Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry 1650
We're teaming up with the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate to ask the two major party candidates "the 12 previously unasked questions that most concern young Americans." This is different from the usual Slashdot interview because we're asking you to submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post. Next week you'll have a chance to help select questions for the candidates from among the top 50 asked by everyone -- not just Slashdot readers -- by first winnowing those down to 20 through the Slashdot moderation system, then by voting on the "final 12" displayed on the New Voters Project site. On October 12 we'll post the answers, and on October 19 we'll post candidate-supplied rebuttals.
Note that the idea here is to solicit questions specifically from voters 18 - 35, because this age group tends to vote less than older Americans, plus questions from people 13 - 17 who will be voters before long. But the question selection process is not age-restricted, and it's where your comments and moderation become most important, because one great hope here is to avoid asking questions the candidates have heard (and answered) over and over.
The other question-selecting moderators are groups like Youth Vote Coalition, Earth Day Network, Rock The Vote, Declare Yourself, and 18to35.org, plus lead moderator Farai Chideya.
Anthony Tedesco, founder of the Presidential Youth Debates, has been doing this since 1996. 2004 is the first time an entire online community has participated in the moderation process. It's a logical evolution of the group-questions idea, and Slashdot is the obvious community to choose not only because of the wide range of political views held by Slashdot readers but also because the primary Presidential Youth Debates tech guy, Dan Collis Puro (AKA Hero Zzyzzx), is a Slashdot member himself (and would be happy if you volunteer to help work on their all-FOSS Web site).
Anyway, this is an interesting experiment. Ask your questions, prepare to moderate and comment next week, and to read the candidates' answers and rebuttals when we post them next month.
Stop Posting Questions!! (Score:5, Informative)
This is different from the usual Slashdot interview because we're asking you to submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post.
Re:Womens rights (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Womens rights (Score:5, Informative)
It's called parental leave, it's provincial, in Ontario it's not a year, it is not full paid time off and fathers can take it too.
http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/english/es/factsheets/fs_ preg.html [gov.on.ca]
Re:Question for Mr. Bush (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Question for Mr. Bush (Score:5, Informative)
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question for Mr. Bush (Score:3, Informative)
On a more personal level, while I don't expect the president to be superman, I do expect that he be able to speak reasonably well and form coherent sentences in English, sometimes using big words such as "nuclear" and "subliminal." I also want to see that he can think on his feet and make decisions on his own. Furthermore I want to know for certain that he does not have a history of walking out on major commitments.
That's the short list. And for the record, Democrat or Republican makes no difference to me. I just want to see the United States lead by someone worthy of the honor.
The truth about "the draft" (Score:4, Informative)
In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:
D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]
The details of these bills are here:
H.R.163 [loc.gov] | Text [loc.gov] | Cosponsors [loc.gov]
S.89 [loc.gov] | Text [loc.gov]
By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.
Details:
H.R.487 [loc.gov] | Text [loc.gov] | Cosponsors [loc.gov]
D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]
I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.
This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...
I hope this information is found useful.
PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.
Re:Question for Mr. Bush (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that's incredibly disturbing. But let's clarify - it was Bush senior that was involved in that encounter, not Dubya.
Of course, the apple usually don't fall far from the tree....
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Taxes and Spending (Score:1, Informative)
This is false. 10% of spending involves paying off interest on the national debt. The idea behind deficit spending is to kick start the economy to generate more tax revenue.
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:1, Informative)
A genetic defect that prevents reproduction is severe, be it by sexual preference or by looking really ugly.
Re:The draft (Score:4, Informative)
As for your "facts"...
George Bush miraculously jumped to the top of a 500+ person waiting list to get his berth in the Nat'l Guard
I have heard this one a lot... altough usually in the 200-300 person range. The media seems to think that Ben Barnes has publicly said that he helped Bush jump ahead of the waiting list... but then again, his own daughter says [wbap.com] that he is lieing to promote his own book and his political agenda. In fact his own words [cbsnews.com] are that he was simply asked to recommend Bush for guard duty. He says he can't recall if he wrote a letter or made a phone call. Either way, since when is writing a recommendation letter for someone "inappropriate". Simply making a call to recommend someone is a very different thing than to move someone to the front of a waiting list (if it existed).
I say that because I have also heard the argument that there was no waiting list at all, but instead as few as 10 other applicants. I guess my question is, how do we know the status of the "waiting list" for the TANG in 1968? How do we know which people on it were even medically qualified? Since you have said this was a fact I was curious if you could help clear up the matter and cite a source.
and then failed to show up for a flight physical after the US spent approx $1M to train him as a pilot.
Was Bush obligated to obtain his flight physical? I ask this because I am a military aviator and know that I am required to make sure I get my annual physical. I have never heard of anyone missing a physical, but then again Bush was in the last year of his obligation, and temporarily assigned to a non-flying squadron while his permanent squadron was phasing out his aircraft. If I knew that I wasn't going to fly an aircraft for my remaining time in the military and was just closing a deal to go back to college, I wouldn't go out of my way to obtain a flight physical either. Oh, and this was all after something like 4-5 years as a guard pilot... it is not like he got his initial training and vanished.
Mr Bush... Where is Osama bin Laden? (Score:4, Informative)
The most powerful nation in the history of the planet supposedly has every resource, from human intelligence to the most sophisticated spy satellites, hunting for him.
So, Mr Bush, three years on, where is he?
Is there *any* chance at all that this mass-murderer, who killed not only thousands of US but also hundreds of allied citizens at the WTC, has not been found is because he is hiding in Saudi Arabia, a country which your administration refuses to antagonise in even the slightest way?
Yes or no, Mr Bush. Is there a chance that he is in Saudi Arabia? And if the answer is yes, why aren't you looking there?
Answered: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Womens rights (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, where do you think the federal government is going to get all that money to fund it? Government does not actually produce anything (other than fiscal disasters), so the money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is taxes. Taxes on the big corporations, the small companies, and the individuals. So, we will all pay for it one way or another.
Someone once expressed an idea similar to yours. He said, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Sounds nice, huh? It was Karl Marx.
Oh, he had one other thing to say: "Wir sind ruecksichtloss, wir verlangen keinen Ruecksicht von euch. Wenn die Reihe an uns koemmt, wir werden den Terrorismus nicht beschoenigen."
Translated, that is, "We are without mercy, and we seek no mercy from you. When our turn comes, we will not make apologies for the terror."
-paul
Re:The draft (Score:1, Informative)
It's called treason.
-eventhorizon
Re:Kerry and WMDs (more quotes w/sources) (Score:3, Informative)
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 [cnn.com]
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. [cnn.com]
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. [fas.org]
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998. [usatoday.com]
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 [iraqwatch.org]
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. [house.gov]
"Hussein has
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. [ccchronicle.com]
"There is no doubt that
Letter to President Bush [state.gov], Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. [senate.gov]
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. [washtimes.com]
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. [gore2004us.com]
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. [senate.gov]
"The last UN weapons
Re:Two-Party System (Score:3, Informative)
Why are democrats fighting to keep Nader out? (Score:1, Informative)