given that you launched your presidential campaign from Mr. Ayers home, how do you explain this discrepancy?
Barack Obama, records show that you have received the second largest amount of monetary donations from the now bankrup Fannie Mae mortgage lender. In 2005, you were praised by Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd because of your work in congress on Fannie's behalf. Was the praise because of your vote against the Housing Reform Act of 2005 that would have prevented the 2008 collapse of the lending institutions?
Barack Obama, you have often touted your experience as a community organizer in the streets of Chicago as evidence of your qualifications to lead. You have worked extensively with one such group, ACORN, which recently endorsed you for president, where you acknowledged your work with ACORN in Project Vote in 2004. Given that ACORN members are frequently convicted of committing voter fraud, can you please explain your relation to this organization?
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I am the first to admit that conservatives tend to hyperventilate about media bias more than they should (in many cases, the bias of the mainstream media has been only mildly left, no worse than Fox's bias rightwards). But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is one of those times.
Take, for example, the Fannie/Freddie debacle. Consider that Obama had 2 corrupt former CEOs of Fannie as economic advisors, one of which was the head of his VP search committee. We didn't hear about that until McCain ran ads about it. And then, did the media focus on the story? No - they attacked McCain for supposedly running a racist ad (apparently you can't mention close associations with corrupt CEOs if they happen to be black).
You could also consider the media's attacks on some of McCain's more dubious ads (e.g. sketchy claims about Obama's sex ed bill). The media went on for days about how McCain was such a scoundrel. And hyperbole notwithstanding, he deserved some serious criticism for those ads. But then when Obama played equally dirty (e.g. scaring Florida seniors with falsehoods about McCain's Social Security plans) you barely hear a peep from those same folks (with the notable exception of Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post).
I don't doubt many in the media are trying to be fair, because they are aware that they and their colleagues are overwhelmingly liberal. A handful succeed in being neutral. But for the rest, the prospect of an eloquent, black, highly liberal senator (the anti-Bush as it were) becoming President is such a seductive dream that they can't help but look more critically at his opponent. Love really is blind.
To both:
The Constitution says that a President shall sign or veto a bill (or not sign it, and it will become law after ten days). Since it says nothing about "signing orders", do you promise to comply with the Constitution by either signing, vetoing, or refusing to sign all bills that come before you and nothing more? Will you refuse to issue "signing orders" since they are not a power specifically given to the President by the Constitution?
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
Uhh, read that again, I think you must have made a typo or something.
The bible doesn't say that non believers will go to hell. It does say that those that do God's work will, even if they don't know they are doing God's work.
Actually what the Bible says is, based solely on our actions, all of us, including Christians, deserve to go to Hell. We are all sinners, and there is nothing any of us can do to earn our way into Heaven. The punishment for sin is "death": separation from God, and we have all sinned. Sometimes Christians lose sight of this, and act as though they deserve to go to Heaven while the non-Christians around them do not.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Why in the hell should we do anything?
OUR money props up these African dictators.
OUR food props up the African dictators.
OUR clothing only warm up the African dictators.
In a way, WE are blame. Let the Africans solve their problems. Once we stop funding them, they will do things right.
how about this:
Do you believe in legislating protections for failed business models, or do you believe the free market should determine success?
They're using their grammar skills there.
Seriously? That's a huge softball lob. Why not just say, "Hey, could you ramble on aimlessly with your usual image spin crap for a couple of minutes? Thanks."?
-Dave
Given that you launched your presidential campaign from Mr. Ayers home, how do you explain this discrepancy?
That talking point is crap, but lets go ahead and play the associations game, jackass. John McCain is good friends with G. Gordon Liddy, who has hosted fundraisers for McCain that McCain has attended. Liddy said this in response to the fiasco at Waco:
Now, imagine for a second that Obama attended fundraisers hosted by a Black Panther who advised people to shoot federal agents in the head. That's right, the world would blow up. Or how Hannity, who can't talk about Ayers enough, it good buddies with the white supremacist Hal Turner.
Barack Obama, records show that you have received the second largest amount of monetary donations from the now bankrup Fannie Mae mortgage lender.
Liar. He didn't receive donations from Fannie Mae, he received them from employees of Fannie Mae. Big difference.
You have worked extensively with one such group, ACORN, which recently endorsed you for president,
Ah, the associations game again. You forgot Rev. Wright! How can you post a bunch of pathetic smears and leave out Jeremiah Wright? Bad wingnut, no cookie.
(in many cases, the bias of the mainstream media has been only mildly left, no worse than Fox's bias rightwards).
nice, trying to sneak this by.
MSM has a bias toward corporations, but is otherwise neutral.
If you think the MSM has a liberal bias, I refer you to the colbert quip about reality having a well-known liberal bias.
Fox deliberately distorts, and often times fabricates, the stories they present. The obama muslim kick, the deliberate mischaracterization of palin's crusade against the library as false, simply because she didn't do it as mayor (but as city councilwoman), the oreilly factor's invented statistics, the "balance" of the dingbat-right hannity and the cowed, confrontation fearing moderate, colmes.
The list goes on and on.
Fox news is a propaganda arm of the extreme right, it is NOT to be compared with the MSM, which is center-right because it's neutral on social issues and parrots corporate and political press releases whenever it can to avoid actual investigative reporting.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
so a former CEO is automatically corrupt? how very leftist of you.
Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html
Hi Mr Pot, meet Ms Kettle.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
The problem is that both of them are going to completely lie and twist the truth in their answers, so their answers will be completely useless. In actuality, neither of these bozos is qualified to be President, just like GWB was never qualified to be President. Personally, I don't care what their answers would be, because they'd be just a bunch of lies. Any idiot can see that these fools are not qualified, but unfortunately, unlike a normal job interview, we the people aren't smart enough to just say "no" to hiring either of them. If this were a private company, they'd throw both candidates' resumes in the trash and keep looking.
Yeah.. because..you know.. when the seeds for this were sown in 1977 the Congress was Democrat controlled and it was signed by a Democrat president. In 1995 President Clinton made regulatory changes (no need for the consent of the Republican Congress) that put the program on steroids, paving the way straight to our current crisis. It was after this that FM/FM started taking on the risky loans to comply with the heightened standards.
Bush tried to fix this in 2003, but the Democrats killed it. "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis." -- Barney Frank D-MA, while opposing stricter oversight.
we HAVE to pay this, or the economy will collapse in the same way it did when the banks went bust in 29.
What, and no one has thought of *any* viable alternatives?
They need to impose tight regulations again
As I understand it, regulation was one of the causes of this trouble in that in the books they had to value the mortgage securities at a fraction of the actual value and later couldn't sell it for any more than that.
All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
Social security is secure because it's not tied to the volatile open market.
Social(ist) (In)Security is not secure at all, but thanks for dodging the question. SS will go bust without substantial reform. As for it not being tied to the "volatile open market," that's why I explicitly said that private accounts could be very conservatively invested, in things like annuities or municipal bonds, and not the stock market. Private retirement plans that government employees have access to have been shown to give as much as twice the returns of that pathetic Socialist pyramid scheme. It's ridiculously outmoded and should be phased out; intellectually honest people can look at the situation objectively and very easily come to that conclusion.
Our system is horrible because it is run by lobbyists and big pharma, not because state socialized medicine is bad.
If you want to believe those are the sole causes, fine, but it still makes absolutely no sense to extend a system that is performing poorly currently and is due to go bust in a huge way in the next two decades to the entire population. Have you seen the Medicare liability data? I assume you haven't. But again with that response you're not answering the question; you're just making up excuses for the failed Social(ist) welfare state.
And let me say, if you're upset because you'll be required to pay more tax than the less fortunate, and cause you to drive a 5 series instead of a 7 with the 18 inch rims. . .
Once again you fail to address the question. I asked about punishing incentive through excessive taxation, and again you can't answer the question.
Ask Palin... please! The comic world is begging you.
I asked Obama for answer, and again you evade because you have no credible response. Besides, Palin isn't the one naively advocating sky high taxes for those making over $250,000 a year in revenue.
Did Hannity shit in your brain? McCain has Falwell. . .
Really quite mature. McCain has distanced himself from the Christian right to a greater extent than Obama has distanced himself from the "religious left." Indeed, it took Wright several direct jabs at Obama for the latter to flip-flop and pull out of the radical church he had belonged to for decades.
Will McCain repudiate Fox News?
You think Fox News and the DailyKOS are at all analogous? You are truly far gone, as is those who bothered to waste mod points on your stupidity.
Coerce? Does that mean we can say, stop killing Palestinians, arresting them, torturing them, and taking their land with the guns, tanks, helicopters, and jets that we give you, accept UN resolution 242 and go back to your 1967 borders. . .
Israel will stop killing so-called "Palestinians" when they stop making war and committing terrorism against Israel; when they give up their perennial dream of "driving the Jews to the Sea" and perpetrating a second Holocaust. As for "taking their land," it is Jewish land From Time Immemorial, and modern day Israel only holds a fraction of its historical land. As for 242, you should reread it because it doesn't say what you think it says (if you've ever read it at all), and as for "1967 border" it would indeed be great if Israel would return to its post-Six Day War 1967 borders, reclaiming the lands it threw away in the 1970s including the Sinai. (I realize that's not what you meant, but I can use your imprecise language in that fashion against you.) As for the so-called "Palestinians," they can go live in any one of 52 predominately Muslim countries in the world, 22 of which are ethnically Arab. If they stop occupying Jewish land and murdering Jews, they'll be able to live in peace with the one Jewish country on earth. But the purpose of my original ques
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
I wouldn't say that there's a corporate bias... per-se. I'd say that there's a bias towards people paying bills but they're not untouchable, and there's a lazy bias. Why bother writing an article or putting a piece together if you can just crib right from a press release?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
...private accounts could be very conservatively invested, in things like annuities or municipal bonds...
Which American municipalities? New Orleans? Wagers are wagers, no matter how conservative they seem to be.
But again with that response you're not answering the question; you're just making up excuses for the failed Social(ist) welfare state.
There are at least a dozen socialized medicine programs outperforming the private American system, and of course our (sad) attempt at taking care of our infirm and elderly.
Once again you fail to address the question. I asked about punishing incentive through excessive taxation, and again you can't answer the question.
Read a bit further. If you don't tax the wealthy, they use it to get more wealth, and there is only one piece of economic pie. When you take 10% out of a family of four living on $30k per year, it has a lot more impact than taking 10% more out the same family who is making 300k a year.
As far as incentive goes, I don't think it's hard to find someone who wants to make 300k a year, even if they pay higher taxes. In fact, you could probably lose every CEO in America making more than 1 million per year, replace them with someone making half their salary, and not notice the difference.
I asked Obama for answer, and again you evade because you have no credible response. Besides, Palin isn't the one naively advocating sky high taxes for those making over $250,000 a year in revenue.
Yeah... I had to break up the monotony of your talking points with a laugh. My bad.
Again, if you don't like the tax rate, you should move. Love it or leave it, right? Or does that only count when we're killing arabs...
Really quite mature.
And fucking hilarious!
McCain has distanced himself from the Christian right to a greater extent than Obama has distanced himself from the "religious left."
It's a subjective opinion. The problem is that McCain will be populating his cabinet with graduates from Liberty University, just as Bush did to thank the evangelicals for the election in 2000. That's why the executive is filled with inexperienced, uneducated, and frighteningly unable people, who literally believe that heaven and hell exist, and that Jesus is coming back to end the world real soon now.
Obama doesn't seem like the same kind of shill, but I could be wrong.
You think Fox News and the DailyKOS are at all analogous? You are truly far gone, as is those who bothered to waste mod points on your stupidity.
Their both equally stupid in their own ways, but really... discussing the possibility of Fox News not existing entirely as a right-wing mouth piece isn't a serious topic to anyone not on board with "Hannity's America."
Israel will stop killing so-called "Palestinians"
They are "so-called" because the British encircled the ethnic group called "Palestinians" in a nation called "Palestine" in 1917 which, at the time of it's formation, had 500,000 "Palestinians", 70,000 Christians, and 60,000 Jews.
when they stop making war and committing terrorism against Israel; when they give up their perennial dream of "driving the Jews to the Sea" and perpetrating a second Holocaust.
It's true, there is one difference between Israeli actions and Palestinian threats. Israeli aggression is destroying and killing the Palestinian people actively, and with great success, taking more land from them every year since 1948. Some radical Israelis are demanding that the Palestinians be wiped out completely. Some radical Palestinians demand that Israel be wiped out completely. Any rational person can look at maps from 1948 to the present and see who's doing a better job.
As for "taking their land," it
Take, for example, the Fannie/Freddie debacle. Consider that Obama had 2 corrupt former CEOs of Fannie as economic advisors, one of which was the head of his VP search committee.
The truth is that although Jim Johnson was a CEO at Fannie Mae before becoming a leader of Barack Obama's VP search committee, he has not been convicted of any crime, but Obama accepted Johnson's resignation from the Presidential campaign anyway. In June, you hypocrite. Jim Johnson has also not been even accused of any crimes, just smeared for being associated with a corporation which operated in the lawless environment introduced by Gramm-Leach-Biley. Compare to Carly Fiorina, who was personally responsible for making a mess out of Hewlett-Packard. Johnson didn't sign Gramm-Leach-Biley into law. Measured by stock price, Fiorina was, in the eyes of the investors with enough previous financial success to determine stock prices, personally responsible for Hewlett-Packard's problems. If we're going to spend $700 Billion bailing out the country's wealthiest investors, we had better trust their judgment enough to uphold their verdict on Carleton S. Fiorina: as toxic as a portfolio full of foreclosed mortgages.
Former Fannie Mae executive Jim Johnson, who was a leader of the vice presidential search committee for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, resigned from that unpaid position today amid criticisms that Johnson represented a world of influence and special interests that stood in stark contrast with what Obama's campaign purports to stand for.
...
"We don't need any lectures from a campaign that waited fifteen months to purge the lobbyists from their staff, and only did so because they said it was a 'perception problem,'" said Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton.
And Franklin Raines was never any kind of adviser to Obama at all.
The Obama campaign issued a statement by Raines on Thursday night insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, saying in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter."
[If Raines offered Obama advice that was not sought, a lying sack of excrement might argue that Obama nevertheless "received" that advice, but unless that advice was the basis of subsequent action, we use the colloquialism that the advice was not "taken," thus anybody describing Raines as an advisor to Obama is a lying sack of excrement.]
Unless you have proof that Raines' statement above is a lie, you committed libel by asserting that he had ever been one of Barack Obama's "economic advisors."
So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth.
99% cloth, but not completely whole cloth. The "supposed Obama-Raines connection" is not quite pure fabrication by the same standard that the statement "you are a violin" has a basis in fact, when addressed to a person calling itself "Stradivarius." The only connection to fact is extremely tenuous, and we all know that the statement "you are a violin" is a falsehood. Your accusation is no more honest, just less humorous.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
If you honestly think another Republican president is what we need, you don't know shit about Republican presidents. Ford, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, for longer than most slashdotters have been alive, Republican presidents have meant massive budget defecits and massive debt increases. Now, under a Republican president, we're looking at another 700 billion dollars ON TOP OF budgets which make the current president the biggest spender in American history -- a Republican!
They say reality has a well-known liberal bias. I disagree with this. Reality has a well-known anti-Republican bias. Conservatives have been crying for decades that these spendaholics are going around redefining conservative as "reckless and irresponsible to the point of bankrupting the nation".
And if you think it'll be any different because it's John McCain, you're an idiot. McCain is running on a platform that's substantially similar to the platform that the spendaholic Bush 2 ran on in 2000. He's ducked his tail between his legs on many positions in order to get the nomination, and once he's behind the desk, he's going to continue to be a weak leader.
It's been a long time.
It costs about half a million dollars to put a single drug user in prison, which includes $150,000 for arrest and prosecution, about $150,000 for a new prison cell, and about $30,000 per year times at least five years. For the same cost we can provide treatment or education for more than one hundred people. Which do you think is the better deal?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/ACTIVIST/showstop.htm
I have here a list of every major study of drug policy in the last fifty years. Every one of them recommended decriminalization. Do you agree that the overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I am the first to admit that conservatives tend to hyperventilate about media bias more than they should (in many cases, the bias of the mainstream media has been only mildly left, no worse than Fox's bias rightwards). But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is one of those times.
Ah ha. Ah ha. Ha. After the last decade, still claiming that the media has a liberal bias is as laughable as Nader continuing to say that there really wouldn't have been a difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency. As laughable as a Miramax exec still thinking passing up on Lord of the Rings was a good decision, after Peter Jackson brought New Line eleven oscars and a few billion dollars.
If the media has such a liberal bias, why did they hate Al Gore's guts back in 2000, while giving Bush a free pass on his business failures, especially Harken Energy (a mountain next to the molehill of Whitewater)? They were so busy inventing Gore "fib factor" stories they didn't pay any attention to when Bush took credit for passing HMO legislation that he actually vetoed as governor of Texas:
If the media has such a liberal bias, why was it so gung ho on the Iraq war? In 2002-2003, the media conversation was dominated by neocons and pro-war hawks. What has changed since then, long after the public has turned against the war? Now the conversation is dominated by pro-war hawks, some of whom now think "mistakes were made" in the occupation, not that invading was a mistake in the first place. Those who were right that the war would be a disaster are as excluded from the media narrative today as they were in 2003.
And finally, just to put this turd to bed once and for all, compare representatives Gary Condit and Joe Scarborough. In May 2001, Gary Condit's aide, Chandra Levy, went missing. For months, the press obsessed over it, the allegations that he was having an affair and that he might have had something to do with her disappearance. Her body turned up in a park, and while no connection to Condit was found, he eventually admitted to having an affair with her.
In July 2001, Joe Scarborough's aide Lori Klausutis turned up dead, in his office, of blunt force trauma to the head. Dead. In his office. OF BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA TO THE HEAD. No scandal, no media obsession.
Now, try and tell us again with a straight face that the media has a liberal bias.
No - they attacked McCain for supposedly running a racist ad (apparently you can't mention close associations with corrupt CEOs if they happen to be black).
Um, because it was? The CEO in the ad has no connection whatsoever to Obama, but is black. The CEO that did actually have a connection to Obama is white, but was not in the ad. So do, please, explain how that ad was not racist. McCain's ads are littered with code and dog whistles. Watch his "The One" ad and pay attention to the subtext of Obama being a false prophet - aka the anti-Christ. No, I'm not kidding. Or his celebrity ad, which juxtaposes footage of Obama, two pretty white girls (Britney Spears and Paris Hilton) and phallic symbols like the Washington Monument and the Tower of Piza. Now, you might be able to make a case for the Washingto
Considering the abuses of power that George W. Bush has committed during his time in office, why should I believe that either Obama or McCain won't abuse the office as Bush got away with doing? Why should I trust either of you?
I write sci-fi for metalheads
The initial cause was the government deciding that fucking with the money supply was a good idea. Inflation of the money supply creates a market boom that is artificial (not created by demand), and must be followed by a bust. The Community Reinvestment Act certainly had a big role to play in this particular cycle, and I'm glad you pointed it out. But the CRA is another example of how regulation just messes things up. If there was no government mandate for banks to take on these risky loans, and there wasn't an artificially low interest rate on Fed loans making them look more profitable than they really were, these banks would never have gotten into such a mess in the first place. The deregulation that made things worse (by enabling banks to hide their bad debt) would not have had such a negative effect if the banks hand't been coerced and tricked into making bad loans!
This is not a defense of the banks' behavior, merely a description of how their actions relate to the landscape they inhabit. The worst thing we can do right now is to pump more money (that we don't have) into the system. If we leave it alone and get rid of the Fed, or at least greatly reduce its power, we will have a short, sharp year-long recession followed by a full recovery. This could be the last boom/bust cycle if we the people decide to act. If the bailout passes, we're looking at a lingering 10-year recession, further devaluation of the dollar, and a socialist market in all but name.
You're absolutely right about the Law of Unintended Consequences and government's failure to learn, which is why government needs to keep their hands off the markets.
Your brain is not a computer.
How do you determine the rights individuals have? Why do you have a right to your property? Why don't I have a right to your property?
Because, and only because, people have agreed to that. Changing those rights is nothing more than a matter of changing those agreements. After all, changing the nature of property rights was at the core of most of the Communist revolutions.
In the end I think we are saying the same thing two different ways. Natural Law essentially is the same as figuring out what rights we have that are by our societal needs.
Maybe. I still have a problem with the phrase "Natural Law" though. As I see it, there is no law in nature. Rights, laws, property, these are things which we create, which having no meaning or existence but that we imagine them, create them, and go to great lengths to protect and enforce them upon those who would disagree.