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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Naah, easy-out question ("God bless America!"). I think you need to pin 'em down a bit:
Do you prescribe to the belief that non-Christians will spend eternity in Hell?
If yes, what influence does this have on your dealings with non-believers?
If no, how do you reconcile this belief with the bible?
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
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.
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?
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.
Obama is just as "neck deep" if not more in "the biggest baking scandal / bailout in US history"
Personally, I'm appalled at the special treatment the baking industry is getting. It's not my fault they made too many cookies and loaves of bread and had to eat the loss when they spoiled. Why should I have to pay for their lack of foresight? They decided to overbake because they got greedy, and then they got caught with their pants down. They now have to try and sell a ton of day-old bread that no one really wants at steep discounts, and my tax money gets to make up the difference? Give me a break!
Sure, you hear a lot of nonsense about how the baking crisis could spill over into the fried foods industry or, heaven help us, deli meats, but I don't believe it for a second. We have plenty of preservative-laden Wonder Bread to take us past any temporary fresh bread shortage, and if worse comes to worst we still have emergency Twinkie rations left over from the Great Yeast Die-Off of 1983.
All this talk of a bailout is short-sighted and foolish. If we bail out the bakers now, who's next? The butchers? The candlestick makers? It boggles the mind.
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)
And, speaking of change, what plans does each of you have to return to the American people, those portions of the Bill of Rights that have been systematically abrogated during the past 8 years?
I wish I had mod points. The McCain Torture Ban, as written, is an absolute ban on torture. The "legalization" you refer to comes from a "signing statement" by President Bush. A signing statement is when the President signs a bill into law and says "Part X of the law is unclear, so I'm going to interpret it to mean Y." In this case, President Bush said "The part of the Torture Ban about whether torture is banned is unclear, so I'm going to interpret it to mean 'Torture is NOT banned.'" John McCain waved the bullshit flag. A day or so after the signing statement was made public, McCain was asked about it and said, "If Bush didn't like the bill, he should have vetoed it" and then promised that if he was elected, he wouldn't make any signing statements at all. John McCain is NOT in favor of torture.
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?
Yeah, he's got special insight into banking scandals. That's why he cosponsored a bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac far more strictly in 2005. If the Democrats hadn't blocked that bill, the companies wouldn't have melted down. Of course, if the Democrats hadn't blocked that bill, they wouldn't have been able to give so much to Democrats in campaign contributions.
Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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
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
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.
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