More Candidate Answers - Bush and Hagelin 760
1) War on Drugs
by Tim Doran
The War on Drugs has been a consistently neglected topic in discussions surrounding this federal election. My question is, do you believe the War on Drugs has been an unqualified success, and if not, what would you change about it if elected president?
Bush:
If elected president I pledge a renewed commitment to fight the war on drugs. I have a plan that includes $2.767 billion in new initiatives to help parents, teachers, and faith-based leaders influence children to steer clear of the evils of the drug culture.
For the past seven years, the Clinton-Gore Administration has sent the wrong message on drug abuse. Two of the Administration's first actions were to cut the Drug Czar's office by over 80% and to appoint a Surgeon General who spoke openly about drug legalization. And, the Clinton-Gore Administration slashed international efforts to stop drugs beyond our borders and all but abandoned the bully pulpit against illegal drugs.
Tragically, without presidential leadership on the issue, teen drug-use rose dramatically during the first five years of the Clinton-Gore Administration, and it remains at unacceptably high levels today. Drug use by children between the ages of 12 and 17 more than doubled between 1992 and 1997. Recent data suggest that teen drug use may have leveled off, but is still at near record levels for the decade.
From 1979 to 1992, in response to a concerted and relentless national strategy and commitment, teenage drug abuse consistently declined year after year. Starting in 1992, however, that trend reversed dramatically, and from 1992 to 1997 teenage drug abuse increased nationally every single year.
The number of high school seniors who have tried drugs is at its highest level in over a decade, with over half - 54.7 percent - having tried drugs. This rate had declined for 11 years in a row, reaching a low of 40.7 percent in 1992, before growing by a third under the current Administration.
For 10th graders, lifetime cocaine use has more than doubled since 1992, reaching 7.7 percent, the highest level in a decade, and lifetime use of crack by 10th graders has likewise more than doubled, reaching 4.0 percent.
For 8th graders, heroin use has nearly doubled, reaching 2.3% in 1999.
Compared to 1992, daily use of marijuana within the previous thirty days by eighth and tenth graders increased by 700 percent and 300 percent, respectively.
In contrast to the past seven years, I will send a clear and unwavering message: drug use is wrong, and we will have zero tolerance for those who target our children with the plague of drugs.
I will help parents and re-energize the parents' movement, by creating a national Parents Drug Corps, through providing $25 million to non-profit organizations to educate and train parents in effective drug prevention. To achieve drug-free schools, I will increase funding for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program by $100 million over five years, and insist that states and districts measure drug use and demonstrate results. And, I will energize community coalitions through $350 million in grants to double and enhance the effectiveness of community coalitions that reduce teenage drug abuse.
I will devote an additional $1 billion to increased funding for the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, and $1 billion more to help close the treatment gap for those needing drug treatment and not receiving it. My focus on treatment will promote teen treatment programs in particular.
In addition, I will insist upon drug-free prisons, require regular drug testing and monitoring for parolees and probationers, and expand the successful Boston Gun Project from 27 cities to 100. And I will launch a federal Methamphetamine initiative, to tackle directly a growing crisis in rural communities.
We want a drug-free society for one, great moral reason: over time, drugs rob men and women and children of their dignity and character. Illegal drugs are the enemies of innocence, and ambition, and hope. I will exert presidential leadership to send the clear and consistent message that drug abuse is dangerous and wrong. And I will help marshal resources at every level - starting with parents, schools and communities closest to the needs of young Americans - to turn back the tide of drug abuse.
Hagelin:
The War on Drugs has failed. I will cut our burgeoning prison population in half by decriminalizing nonviolent drug offenses, directing such offenders to drug education, prevention, and rehabilitation programs. Approximately a million people are in jail for such nonviolent drug offenses. That's a waste of a generation.
We must also focus on the demand side of the drug economy by reducing the desire to take drugs. The most effective defense against drugs is proper education -- education that directly unfolds intelligence and creativity, builds self-confidence, eliminates stress, and raises life to be in harmony with natural law, thereby eliminating the tendency towards drug dependence.
To be effective, education must be deeply satisfying and directly relevant to a person's own life. Such education will eliminate functional and technological illiteracy and also prevent dropouts, who become the principal targets for drugs and drug-related crime.
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
What will you do to protect the rights of athiests and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
Bush:
I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity. Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion.
Hagelin:
I will take action where necessary to ensure the constitutional rights of all Americans. However, more than that, I will support effective education that expands comprehension and overcomes intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry born of narrow-mindedness.
Because the aim of every religion is the spiritual elevation of human life, I support the right of all Americans to worship according to the religion of their choice. At the same time, I support the crucial separation between church and state by holding that the Federal Government should remain neutral toward all religions, neither suppressing nor supporting any particular religion or religious sect. This attitude of neutrality, which aims at protecting the religious rights of all Americans, reflects the original intention of the nation's founding fathers.
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
With the surplus, everyone has been saying "Let's have a tax cut, Let's have a tax cut." In the meantime, Alan Greenspan and friends are trying to keep inflation and the speed of the growing economy in check so it doesn't burst. Which they are doing by raising interest rates periodically. (6 times this year). A tax cut flies in the face of what Greenspan is trying to do.
A tax cut will inject more money into the economy and do what Greenspan is preventing. Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much on the debt?
Hagelin:
Many candidates have promised lower taxes, but have been unable to fulfill these promises due to the depth and complexity of problems faced by government. Tax cuts--without the revenues to support them--would be irresponsible, and politicians who promise such cuts without a realistic plan to generate revenues are simply courting votes. However, my cost-effective solutions will save the nation hundreds of billions of dollars annually, thereby providing a realistic strategy for significant tax reduction that protects the integrity of our important social programs. The most powerful fiscal action our government can take to stimulate the economy is to lower taxes. I will cut taxes responsibly -- while protecting Social Security and Medicare and paying down the national debt -- through reduction of government waste and fraud, and through cost-effective solutions to costly social problems, such as spiraling health costs, crime, and our energy dependence on foreign oil.
One simple and viable way to implement across-the-board tax cuts is through a low flat tax. We will halt the endless manipulation of the tax code by Congress for their favorite corporate sponsors ("corporate welfare") by implementing such a tax. Our plan includes a generous floor of $34,000 (for a family of four) below which American would pay no income tax. Above the $34,000 floor, the tax rate begins at 18% in 2001 and drops to 14% by 2006 as our cost-effective solutions begin to bear fruit. Our low flat tax would stimulate and sustain strong economic growth. This strong economic growth, with its associated increase in government revenues, combined with the savings from our cost-effective solutions, would ensure a balanced budget and gradual repayment of the national debt without borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. This proposal would also reduce the size and scope of the IRS, eliminate loopholes for the wealthy, and put an end to corporate welfare.
Bush:
I believe that once our nation's priorities have been met, the remaining money should be returned to the taxpayers. Chairman Greenspan has gone on record saying that he would rather see the surplus returned to taxpayers than spent on new government programs like Al Gore proposes.
It is estimated that over the next ten years we will have a surplus of about $4.6 trillion. That surplus takes into account the projected increases for each government program and entitlement. In other words, after all of the government's bills are paid, including the regular increases for each department there will still be a surplus of nearly $5 trillion. Of that surplus, I want to take over half of it to help save Social Security. I will put that money into a "Lockbox" so that government can't spend it, except on Social Security benefits.
Then I will take about half of the remaining $2.2 trillion to fund important efforts such as improving public education, strengthening our national defense, and providing prescription drugs to senior citizens. The remaining quarter of the surplus, a little over $1 trillion would then be returned to the taxpayers. Under my plan, everyone who pays taxes will get a tax cut, with the biggest percentage cut going to the poorest citizens. In fact, I will take 6 million low-income families off the tax rolls completely.
4) electoral reform
by carleton
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the Electoral College system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
Bush:
The Electoral College was established by Article II and the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution. I support our Constitutional system of representative democracy. I am disappointed at the diminishing number of voters coming out for national elections and statewide elections. I would encourage all Americans to turn out and vote in this presidential election.
I believe that a principal cause of voter apathy is the constant bitter partisan divisions and growing cynicism in Washington. I am running to try to change that atmosphere, to lead by uniting rather than dividing, to shoot straight, and to set aside partisan differences and set an agenda that makes sense for working Americans.
Hagelin:
I support crucial democratic reforms to end special interest control of government and restore government accountability to the people, including elimination of PACs and soft money, public sponsorship of election campaigns, and prohibiting lobbying by former public servants. I support election reform that returns American democracy to the high ideals envisioned by our nation's founders -- a republic that fairly represents the views of all its citizens and candidates. In this light, I support abolishment of the Electoral College, because under the current system, a presidential candidate can receive a majority of the votes and still lose the election. The President should be elected by the people through direct popular vote. I would also reconsider proportional representation, which has been effective in countries around the world and more fairly represents the true will of the people than our current "winner-take-all" process.
To create meaningful election reform, I also support the following initiatives:
1. Ensure ballot access fairness. Every political party and candidate should have the same requirements in every election for getting on the ballot. Incumbents should no longer have privileges over challengers with new ideas.
2. Promote campaign fairness. It is the right of the American people to hear the views of every candidate on the ballot. All candidates who meet ballot access requirements should have the same access to their constituencies, including equal media access through a series of publicly sponsored televised forums, debates, and infomercials, as well as publicly sponsored mailings of voter education materials. To qualify for these privileges, candidates would be required to comply with voluntary spending limits. This structure would favor voter education over privately funded media advertising and would thereby help eliminate special interest influence on the election process.
3. Encourage all Americans to vote. Election day should be made a mandatory national holiday, as in most other nations, so that everyone has time to vote. Voter registration should be facilitated by creating uniform laws that allow same-day registration or even automatic registration.
4. Shorten the campaign season. The campaign season should be reduced to four months -- two months for parties to choose their candidates and two months for the general election.
5. Allow national initiatives. The "public initiative" process, already enacted and in operation in 23 states, should be expanded to the national level. This process allows the collective will of our citizens to initiate legislative reform and thereby shape governmental policy more directly.
5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
In this age of the Internet, intellectual property has become a very important concept to many people. Many companies make their living on the artificial scarcity provided by intellectual property laws, selling information that they have either created or aggregated. Some others, mostly in the Free Software world, make their living seemingly in spite of these laws, selling their services based on information that is freely given.
Do you feel that out current system of intellectual property is a good one? Which parts of it (e.g. trademarks, patents, copyrights) do you feel are well suited to the world of the Internet and which do you think need to be changed (and, if changes are needed, what changes are needed)?
Hagelin:
Whenever new technologies emerge, such as the tape recorder or the videocassette recorder, the owners of existing intellectual properties demand draconian protection, insisting that without it their industries will collapse.
Each of these technological advances, however, has in fact resulted in new ways for the movie, television, and music industries to make money. Similarly, the Internet and digital distribution of music have stimulated interest in the purchase of new CDs. (In fact, CD sales have continued to rise even with Napster, and it is probable that free sampling of music leads to increased CD sales.)
However, it is also true that intellectual property is a key motivator in the creation of new material and therefore must be given protection.
That is why I believe that the entertainment industry should make an all-out effort to find new ways to utilize Napster and similar services on a "pay per view" basis. This approach will serve all concerned and turn what appears now--at least to many in the entertainment industry--to be a disaster into a boon for both the industry and the consumer.
Bush:
In the next five years, we anticipate that two-thirds of software will be distributed over the Internet, making it more important than ever to ensure strong copyright protection for computer software. In the United States, much of the legal framework already exists, but we need to redouble our efforts on enforcement. In particular, the next President must make sure that the US Department of Justice and US law enforcement agencies have the resources to enforce our intellectual property laws. In the international community, the challenge is even tougher since we must both help establish a legal framework for intellectual property protection and ensure it is enforced.
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private.
Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
Hagelin:
To attempt to restrict the export of encryption is ludicrous and unworkable, since individuals and businesses will always demand the strongest encryption possible and governments will always try to find a way to break it. The right of Americans to encrypt will not be abridged under my administration.
Bush:
I share many people's concerns that, with the advent of the Internet, personal privacy is increasingly at risk, and I am committed to protecting personal privacy for everyone. Though industry now appears to be making some efforts to meet consumer demands for privacy protection, as President I will ensure:
- Notice and Consent. Everyone has the right to know what information is collected and how it will be used, and to accept or decline the collection or dissemination of this information - particularly financial and medical information.
- Access. Individuals have the right to correct any inaccurate personal information.
- Security. Institutions must provide sufficient security to prevent unauthorized access to personal information.
If elected president, I will issue an Executive Order designating a federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) at the Office of Management and Budget. The federal CIO will be responsible for providing the leadership and coordination needed to realize the vision of a truly digital and citizen-centric government. The CIO will head agency cross-functional councils on information technology, facilitate collaboration with state CIOs, and lead development of standards, protocols, and privacy protections, among other things.
I believe that strong encryption products enhance consumer privacy. In October 1999, I proposed fundamental reform of the U.S. high technology export system - including encryption export laws - to allows companies to export products when those products are already readily available in foreign or mass markets, while building high walls around technologies of the highest sensitivity. The current system needlessly penalizes U.S. businesses while failing to strengthen our national security.
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
In the last year or so we have seen a tremendous escalation in the quantity and size of political protests against globalization and the rising power of corporate multi-nationals. Do you believe that these people have reason to be concerned? If you do believe that they have reason for concern, what steps would you take as president to deal with their concerns?
Bush:
The failure of the Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organization to launch a new round of global trade negotiations is a setback for America and the world.
Trade drives economic growth and high wage jobs. As we introduce American goods and services around the world, we will also introduce American values. To fuel continued economic growth, we need to tear down barriers abroad - and keep markets open at home. As President, I will work to pry open foreign markets and tear down barriers everywhere, entirely, so that the whole world trades in freedom.
The failure of the Seattle meeting represents a failure of leadership - internationally and domestically - by the Clinton-Gore Administration. Since the last trade round ended in 1995, the Administration has failed to build an international consensus in favor of further market-opening efforts.
The violent protests in the streets of Seattle also reflect the Administration's failure to build a domestic consensus in favor of free trade. In fact, this is the first administration in 25 years to fail to secure presidential trade negotiating authority from Congress.
With our trade deficit reaching a record high, we must recognize that our prosperity at home will suffer without new leadership to advance America's global economic interests.
We cannot turn our back on change. Rather, we have to help Americans prepare for change by embracing free trade, ensuring that every child is educated, cutting taxes on working families to increase their access to the middle class, and ensuring that no one is left behind.
Hagelin:
Globalization and corporate multinational control of government is a major concern of my campaign. America's crucial trade treaties, such as NAFTA, must be revisited and vigorously renegotiated--with adequate representation by labor, environmental, and human rights proponents to ensure that America's interests are truly upheld. In particular, the World Trade Organization (WTO), with its sweeping authority to adjudicate international trade disputes, has become a tool of multinational corporations, which have inside access to WTO negotiations that typically occur in secret. We would give the WTO twelve months to adopt more open, democratic procedures--with adequate labor, environmental and human rights input--or we would withdraw the U.S. from the WTO and negotiate individual, tailored trade relationships with America's various trade partners. These agreements would
- promote the economic welfare of all Americans;
- provide markets for our domestic small businesses;
- safeguard American employment and labor standards;
- protect human rights; and
- ensure that imported goods meet environmental and product safety standards.
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
Hagelin:
Scarce military resources are squandered on pork-barrel weapons like the $2 billion B2 bomber and the $60 billion flawed missile defense shield. As a scientist, I do not support the missile defense shield because it does not work. Similarly, I do not feel that military funds should be spent on asteroid defense.
(Gov. Bush did not answer this question.)
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
I'm very concerned with the future of the country, and about what our national mission seems to be. Looking back through American history, every period seems to have a defining popular mission - like the "manifest destiny" movement in the 19th century, the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. During these times, there would be one struggle or idea that captivated the attention of the nation, sort of providing a national mission.
I'm a little confused as I look around today. What is our mission? To me, it seems to be "to watch TV and use the Internet." What would you say the defining national mission of today is? What should it be? Furthermore, how would you show this in your activities as a lawmaker? (For instance, if our national mission is the pursuit of science, then would you increase funding for scientific pursuits in the budget?)
Bush:
Throughout this campaign I have said that our great prosperity must have a great purpose. The purpose of our prosperity should be to ensure that the American Dream touches every willing heart. We cannot afford to have an America segregated by class, by race or by aspiration. America must close the gap of hope between communities of prosperity and communities of poverty.
My priorities are to bring local control, high standards and character education to our public schools. To restore morale and shape a modern American military. To continue our prosperity and make our tax code fairer by cutting rates for every taxpayer, from the entrepreneur who creates jobs to the single mom working for a better life for her children. And my priorities are to save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare - to keep our commitment to the greatest generation, and enact reforms so that commitment is secure for generations next. Overall, I want to make sure that our prosperity has a purpose.
What I have learned from these months on the campaign trail is how much Americans have in common. Our faces and our landscapes are diverse and different - but the spirit of hope and renewal I saw at work in a drug rehabilitation program called Teen Challenge in Colfax, Iowa, is also at work in food pantries and after school programs and crisis pregnancy centers all across America.
These past eighteen months have reconfirmed my belief that the strength of America is found not in the halls of government, but in the hearts and souls of our people, and they deserve a government that respects and reflects their values.
The Americans who began choosing our next President tonight took a stand for a leader who unites, and an agenda that inspires. A messenger committed to bringing people together, and a message meant for every American.
If you are tired of the bitterness that poisons our politics, come join us. If you think that government should be less partisan and more practical, come join us. If you are weary of polls and posturing, of scandals and alibis, come join us.
I promise an administration that will bring out our best.
Hagelin:
Our national mission may seem obscure because government today is torn by conflicting national interests and faced with seemingly intractable challenges. This is because governmental theory and policy are rooted in obsolete 19th century principles. As a quantum physicist, I offer a profound and fresh new foundation for governmental administration -- one based upon the most modern and comprehensive scientific understanding of how Nature functions -- that will clarify and redefine our national mission. Unified quantum field theories have revealed the ultimate unity underlying all of life, and provide deep and practical insights into how to skillfully administer and harmonize society's diverse tendencies -- with the same organizing intelligence displayed throughout Nature. America's problems are human problems -- crime, drug dependency, domestic violence, even pollution result from a narrowness of vision that fails to comprehend life's essential unity. The only way we can overcome these problems is through the expansion of consciousness -- education that actualizes the full potential of the brain. I have spent the last quarter century conducting cutting edge research in unified quantum field theories, and have led an international scientific investigation into the nature and origin of human consciousness. The conclusion of these 25 years of research is that human consciousness, at its deepest level, and the unified field which underlies the whole of Nature, are one and the same. This means that human awareness, fully expanded, naturally comprehends the ultimate unity underlying all of humanity, earth's complex ecosystems, and indeed, the entire universe. It also means that the most profound appreciation of life's essential unity, described by the greatest physicists and philosophers of all traditions, is available to everyone through proper education. With this direct experience of life's essential unity, and with maximally expanded comprehension, individuals naturally behave in their own best long-term interests while promoting the interests of society as a whole -- action fully aligned with natural law. Thus today, 225 years after the birth of our nation, with our far more complete and profound scientific understanding of natural law, we can practically fulfill our Founders' dream of a self-governing nation, where all citizens naturally respect and promote each others' rights to life, liberty and happiness.
Wha? (Score:3)
The Shrub's answers sound like well-crafted speech points. Obviously, he didn't write these-- his aides did. Yeah, I realize that.
But you might as well just tape record the Shrub's answers, get one of those chit-chattering teeth things, wind it up, play the tape recorder, and watch how the teeth jump and skitter and pop with the answers on the tape recorder until they chatter right off the table and onto the floor...
List of Government Approved Religions (Score:3)
Bush:
I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity. Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion.
Let's have a show of hands. Is your religion Government Approved?
A little ironic.. (Score:3)
I can just see the anti-drug commercials now.. "Cocaine is bad, mmmkay." -George W. Bush
Re:Wha? (Score:5)
That's an asinine complaint. It's a good thing that the candidates did not craft some specially concocted set of answers for Slashdot.
Do you want to be pandered to?
www.niceFire.com [nicefire.com]
Minority Religions - Translated Answer (Score:5)
I am committed to the First Amendment, whether the person believe in a Judeo-Christian God, a Judeo-Christian God, a Judeo-Christian God, or a Judeo-Christian God.
-----
Re:A little ironic.. (Score:2)
I guess I was wrong.
Strange, very strange... (Score:4)
I remember hearing representatives from Canada's Natural Law party speak a few years ago and thinking what nuts they were. (Entertaining, but definately crazy.)
It says something about the state of politics in the U.S. that the Natural Law candidate actually comes accross as an intelligent, rational human being next to the Republican candidate. It would be funny, except for the fact that Bush might actually win.
Bush's answers... (Score:4)
this isn't why we should vote for bush, but why we shouldn't vote for gore. makes me not want to vote for any of them. Go Harry Browne!
Fed chairman on govt surplus (Score:5)
- Debt reduction
- Tax cut
- Increased spending
While Bush's staff minion is literally correct (yes Greenspan prefers tax cuts to more spending), the minion omits the crucial point that Greenspan would prefer debt reduction over tax cuts.Re: (Score:2)
Re:Minority Religions - Translated Answer (Score:2)
Very very well put... of course he didn't actually address the REAL minority religions, the ones that aren't considered mainstream minority. But that's not necessary, because we already knows how he feels on that.
Heck, if give then chance, since "Wicca" isn't a religion according to him, he'd probably like to have them tossed in jail with drug users (other than himself, of course) because of the "moral damage" they do to him and this wonderful nation of Christians.
---
Bush just does not get it... (Score:5)
My favorite Dubbya quote (Score:3)
Translation: Clinton and Gore were bad for not shoving large corporations down people's throats hard enough. Gawd, did he even catch the tone of the question?
What we won't see (Score:3)
Bush's answer:
My first act as President will be to imprison myself.
I have possessed cocaine on several occasions, too many times to count.
Additionally, I have been guilty of drunk driving on several occasions, again too many times to count.
I have heretofore concealed these facts from the American people. That information was "need to know" and the American people just didn't need to know...
Quick Bush standard answer. (Score:2)
Bush is insulting us (Score:5)
From his response to the challenge to the electoral college:
Now - how many times does this man attack Clinton (and Gore) on this page? How many times does he give credit? He's just as divisive as the rest of 'em. At least the rest of 'em are honest about it.
I realize most slashdotters are smart enuff to figure that out for themselves. I just bite when my intelligence is insulted!
Re:Minority Religions - Translated Answer (Score:2)
Yes. Awfully inclusive of him isn't it? And note atheists don't get a nod, either.
Of course, the guy's logic on this and related issues sucks (e.g. he apparently holds that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry; presumably this is based on his religious views, 'cos he sure as hell didn't give a secular justification for it; and when he did, it was the tired old "homosexuals shouldn't have special rights" line, to which the proper response is ... huh?)
Re:Wha? and an interesting column on the e-college (Score:3)
it is good, i think, that the campaigns are willing to respond truthfully. for bush to say anything other than what he's been saying the entire campaign would be dishonest...
let's give them credit for answering, regardless of how much crap slashdot will put them through on the discussions.
on an unrelated note, there's a very good defense of the electoral college system available on the washingtonpost.com site. you can find it here. [washingtonpost.com]
jon
Re: (Score:2)
note the carefully worded hypocrisy (Score:4)
It seems to me that George W. Bush has purposefully not-answered the question with a careful, purposefully deceptive response. Here [positiveatheism.org] is another analysis of Bush's views on minority religions from the context of the decision of the US Military to accept Wicca as a bona fide religion.
have a day,
-l
Parrot responses from Bush (Score:2)
Realistically though, most of the questions that candidates are asked are pointless since the president has little or no influence over the issues. Maybe a little on strategic defence and the policy direction. In the end Congress makes the laws and spends the money.
Sure, Bush sounds scripted... (Score:2)
...but he's a politician. Should we expect any more? The current system puts up a lot of shields. I hope that this election does a lot to knock those shields down--killing the Electoral College, removing campaign finance limits on contributions, killing PAC's, requiring complete donor lists--and I think it will.
The biggest sea change you're going to see in politics is that it will start to become more real to the average Joe Six-Pack out there. Why? In this age of better information and faster access to that information, our politicians will be as naked as frogs for dissection in biology. That's a good thing--we'll be able to see what makes them tick and vote accordingly.
Yet I'm voting for Bush.
--
First feeling (Score:2)
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...
Re: (Score:2)
Umm no, wrong. (Score:3)
Chairman Greenspan has gone on record saying that he would rather see the surplus returned to taxpayers than spent on new government programs like Al Gore proposes.
Greenspan has requested the complete OPPOSITE of tax cuts using this surplus. What he suggested was that the Govt. hold this money to be used on programs when the economy is not as strong as it is now. Bush is blatently wrong with the statement that Greenspan thinks he need tax cuts. Whether this is a misunderstanding, or an attempt to misquote, I don't know. Either way, he is VERY wrong.
Bush on Targeting Kids with Drugs (Score:5)
I wish Bush and all the other politicians would once and for all realize that the people targeting children with drugs are children
I have been there, done that, and I know how this works: The 13 year old 7th grader got dope from the 15 year old in 9th grade who bought an eigth from the 17 year old in 11th grade who bought a half from the 19 year old in college or working who got a qp from a 25 year old who bought 2 lbs from the 30 year old grower. I guarantee that the 30 year old grower would be appalled if he knew that his crop was in the hands of a 7th grader.
So go ahead Bush, lock the 15 year old away for ten years. Kids make mistakes, they shouldn't have their lives ruined for them. Suspension and counselling for drugs, not this zero tolerance crap. Kicking a kid out of school is not going to help him. Besides, these evil drug dealers are usually kids with divorced parents and/or fathers who beat them, and are socially rejected because their parents haven't taught them basic social skills, and turn to drug dealing to make friends, get respect, and also money.
So much for compassionate conservatism. You would think a recovering alcoholic who snorted blow would have more understanding of youthful mistakes.
Bush certainly doesn't pander to this audience (Score:2)
Man, Bush is going to take a beating for some of his stated opinions above. More money for the War on Drugs? Lock up more people for nonviolent drug offenses? He might as well advocate making the internet illegal and suggest that anyone reading slashdot is a dingleberry. In fact, in almost every comment posted, I could hear thousands of Slashdot readers shouting in unison "Wrong Cretin!". At least Haglin isn't likely to draw a lot of flak (his answers seemed downright sane in comparison.)
All I can say is: On election day, may the better man win. Even if I don't belive this is going to happen.
Hagelin as a scientist (Score:2)
Imagine:
As a scientist, Thomas Edison abandoned the light bulb because initial attempts to make one did not work.
I find Hagelin's comment here really lacking. He doesn't support a missle defense shield because we do not have a working one? He abandons searching for success because he thus far has encountered only failure?
If these are his only reasons for being against a missle defense, they are lame. He should provide a better, more candid answer here.
And I am not arguing here for or against a missle defense system. I am arguing for better reasoning than he provided in this answer.
BTW, have we seen the Internet-savvy Gore's answers here yet?
Vote Harry Browne [harrybrowne2000.org]!
Great news for the world (Score:2)
Whether we want them or not. There are lots of different value systems, why should they be subsumed by the American corporate collective merely to allow McDonalds to sell more burgers or Nike to sell more trainers.
Gore? (Score:5)
--
Re:Minority Religions - Translated Answer (Score:3)
Presidential leadership (Score:2)
The man said he didn't inhale, what else do you want him to do?
We DON'T want answers tailored to slashdot (Score:5)
Well, duh.
First, I'd be wary of saying all slashdotters think ____... some of us, in fact (or maybe it's just me, but at least one!) think that music piracy such as the kind that goes on via napster and gnutella (and IRC, and web sites) is BAD. Not all of us are libertarians... please don't force your views on me, and I won't force mine on you.
But about our topic... isn't the main complaint people have with today's candidates the fact that they are fickle, saying whatever a given audience wants to hear? So what happens? Here, candidates answer the questions in a way that will probably make them unpopular, and we fault them for that! I don't care if you hate Bush... wouldn't you rather know what he thinks, and then disagree, rather than have him pretend to agree with you? I think Harry Browne, for example, would be an awful president, but I truly enjoyed seeing his responses.
Of course, the major candidates do tend to view questions as springboards for rants, but that's a different story... of course, so do we
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wha? (Score:2)
Yes, if Bush's answers could be moderated, he would get (Score:-1, Flaimbait) on several.
There are some things you just don't say on slashdot and expect to get away with.
Turing Test (Score:5)
Is it just me or did Bush just fail the Turing test?
George, Drugs & Slashdot-Non-Heardofus (Score:2)
Doesn't he know we don't fight wars anymore? We play Space Invaders now thank you.
"...I have a plan that includes $2.767 billion in new initiatives to help parents, teachers, and faith-based leaders influence children to steer clear of the evils of the drug culture.
George, you're not fooling any of us. You haven't the foggiest clue what culture or community is all about with your segregationist meanderings and your public cowtowing. What you're thinking of is a conglomeration of folks who live on the same street, send their kids to the same schools, but don't even say hello when they bring their traszh to the stoop. That's the American way. Why don't you put that money into tracking down deadbeat dads, giving our nation's high school teacher's some oratorial lessons and doing whatever you GOD-well can to keep faith out of the domain of authority.
I'd go on, but why bother? George's nose, er face, is red already.
O P E N___S O U R C E___H U M O R [mikegallay.com]
I don't get it. (Score:5)
Just my bit. This isn't a flame/troll/whatever. I just want to know why everyone is for big government. They're both bad, but I'd rather Bush than Gore.
Bush Does Not Believe In Freedom *From* Religion (Score:2)
On FuckedCompany, a few weeks ago, somebody posted a link to a 1988 interview with Bush when he was running for governor. It is well-known that Bush supports prayer in public schools and, while being asked about atheists who object to this practice, he blurted out: everything American Atheists are is bullshit (sic). This offended a lot of people, who wrote his campaign asking him to retract the statement. Instead, they received a letter which explained how Bush is a man of faith who strongly believes in God and the merits of religion. Bush is an asshole.
Does anybody still have the link?
Hagelin (Score:2)
As for Bush, his intransigence on the doomed war on drugs is really starting to get to me.
You last used cocaine 28 years ago. Are you:
a) still in jail; or
b) running for president.
Discuss the effect that your race and your father's net worth had on your answer.
--
Natural Law? (Score:2)
Do you know otherwise?
__
hmm... (Score:2)
Maybe I don't feel the need to prop up several million people I don't know or like, just because they're old. Maybe I think they should have had the common sense to save their own god damned money. Social security is a flop.
It's not too late to live in a free country.
Vote for Harry Browne.
Drugs (Score:5)
Bush:
Trust me kids... you don't wanna do drugs. For a good twenty years I was firmly entrenched (Dick, are you sure that's a word?... OK.. whatever you say) in the 'evil drug lifestyle,' and look at all the trouble it gave me?
* Millions of dollars
* Ownership of a major league baseball team
* Gov'ner of the Great State of Texas
* More sex with hot babes than a frenchman who lives next to a cat-house
Now, just imagine (did I spell that right Dick?... hand me the dicshun... dictch.... big book with words in it) what would have become of my life if my daddy wasn't an important and influe... infla... (I'm trying to sound it out Dick) influential and important person who could pull strings. I'd be in a whole lot of trouble, that's where I'd be.
So let that be a lesson to all of you young folk. I made a mistake in my past, and now I want you guys to pay for it. Don't do drugs!
Campaign Season (Score:3)
This is duckspeak -- the slightest thought makes it clear that any attempt to prevent campaigning "out of season" would violate the First Amendment.
/.
Natural Maharishi Party (Score:2)
Do people really not see through this? Or are there really people looking forward to the day when their 3rd grader comes home from school and practices 'levitation'?
Re:Sure, Bush sounds scripted... (Score:4)
The day may come. But I'm not so sure it will. Virtually nobody but a political junkie will do the research themselves, and this introduces intermediaries and, IMO, a vast potential for error.
Consider the Shrub's popularity; as far as I can see, it partially rests on the media's failure (in the general sense, obviously there are exceptions) to really look the guy over. Bush has declared certain subjects "out of bounds" (since when do the candidates write the rules?).
Al Gore is famous for "having claimed to invent the internet", and even a lot of the techno-savvy here seem to believe that (which is why it's no longer funny, not even as a joke). Yet the Shrub clearly claimed credit for laws he did not sign and even tried to veto (in the second debate), works off of anti-intellectualist sentiment (aw, Gore kept pushing Bush for answers, what a meanie), and so forth. Does the media bother to tear into Shrub for that?
(Note: I'm not saying anything about your preference here, I'm making a point about the dissection of candidates)
The problem is, no matter how savvy and info-hungry some of us are, the vast majority don't care that much. They won't do their research, they'll rely on the media (however little they say they trust them ... go on, how many out there know the details behind the things I've mentioned here?) There hasn't been *nearly* enough scrutiny of the right sort on the Shrub; whether that's due to media mendacity or just a sort of accident is in a way beside the point, because not everybody can keep up with all the info out there.
Re:Minority Religions - Translated Answer (Score:5)
Bull. This is EXACTLY why it was an important question. The majority doesn't need protection from the government - they ARE the government, their will directs what the government does. It's the minorities that are always the victims. The majority denies them their rights, their freedoms, and elects people to do the same. And you're not really free if you don't have the same rights if you choose not to be part of the mainstream (or never even have the choice to be in it).
We should always be on the alert for people who refuse to help out the minorities - because when you frame demographics in a certain way, YOU become the minority. And if you don't support the rights of the minority while in the majority, who's going to support yours when you become one?
---
A view from the gallery (Score:2)
Note: I'm not trying to flame anyone, just stating my view of the American Way as a Finnish citizen. (Note2: I have never even set a foot on American ground so all this is hearsay.)
So, you wan't a tax cut even though you pay only minimal taxes already. I think there would be great many ways to spend that money even that many to make the lives of the poorer Americans a little bit better. I'm comparing to the Scandinavian and Finnish system where we often pay approximately 50% taxes from salaries and 22% from most stuff and services (I as a poor student pay up to 17% income tax). But with that money we have full social security, almost free healthcare and fully free schools.
I would certainly not wan't to be in America and lose a job.
Another thing I'm amazed by is the electoral system where only the local majority has anything to say. And THAT is called democracy. Compare this to the Finnish way, where everyone votes both a list and a person on it. When a person doesn't get elected, the votes he got go in favor of someone else on the list who got more votes. Each party has generally a list of it's own. In this system a vote almost always has an effect.
Bush: In the international community, the challenge is even tougher since we must both help establish a legal framework for intellectual property protection and ensure it is enforced.
Oh dear.
Re:Natural Law? (Score:2)
No, that was my impression too. It sure was fun watching their videos of Yogic Flying, though.
Re:Wha? (Score:3)
I expect my politicians to wonder about something called 'Slashdot' if (a) they're asked to submit questions to this thing called 'Slashdot' and (b) they don't know anything about this thing called 'Slashdot'.
And no, I don't want to pandered to. But I do expect my politicians to have enough brains to realize, well, wait a minute I'd like to figure out just who the audience is for Slashdot, what things they're concerned about, and how the issues *I'm* concerned about fit into their concerns. That's what a politician is: someone who speaks to the people and not someone who just repeats bullet points.
You want a talking head? Get the goddamn talking teeth I mentioned in the first post. Attach some fuzz to the top of the teeth, cut out some little cardboard dancing shoes, and there you go: there's your talking head. For the full effect, turn the Shrub on when he appears on CSPAN and let the teeth have at it. Let 'em chatter and skip and pop until you've had your fill.
That's what these answers are. They're talking head answers.
And yes, I expect my politicians to fscking personalize their answers. There's a big difference between "pandering" and "personalizing".
Re:Like Father, Like Son.. (Score:2)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Not clear enough for you?
Hagelin rocks (Score:3)
It is perhaps debatable what a president should be, since he can't be everything to all people. However, I like the fact that Hagelin is a scientist. If you guys look at his background, he's got more in common with this crowd than all the other candidates combined.
He's undeniably very intelligent, and is (imho) in this for the right reasons. Of course he doesn't realistically expect to win, but the natural law party is in it for the long haul. They are building from the lower levels on up - where I live, there are more natural law people running for office than any other third party. It is my hope that a number of those people will be elected, and their party will eventually be a force to be reckoned with.
Anyways, I realize that there is no way Bush wrote those answers (or evasions, in some cases), but I think they speak for themselves.
-------
Re:Minority Religions - Translated Answer (Score:4)
Further, as a praticing Pagan I found the question -extremely- relevant to me, and considering that something on the order of 10-15% of IT workers are pagan, it's pretty relevant to slashdot. (Yes, it's weird, but the IT industry has - or had a few years ago - the highest percentage of neopagans of any career grouping.)
Finally, yes, there -are- vast differences between the judeo-christian monotheistic religions, but that does not change the fact that they are more similar to each other than to the non-monotheistic religions.
--Parity
Re:Wha? (Score:2)
Well, yes.
I don't expect the candidates to explain the intricacies of key escrow to the general public in stump speeches or debates. However, when writing for a technical audience, if a candidate shows that he/she gives a deeper level of thought to the issues than what is commonly presented in stump speeches, then I'm for it. I don't expect a candidate to change their mind for this forum, but if they adopt an unpopular view, they damn well better explain in more detail why they still believe it.
Like any responsible elector, I make my decisions based on a balance between the issues most likely to effect me and the issues effecting the country as a whole. I'm not trying to pick a winner, I'm picking the person who I believe will best represent my interests.
Pander away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Minority Religions - Translated Answer (Score:4)
His response there?
Religious Freedom And Tolerance Is A Protected Right
I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity.
Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion. I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it.
(emphasis added)
What's funny is that allowing Wiccans in the military to practice is promoting witchcraft... but allowing Christians to practice isn't an unconstitutional promotion of Christianity.
Regardless, if he's going to arbitrarily decide something doesn't count as a religion, and therefore doesn't deserve 1st Amendment protection, then he's not truly in favor of religious freedom and diversity.
---
Who's Changed Their Mind After This? (Score:2)
I think I was offended by half of Bush's answers.
Re: (Score:2)
Mind Control (Score:4)
Regardless of what you think about free trade, think about this:
Bush thinks that the government should create a domestic consensus on the side of the issue rather than respond to the views of the people. i.e., the Clinton administration failed in swaying public opinion towards the wishes of Washington.
Re:Strange, very strange... (Score:2)
Come on! You may disagree with Bush on various issues, but at least he doesn't issue meaningless babble like this:
Good God! I've always believed scientists are mostly politics-foolish (Einstein was a socialist, for example), but this guy is completely wack.
--
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Minority Religions - Translated Answer (Score:2)
"What will you do to protect the rights of athiests and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?"
His answer only dealt with MAJORITY religions. Bush did not answer the fscking question and the poster was pointing that out. How's that a troll?
I would interpret Bush's answer as being that he is NOT "committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity" for minority religions.
As a member of one of the aforementioned minority religions, I am very, very glad that I do not live in the USA and be facing the possibility that this bigot might be elected.
HH
Bush cut/paste, Gore's if/then (Score:5)
A while back, I got into an "Gore wants to kludge the tax code with a zillion if/then statements, Bush wants to tweak a few constants" argument.
I confess at the time I wasn't fully aware of Gore's proposals - only that they were of an if/then nature - and so I'm pleased to say that I found this pro-Gore Salon article [salon.com] (but I repeat myself ;-) that outlines my beef with Gore's tax proposals.
(sprog age < 1) {
$500 tax credit
}
(Earnings < $60K) && (sprog enrolled in daycare) {
expanded day-care tax credit
}
(sprog_age >= 12 && sprog_age <= 16) && (enrolled in afterschooplrogram) {
tax credit of 20% on cost of program
}
(sprog_in_college) {
$10K tax credit
}
I'd like to thank Salon for making my point about the kludginess of the Gore plan so succinctly.
Let's summarize:
1) No sprog? Gore says "Fuck you". No tax breaks. Period. Gore hates nonbreeders with a passion. Doesn't matter if the reason for your nonbreeding is being straight-and-childfree, straight-but-infertile, or gay. If you don't pop out a fucktrophy like a good little lemming, you get FUCK ALL under Gore.
2) Got sprog? Great! Now that you've done the first thing Gore likes, you'd better make sure you keep doing the things Gore likes! Don't stay at home to take care of 'em, even if you can afford it, ship 'em to day-care and provide employment for other low-tech "soft skills" people. Don't be at home in school either, ship 'em to "after-school programs" (which are, of course, probably federally-funded... more work for the otherwise-unemployable out of your paycheck...)
3) And even if you are the ideal Gore breeder-famblee, you still gotta make sure your kids are the right ages to qualify! That is, either less than age 1, or young enough for day care (and you've got the money to enroll 'em), or between the ages of 12 and 16 (and in an after-school program), or thouse magical four years of college.
So - a tweak of some constants where everyone gets a break, or a huge series of if/then statements, where a large proportion of famuhlees (nonbreeders are, of course, subhuman and don't count) can apply for one, but only one, of Gore's "targeted" tax cuts at any given time.
Unless, of course, you had the foresight to have kids precisely 18 years ago, 12 years ago, and plan to concieve your next crotchfruit shortly after Gore's inauguration.
What I'd really like to see - and I don't know the answer in advance - is for someone to sum up the tax credits for Gore and a family with either one or two sproggen over 18 years. And then compare their Gore-subsidies against what the same family would get with Bush's tax credits on, say, a $60K income over the same 18 years.
Oh. And is it just me, or are people who have money to enroll their sprog in after-school programs really in need of a tax credit?
(Wait a minute, sponsored daycare, sponsored age 12-16 afterschool programs. Guess even if you do breed, but decide you'd like to stay with the kid because you're lucky enough to be able to live on one income, you're still fucked under Gore.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wha? (Score:2)
Don't confuse cosistency with ignorance. I was impressed that Bush's answers did not differ when addressing this particular (and peculiar) audience. His answers were straight.
I guess after so many years of auto-morphing candidate(s) such consistency appears strange.
Whether we agree or disagree with the positions, isn't it nice to know what the candidate's position is?
Now hiring experienced client- & server-side developers
The Public Domain (Score:3)
However, it is also true that intellectual property is a key motivator in the creation of new material and therefore must be given protection.
That is why I believe that the entertainment industry should make an all-out effort to find new ways to utilize Napster and similar services on a "pay per view" basis. This approach will serve all concerned and turn what appears now--at least to many in the entertainment industry--to be a disaster into a boon for both the industry and the consumer.
Hagelin doesn't get it. Pay per view is the problem, not the solution.
The problem with pay per view is that it doesn't establish a public domain. I don't mean "public domain" in the sense of expired copyrights, but "public domain" in the sense of "things that the public have access to." Things you can make fair use of. Things you can quote from. Things you can preserve.
For instance, if I wanted to review all of the books published on a certain topic from, say, 1900-1920, there is a very strong likelihood that I would be able to find most of them. They were published, sold to libraries and individuals, and still exist in the hands of libraries, used book dealers, collectors, and second-hand stores.
However, if I wanted to review all of the films on a certain topic from 1900-1920, I would be out of luck. The problem is that motion pictures at that time were pay-per-view only. The only way to see a movie was at the theatre. The films were never sold to the public, and in fact, over 90% of them no longer exist in any form -- all the negatives, and every last copy were all destroyed by the studios when they were deemed worthless by their owners.
Now back to the present. The copyright industries want pay-per-view. They don't like the idea of first sale -- the entire purpose of the DMCA is to allow copyright holders to control the use -- or lack of use -- of works even after they have been sold to the public. Under the DMCA, a publisher has the "right" to "recall" an electronic book after publication, and anyone who reads that book -- even if they are the rightful owner of the copy -- is committing a felony. This is so directly against the purpose of copyright that it is hard to know where to begin. The purpose of copyright is to incite publication. To create copies that are then owned by the public. Pay per view is not publication. It does not promote progress.
That's the problem with the DMCA, and the current direction of copyright law.
Re: the column (Score:3)
A better point of his is that it will discourage candidates from visiting states with fewer voters. Valid, but his own statistics bother me - Wyoming gave out 1 electoral vote per 70K votes in 1996, and California gave 1 per 185K votes. This is obviously not a "one person, one vote" scenario, which is the central tenet of democracy.
Another bad argument: the Electoral College would "not survive the abandonment of [the] winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes." I didn't know that our main goal was insuring the survival of the Electoral College...
Further, he claims that this would allow minor candidates to take away electoral votes from the two main parties. Again, so what? Americans should not be forced to choose between only two parties, especially as they move closer together every election. Very few governments run on a two-party democracy.
With the internet and ubiquitous media, candidates should be free to campaign where the people are, and can be confident that their message is being transmitted to places with less population.
This would also make pandering more difficult - instead of sucking up to a few key states, a candidate would have pander to NYC, Washington, LA, Chicago, etc - a more difficult task, and although they have a high population density, they do not hold the majority of the population. Viola - now you need issues that affect everyone, not just midwestern soccer moms.
Bush: Answer the question and confirm your e-mail (Score:2)
Secondly, Bush is doing a good thing by being Opt-In, but it is not Confirmed (or double) opt-in. Alot of Internet users got e-mails they didn't opt-in for. Here's the discussion on it [deja.com], as done on news.admin.net-abuse.email and reported on n.a.n-a.sightings. To be honest, the Democrats did the same thing, but their list manager (CheetahMail) admitted to it and is changing everything to be confirmed opt-in.
Will we get an intelegent president, or one that will get the White House kicked off the 'net for violating it's upstream's AUP?
--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";
Two-faced Response from Bush (Score:2)
I have a plan that includes $2.767 billion in new initiatives to help parents, teachers, and faith-based leaders influence children to steer clear of the evils of the drug culture.
Then, didn't he immediately follow it up with promises to spend the majority of the $5 trillon surplus on new programs and not on debt reduction before giving $1 trillion back in a tax cut?
Re:Minority Religions - Translated Answer (Score:2)
It's funny... (Score:2)
It's funny that the fruitloop who claims to be able to 'trancendentally levitate' comes across as significantly more rational, thoughtful, and genuininely in touch with the realities of the situation than the Shrub.
My favorite is the frothing-at-the-mouth "DRUGS ARE BAD!" rant by Shrub's staffers. It's like these blind men trying to drive a runaway tractor trailer - they know the motions, and are trying to play it calm, while all the shit is cascading down around them. They are even trying to convince themselves (and us?) that they are correct. The Drug War is going to do the same to the US that the Cold War did to the USSR, snap it's collective spine, and Bush is only going to accelerate the process. Dare to keep politicians from drugs and violence, kids, it only feeds their ambition.
Where's my freedom FROM religion?
VOTE LIBERTARIAN
Re:Wha? (Score:3)
Impressed (Score:2)
Oh, and I'm ticked off about Bush' answer to the Seattle protests. **rightwinggrumblegrumble**
Re: (Score:2)
Bush's Software Gestapo?? (Score:5)
Does this worry anyone here besides me? I hear about getting US law enforcement involved in copyright protection, and I start thinking about stepped-up abuses of procedure similar to those carried out by the FBI, the BATF, and the DEA in recent years. It's bad enough that the MPAA and Judge Kaplan have basically declared that source code is not free speech; are we going to see stormtroopers with machineguns tearing up the homes of WINE developers?
fearbush.com [fearbush.com]
Re:Like Father, Like Son.. (Score:2)
School prayer for instance, is only forbidden as a mandatory act. Many (if not all) schools allow student run religious groups to gather in prayer or religious discussion on a voluntary basis (provided they do not receive government funds or receive funds on an equal footing with all other religious groups).
Religious freedom is freedom from *state* mandated or funded religion, you still have to put up with all the crap from your friends, parents, and door-to-door evangelists.
Wake up! (Score:2)
Ummm...because you don't agree Bush's answers, you say that he is stupid? That sounds pretty intolerant and stubborn to me. I don't agree with Bush and a lot of what he stands for (I don't agree with Gore either, I'm voting for Browne) but I do think he is allowed to have whatever opinions he has.
Unfortunately, like a large portion of the population, you will vote for whoever lies to you the most because they at least recognize you are part of a group with some sort of (voting) power. Personally, I see voters as a woman that is being beaten by her husband. If he beats her enough, then turns around and apologizes, she is going to stay with him. I don't understand why it happens like this, because the best choice would be to leave him. Voters are the same. People keep voting for Republicans and Democrats because they are both corrupt, and people stick with their political parties because "they could never find someone new again" or one of those excuses that victims often use to explain why they stay with attackers. My opinion, is that voting Republican or Democrat is simply staying with a government that will continue to rape and beat our country.
In any case, what we need are honest politicians. On here, Bush's statements (whether someone else wrote them or not) are true of what his goals are. They are probably not what the slashdot crowd wants to hear, but at least we know where he is going. I've seen a lot of the same for Gore, even if he won't reply to slashdot, I imagine he would piss off people by being against other things that are popular here. If you don't like what they stand for, don't vote for them. I think that true Democrats would be better off voting for Nader, Republicans should vote for Buchanan, and that the people that just want to end the political games would be better off voting for Browne. I don't think we will ever be able to have a purely innocent government that is not corrupted somehow, but if we can send a message to politicians to tell us the truth we the people could end up winning.
Re:Wha? (Score:2)
Amen. You'd think with the large numbers of Democrats and Republicans (and Greens and Libertarians) reading Slashdot, at least one of us (/. readers) would have been active enough in his or her local party association to make goddamn sure that this didn't happen.
If there are no /. readers actively involved with their party associations, then that's a shame o for all of us.
If you support a party, and you've never even considered being part of that party's campaign as anything other than a drone pulling a lever on November 7th, please reconsider your position.
Policy, more often than not, gets made at this level. It's what the Christian Coalition knew - and exploited - when they hijacked the Republican party many years ago, and the party still suffers in the polls for it. (Don't look smug, Democrats. The same goes for the AFL-CIO and your party!)
All that said, the cut-and-paste job is a bloody embarassment, and some campaign staffer oughta get fired for it. (Fer chrissakes, the least he coulda done is gotten in some pro-Nader comments, knowing the /. readership concentration in WA and OR ;-)
Re:Like Father, Like Son.. (Score:2)
It is interesting to note however, that Satanism (at least) is proscribed by the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Umm no, wrong. (Score:3)
Greenspan DID state that deficit reduction would be best. However, he then acknowledged that this was very unlikely -- Congressmen are not known for fiscal restraint when constituencies come a-bayin' -- and then stated that given the nearly inevitable choice between tax cuts or government programs, he would prefer tax cuts.
George Will's biases (Score:3)
I believe that George Will's defense of the Electoral College is predicated on his belief that there should only be 2 parties: the Republicans and everyone else. Thus Will's observation that "The two party system will not survive the abandonment of [the] winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes." He's worried about preserving the status quo, instead of allowing equal representation to all voters.
Will also believes in the one-buck, one-vote system ... excuse me ... he believes in no limits on campaign contributions or campaign spending, since any limits would be limits on the candidate's (or contributer's) First Amendment rights. I don't think he's right, but he has some good points: most of the campaign finance rules either eliminate anonymous speech, or can be interpreted as censoring speech (ie: after you've spent your limit, you're not allowed to say anything else). I don't have any good answers to these issues ... anyone else got any bright ideas?
Are you moderating this down because you disagree with it,
Bush can be president, can't get secret clearance (Score:5)
When you get a security clearance, you go through a huge investigation, I know, I had a security clearance at my last job. They get detailed about your police record, your drug use, your involvement with rebellious organizations, and even your character as they ask your friends and friends friends and friends friends friends about you. Many of Bush's past misdemeanors (DUI, cocaine use/sale, etc) would most likely disqualify him for such a security clearance. That is, the government would deem him not trustworthy enough to handle sensitive US information. In fact, it's on a need-to-know basis, so if he did hold a government job with secret clearance, he'd only know what he needed to do his job.
Yet the ironic thing is that he can now run for president, where he'll be in CHARGE of making decisions involving nearly ALL of the sensitive information available that he wouldn't normally be privy to, in a normal job.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?
Bush and religion (Score:3)
After the questions gives three examples of religions, it's curious that Bush responded to the question, citing four totally different ones. I'm no religious scholar, but isn't the message here "I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity, for all people who worship exactly one God."
All of Bush's examples are monotheistic, yes? That certainly isn't the case for some of the "minority religions." The implication is that he will be tolerant to those who are already tolerated.
Boy, I'm sure glad I'm not in a country where this guy might be the President in a few days.
Re:Fed chairman on govt surplus (Score:3)
View this in contrast with politicians who would "pay down the debt." I doubt they are even aware by what mechanism they would do this. Buy bonds on the market? Fine, but not neccssary. Restrained spending == debt reduction.
Lastly, without privatization of government pensions, government debt in the form of unfunded pension obligations would eventually overwhelm any debt reduction plan as the U.S. demographic tilts further toward old farts who have stopped smoking and just won't die as quick as they used to. Bush has a reasonable opt-out plan that will make my kids' retirement much much better than my own.
I think Greenspan can't be spun to sound like he is supporting Gore. It is pretty clear that, in order to contain inflation, he thinks it is far better for private citizens to save or spend as they choose than for government to spend in ways that are mostly unproductive.
Bush and Bolivia (Score:3)
And here comes in Bush, whose VP Cheney is renowned for his work in this area. So to me, Bush is out of the question and I feel he should be for anyone with Latino relatives in countries infested by the DEA (whose reputation of corruption overseas is not unknown). But of course it is an individual decision.
And our current president has definitely asked for US help, of course if we deny the DEA our help, ALL our USAid would be cut off. And Pres. Banzer is an ex-US puppet dictator from the 70s, just like Pinochet and others.
So my country is in chaos and Bush uses his drug war plan (Cheney's?) to bait voters. And I still havent been able to visit my relatives in Cochabamba. And the coca growers are penniless as acres and acres of plantations are erradicated and they are forced to switch to less viable crops such as bananas. Which we couldnt export if we wanted to since the US fixed that with the Banana Republic (Guatemala).
Re:Decriminalize Reefer, but fight Hard drugs. (Score:3)
But I don't agree that we should "fight Hard drugs" with law enforcement. Any kind of drug abuse is a medical problem and should be dealt with as such. Criminalizing victimless behavior only leads to an artificially high price for a product that is very addicting. In essence, the "War on Drugs" is creating crime, and encouraging people to spread the disease of addiction as widely as possible, in order to support their own artificially expensive habits.
Drug abuse should be dealt with by trained medical professionals, not police and courts. The various LEO's have a vested interest in supressing alternatives to the militarization of drug enforcement -- after all, we wouldn't need so many new prisons if we cut the prison population by nearly half, by releasing non-violent drug offenders [lp.org]. Not to mention the money they make on 'forfiture', which can be had merely by accusing property of a crime; not convicting an individual.
This is NOT the same as advocating "hey, heroin's fine, I think everyone should use it, and it should be availible from candy machines everywhere." Hard drugs should only be availible under a doctors' supervision, and only after other addiction treatment options have failed.
---
Re:note the carefully worded hypocrisy (Score:3)
Am I alone? (Score:5)
I'm used to feeling different, but I didn't expect it so much from the
In fact, accroding to the
I see the same thing in the media. The voices that are the loudest seem to always be attacking the Republicans. Take this DUI issue that came up today. Is Bush attacking Gore's *very* shady past? There are plenty of terrible things Gore has done too, but Bush is trying his hardest to play fair, talk about the issues, talk more about why he'd make a good prez than about why his opponant is terrible because of his past.
As for the CIO idea, I think it's more than just "interesting" -- it's FANTASTIC. I've said all along that the problem with the government in passing all these stupid technology laws *isn't* because they're trying to destroy life as we know it, but instead because they don't *understand* the technology issues. Because they're career politicians, and the only voices they hear are the voices on the other side. When they *do* hear our voice, it just sounds like a bunch of technobabble, and they don't get it.
The best thing *anyone* could do would be to appoint a CIO. That's the first step. You get someone close to you who can interpert this stuff, someone who can give you a clearer picture, and help you lead with knowledge. This is the best idea concerning technology I've heard come out of *any* politician's mouth EVER.
And I think that's Bush's strength. He's not the smartest man in the world. He knows he doesn't know everything. No one knows everything. And rather than being in denial that he's ignorant about some things, he comes to realize it, and then appoints the appropriate people around him who can successfully fill the positions. (Remember, the job of the President is in the Executive Branch, not the Legislative, and yet people seem to look to the President to solve all their problems -- that's not what the Preisident is for. Skill at appointing competent people to Executive positions is *very* important.) He admitted once that his running mate was smarter than him, and said, "That's why I picked him".
Isn't this a breath of fresh air to all the arrogance we've seen for the past 8 years? All the self-glorifying bullcrap we've heard out of Gore this past year?
To me it is a breath of fresh air. To me, that's as close to Integrity as you can get (while still being a politician). And I still think Integrity is important. Call me old-fashioned, but you can see what the lack of it has done to the office of the President.
Incidentally, I think I'm a Liberetarian... But I haven't decided yet, there's a couple of Liberetarian platforms I'm unsure about. But I still think Bush is the best all-around Presidential candidate to come along in a *long* time. I didn't like voting for Dole. I'm going to actually enjoy casting my vote for George W. Bush.
Even if I'm the only Slashdotter brave enough to admit it.
DUI wouldn't prevent clearance, lies about it DO (Score:5)
The statement to the Dallas Morning News report in the National Review is the most damning. Remember, it wasn't the sex that Clinton was impeached for, it was the lying. This is just too close to the election for the first shoe the drop, you don't want the second shoe to drop AFTER he's the ruler of the free world do you?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3)
So... have you not noticed that bush would also increase the size and power of the Federal government, just in different ways and more slowly than would Gore?
If you really want smaller government, there's only one party that will provide that: the Libertarians. [lp.org]
________________________________________
Re:Who should you vote for? (Score:3)
You're falling for the same fallacy that the Republicans and Democrats have used for years to deny the third parties from gaining any significant power base. Yes, in the decision between the predisental candidates, your vote for a 3rd party candidate probably won't matter. However, in your decision on whose policies that you feel would be best suited for this country for the next 4 years, that vote can be rather important.
Did you know that there are 257 presidental candidates this year? According to NPR yesterday, there's this many. Of course, some are running on rather narrow platforms, such as the guy that wants to impliment triple couple Saturdays, or the one that wants to reinstate Pete Rose to MLB. Most know they can't win, but it's not the point of their campaign: they want to make sure that their issue is heard by a large number of people and to try to rally their votes towards that. If a significant number of votes are gotten to at least make a blip on the radar, government leaders would be lax if they didn't at least investigate what that issue was.
Which is why most of the 3rd party candidates have rather narrow platforms: they are trying to spearhead small but significant set of issues at the government. Nader, for example, wants to fight the corruption in the government by outside influences and fix the financal situation of this country. If you want any of the interviews with Nader, when he's asked about an issue that is off of this agenda but is important to Bush and Gore, such as health care and drug plans, he's got an answer, but he's rather terse with it and wants to talk about other issues. From what I've seen of the other 3rd party candidates, they are running similar campaigns, trying to be narrow instead of broad.
So if you are going to vote, vote for the person that you feel will handle the issues that you feel are important to you best. Whether that is Bush or Gore or any third party candidate. Any other voting selection is a wasted vote.
Re: the column (Score:3)
Re:List of Government Approved Religions (Score:3)
Re:Minority Religions - Translated Answer (Score:3)
The followers of this leader (not the faith), then accept this proclamation as the ultimate defense of their faith. This justifies literal interpretation, and some of the kooky behavior we're seeing. Like "religious wars" from people who's religion's name is translated to English as "Peace" (Islam). Like Christians who murder abortion doctors because abortion is murder.
If you look beyond the literal meaning of what Scripture says to you in your mind, as your eyes read the symbols on the page, a message appears in your heart. This is what the religion is all about. Direct linguistic communication is a tool, and it's a flawed tool (by design, if you read the intent of the story of the tower of Babel, in Genesis), and therefore is not capable of passing on the Word, perfection, to us. The only way to get that is directly from God (in a Christian framework, the Holy Spirit). If you accept that the Scripture is flawed, then you accept that you are flawed too. There's nothing wrong with that, it's by design. But some people are too weak in their faith to accept that - their "documented evidence of the truth of their religion" is what they cling to, and ultimately, it leads them astray from the intent. That's because the "intent" is not merely a cultural meme, and it wasn't designed for survival. It was designed for a higher purpose than that.
Unfortunately, this seems to be too difficult a concept for most Christians to grasp, and dropping their Bible is like kicking out the crutches. They're afraid that their faith will tumble like a house of cards when you remove the cornerstone. So they can't accept the truth that it's no good. And here we are, with folks getting hate mail, etc.
Re:Bush on Targeting Kids with Drugs (Score:3)
No, but the fact that they are children means they are not subject to it.
What I'm sick of is people blaming external factors for their problems. Its not the kids fault because his parents got divorced. That's crap, the kid hears all over the place the dangers of drugs and if he chooses to use them then he faces the consequences.
Again, this is children we are talking about. Children are not entirely responsble for their actions as they are neither adults or full citizens. I think parents and educators have a responsibility for every child, and dumping off the black sheep is not meeting that responsibility. If we were talking about adults, I would agree with you, except that in a society where adults take full responsibility for their actions no drug laws are needed.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4)
The Republican party doesn't stand for a smaller government, they stand for a slightly different, but similarly-sized government, for which the lower-income citizens pay a larger share than they do now and corporate and wealthy citizens pay a smaller share.
The same goes for "freedom". All these idiots at my work have "Freedom First: Vote Bush" bumper stickers. If "freedom" is really your first concern you should be voting for someone else [lp.org].
Re:The War on Drugs: Drunk Drivers too? (Score:3)
At least they'll be driven around in limos for the next four years, and off the streets.
Re:Who should you vote for? (Score:4)
To paraphrase someone else, let's say the election turns out something like this (numbers off the top of my head):
Bush: 43%
Gore: 45%
Nader: 7%
Browne: 4%
Other: 1%
If the number of people who voted for Nader or Browne is larger than the deciding difference between Bush and Gore, don't you think there's going to be some attention drawn to the issues that these 3rd-party candidates stood for?
Furthermore, it's people like you who are unwilling to vote for a 3rd-party candidate because they have no chance that ensure that they never will have a chance. Make up your mind to vote for who you think is really best, not the lesser evil. The more people that do this, the larger percentage the third parties will take and the more likely others will join in on taking them seriously rather than voting yet another evil into office.
Yes, it may take a few years -- but don't you think it's worth it? I'd rather think my vote is effecting real change, rather than just enabling the status quo which Bush and Gore both represent.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3)
I have to break ranks on this one. Sure, I want the Federal government to spend smart -- no more $400 ash trays for the Air Force, please! -- but I do not take it as a matter of faith that "smaller is better, nothing else need be considered".
Simple fact is, IMO, that our big, insensitive Federal government is still providing important services for the public good, as well as protecting the citizens against the abusive excesses of runaway state and local governments. (If you think the Feds are too intrusive, look back at the loooooooong list of state and local laws the Supreme Court has thrown out since the anti-government sentiment took root 2-3 decades ago. Do you honestly think we'll live in paradise under a "local control" scheme?)[*]
Yes, I think the US government is wasteful. Yes, I think it is corrupt. Yes, I think the war on drugs is a crime against humanity. But no, I don't think taking away its power is going to help any of this -- per above, I think it would actually make it worse. Indeed, I think that's exactly what many of the politicians running on the anti-big-gummit ticket are hoping for.
And no, I don't subscribe to any blanket notion that the government should be smaller "just because". That's a knee-jerk mentality. Governments can do good as well as ill.
So by all means vote, but consider that there are more compelling issues than "smaller for smaller's sake". Any government that continues the war on drugs is too intrusive, regardless of what they do to social programs or the size of the government payroll.
Also, regardless of your political leanings, please consider voting for someone other than the one who promises to do the most for your bank balance. If you step back and look at it, that's the basic appeal that both of the major party candidates are making; they're just appealing to different economic layers of the public. (The same can be said for at least some of the minor-party candidates.)
> If the economy tanks, you can always just not give out a tax cut. How often has the government just killed the 40,000 new jobs they created because the economy "dipped" for a bit? Never... they end up increasing debt to cover the new jobs.
IMO, the sensible policy would be to maintain a high level of taxation during good times, since the population is more able to pay taxes during good times. The time for tax cuts is when the economy tanks. Let the Feds borrow money then, and then use the surpluses of the good times to pay off the debt.
Assuming there really is a surplus. As I understand it, the surplus is something we'll have in ten years if the economy doesn't burp (yeah, sure), and even then it will be primarily a Social Security surplus. So we've got a couple of politicians who want to "save Social Security" by only stealing 2/3 of its non-existent surplus to buy our votes. But when the economy slows down and the "surplus" mirage disappears, who's left holding the bag? What happens to all those people who paid in to Social Security for a lifetime? Either they get fucked, or else takes go way up.
But this is an election year; the politicos have to offer you a tax cut. A bankrupt Social Security program won't matter to Bore and Gush, since they won't be running for office that year.
Voters should think of the monkey trap before deciding to vote for whoever offers the biggest cash reward.
[*] The traditional interpretation of the Magna Carta is as a step on the way to democracy by limiting the power of the king. But some offer a different interpretation: the commons actually viewed the king as their protector, and the Magna Carta gave the local lords a free hand at fucking over "their" people, without undue interference from the king. The weakest government is not always the best.