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.
should the gov decide who has the right to marry? (Score:5, Insightful)
regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Should the internet be regulated, and if so, in what way?
The draft (Score:4, Insightful)
promises, promises (Score:3, Insightful)
Question for President Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
You have said that recent CIA estimates of the instability and dire situation in Iraq represent the CIA "just guessing." Since you are choosing to disregard the intelligence community's considered assessment of the situation, on what basis do you formulate your contrary assessment of the situation in Iraq?
Biggest mistake? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The draft (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R .163: [congress.gov]
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.8 9: [congress.gov]
Convoluted... (Score:3, Insightful)
And who will be disenfranchised?
Let's just hope that some competent, open, responsible and honest system is in place to tally everything up. Has anyone considered Diebold?
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:2, Insightful)
Two-Party System (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:4, Insightful)
Should we stop what private idividuals do behind closed doors? No. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional in my mind. But marriage is a separate issue.
Presidential debates (Score:5, Insightful)
-moitz-
Re:for Bush (Score:1, Insightful)
And you believe them? (Score:5, Insightful)
The key-people will not answer questions straight and honestly, but will waffle around them or lie through their teeth.
The key-people won't even think about holding any words, promises or whatever once they're [still] in office.
So... who cares?
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:1, Insightful)
The end.
Re:The draft (Score:5, Insightful)
Most importantly, the miliary leaders do not want draftees.
Talk of starting a draft, it basically scare tactics from people who don't like President Bush. There is no realy support for it on either side of the aisle.
The only reason it is being talk about is that it helps to bring back the Vietnam era. Appearently the Democrats think that this is an effective strategy. We'll know in two months.
I'm not a young person (Score:1, Insightful)
The thing that most kids want to know is whether they will have jobs when they get out of High School and College. The future looks pretty bleak at this point with a job market that is not improving at a rate fast enough to absorb new graduates into anything but the most lowly and menial jobs. (Not to mention the influx of illegal immigrants that are snapping up those jobs at the expense of the American youth)
During this time of economic decline, do you think it is more important to pour government money into the economy in order to generate more jobs to satisfy the current glut of unemployed workers, or would it be more forward-facing to invest that money in educational grants for post-secondary education thus preparing today's students for the eventual economic upswing?
It may sound like a loaded question, with the obvious answer being to invest in the future rather than quick and easy band-aid solutions now. However, with the limited funds of the government you must choose where to direct that money. Are you willing to go out on a limb and possibly sacrifice votes to invest in the future at the expense of your constituency? Or do you think that by helping your constituency now you can still bring about a future-prepared workforce in the next generation without funding education as much as would be necessary?
Dancin Santa
Re:From a conservative (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry to say that the war isn't over but you're still 100% right that we don't have a clue.
It seems fairly obvious to me that they are less concerned with making sure that the Iraqis are happy with their new situation than making sure it benefits the "winners".
More to the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members. Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
The survival of civilisation (Score:-1, Insightful)
What are your views on how to solve the jewish problem?
Would you agree that internationally coordinated actions are necessary, judging by the lackluster results we had in Germany?
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:3, Insightful)
The original question basically was, "What's the big deal about gay marriage?"
Throwing in polygamy into the mix is NOT the same thing. The current argument is for 2 same sex people getting married, and if there should be a constitutional ban on that (which I say no!).
I'm not sure what you meant by "marriage is what society holds up to be the ideal." Ideal what?
Why shouldn't two same sex people be married? Keep in mind any religious based arguments are null - separate church and state for a minute, and make the argument. I bet you will not have one reason that holds up to the constitution.
Civil Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me begin by saying that prior to moving to California I was considerably less sympathetic to gays and lesbians. Having worked side-by-side with many with alternative lifestyles, I've come to appreciate they are no less human and no less entitled to all rights and privileges because of their choice of partners. Some I even consider good friends. How could I suggest withholding certain liberties to friends?
I associate this issue strongly with the civil rights struggles of african americans, who even had caucasians telling them who they could and could not marry, lest some harm come to them. The issue is effectively the same, a fundamental civil right of people who marry who they choose, without threat of physical harm or legal injunction.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not for the chosen or political elite, but everyone.
Globalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not talking about polygamy here, or animal husbandry - just the union of two people in love. Where does the government get off trying to interfere with that?
Re:For Both Parties (Score:5, Insightful)
They've screwed up the election process to make it extremely difficult to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Once upon a time, it was a write in ballot, not multiple choice.
After Perot appeared on the presidential debates, their media buddies helped them screw with those rules to make it virtually impossible for that to happen again.
For that matter, why are there no third parties in this "Youth Debate"? I'll tell you why, the last thing we want to do is have the youth find out that it doesn't have to be a two party system. Young minds are predetermined to see things in black and white anyways.
Go ahead slashdot, help brainwash another generation into believing in this complete perversion of representative democracy.
Of course, they're the same people with the same agenda. All these people screeching "We have to get rid of Bush! Vote Kerry because third party votes are wasted". Gah.
Kerry isn't going to end the war in Iraq, repeal PATRIOT, lower taxes, allow same-sex marraige, he's not going to do anything to change the status quo.
Presidential politics are purely smear campaigns, because there's no issue that they actually differ on significantly.
Futurama:
Jack Johnson "I say my opponents plan goes too far!"
John Jackson "And I say my opponents plan doesn't go too far enough!"
Re:More to the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:5, Insightful)
er. the law, which is what we're discussing here, only applies to people. can a horse be charged with murder? does it need to submit income tax returns? no. and it can marry or be banned from marrying either. your point is moot.
if you're going to argue against gay marriage then i would request that you stay away from over-dramatic implementations of the slippery slope fallacy.
Mr Bush: (Score:2, Insightful)
What are your plans to make sure I still have a technical related job in the future?
How many Iraqis should die? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Civil Rights (Score:1, Insightful)
I associate this issue strongly with the civil rights struggles of african americans
Most African Americans are against gay marriage (more than whites) and they don't appreciate this comparison being made, for the record. They are not the same thing at all. You have the right to get married, but unless its a man-woman relationship, it is not a marriage. Get a clue.
Re:From a conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you care that over 10,000 Iraqi citizens have been slaughtered in the name of US foreign policy?
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:3, Insightful)
Penis count.
Some may say that same sex relationships are "ungodly" because they don't produce children, but given that something like 80% of parents shouldn't have been allowed to breed, I don't see a problem with it.
What's up with the whole "We're pregnant, aren't we clever?" attitude. Its not like getting up the duff is particularly difficult. Hell... every species from sandflies up do it. The hardpart is bringing up baby, but it seems that once they've popped it out, it becomes SEP (somebody else's problem).. usually their teachers', the government's, etc etc.
Anyway, if non-vanilla sex between consenting adults was wrong, they wouldn't enjoy it so much.
Question for the Candidates (Score:1, Insightful)
Will there be a military draft in the next four years?
Sincerely,
Anonymous Coward
Re:More to the point... (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually think that marriage laws have important public policy implications, and I think that there are some issues with either side of this discussion.
What might be a more interesting question is:
What do you think of Canada's policies on marijuana, gay marriage, and the international criminal court? How do you intend to deal with public policy disagreements when these have substantial ramifications for the US?
Secrecy in Gov't (Score:3, Insightful)
The Bush administration is the most secretive government in American history, retroactively classifying public data, holding secret meetings to decide public policy, and refusing to hold regular press conferences.
Mr. Candidate, will you acknowledge the public's right to participatory government and oversight, and open the process of government to public inspection? Will you commit to monthly press conferences, truly OPEN press conferences where the questions are not picked in advance?
Re:From a conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:5, Insightful)
No shit. That's why they're trying to amend it.
Re:From a conservative (Score:4, Insightful)
That was like, what, 50 years ago? I think we might be somewhat out of practice. But the big thing is that occupied-Iraq is little like occupied Germany or Japan.
Another question for the candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush: How do you respond to people who are very much concerned that your administration does not want basic to protect the basic checks and balances of our system?
Kerry: What are your thoughts on these issues? Why should I conclude that your administration will not continue these policies?
Re:More to the point... (Score:3, Insightful)
They're wrong, but in a democracy when 51% of the people are wrong they're suddenly right. It's unhappy but true.
Which means that the fight has to move to different grounds. You're probably a programmer, and programmers hate hacking solutions to things; it feels bad and wrong. But in government it's not about what's right, it's about what can be accomplished. "Politics is the art of the possible," said Otto von Bismarck.
Why am I telling you this? Because I think that if you want to see us get to the right place (the one you propose), you'll never get there by the direct route (convincing people that you're right). A better strategy, I think, is to fight to keep the situation from getting worse (preventing a constitutional amendment, which is easy, because it's pretty much self-preventing).
But what you really have to do is to do exactly the wrong thing: get various local adminstrations to change their idea of marriage. That strengthens the bond between civil and religious marriage, because you've just increased the set of people with an interest in the entanglement. But it does gradually force people (over decades) to expand their idea of marriage. If they see that Massachusetts hasn't collapsed into moral ruin, then they'll accept it in New York, then Maryland, then... maybe Virginia? Wouldn't that be something?
It sucks, it really does. I want things to be right. I want laws to be like computer programs: a minimal set of exactly the right code. But politics, unlike software, is a compromise.
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:3, Insightful)
Just playing DA here:
If the definition of marriage is to move away from the union of a man and a woman, and instead be two consenting people, then why not three?
What is the real difference?
What, you don't want to be living in sin? (Score:4, Insightful)
Only one of those serves the real purpose of marriage: Keeping track of patriarchal family trees.
Marriage is a contract by which a woman enters into an exclusive sexual relationship with a man in exchange for material gain. If gay people are so desperate to be declared "normal" by emulating the rites and tradition of the patriarchal society that they reject by their lifestyle choice, then they should go see a mental health specialist instead of trying to have laws change to accomodate their insecurities.
P.S. I firmly believe that if people want to be with people of the same sex as theirs, and they find someone with whom to live happily that way, then nobody should get in their way. But marriage isn't for them. You don't need marriage to be with someone, you just need to be with them. Civil unions will give you all the tax breaks you want.
P.P.S. If you are gay and you want to follow the rites and traditions of the patriarchy, then become a priest or a nun. If you want to reject those traditions, don't do it half-assed and demand to be included in the tradition of marriage.
Re:Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Will this be like the war against drugs which seems to be perpetual and allow the government to fight both sides (Ollie North wasn't exchanging arms for jelly beans, was he)?
Re:From a conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry to say that the war isn't over
That's because we never officially started a war. Congress and the President conspired to take on a military action that they call a "war" when it suits them, but never to actually produce a declaration of war, a cessation of war, or any other legitimate status. Who wants the formality of Articles of War (as the Constitution requires) when a blank-check, do-what-you-want, whenever-you-want permission slip will do just as well? Especially when people might then be interested to see an official end of wartime status, so the people and courts know when to resume the normal order of protecting those inconvenient things like civil liberties?
"Inter Arma Silent Leges (In times of War, the Law is Silent)."
"We are at war with Eurasia, and we have always been at war with Eurasia."
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:5, Insightful)
If marriage is viewed as an act of love, then government has not reason for involvement whatsoever. However, if you view marriage as the foundation platform for a family, then that view changes, for several reasons:
1) Stronger families mean that there is less need of government intervention in the general case. Strong families have less need of governance.
2) When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.
When marriage is viewed as a foundation for a family, then there are legal reasons for the government to recognize or not recognize certain marriages (but again, legal recognition of marriage is not equivalent with marriage).
On a different topic, one could also point out the absurdity of calling anything between same-sex partners "marriage". Even in the past when same-sex relationships were viewed as being better than man-woman relationships, same-sex relationships were not considered, even for a second, marriage. Why? Because marriage is more about family than it is about affections.
Can I mod Slashdot as a Troll? (Score:1, Insightful)
1. If you don't hate Bush specifically and the U.S. in general and...
2. You don't hate Gates specifically and Microsoft in general then...
don't bother posting. We don't want you here, you are not welcome, and if we found out where you lived we would burn a political or religious icon on your lawn. Dissention and discussion are completely disallowed.
End of line.
Re:The real question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My Question: (Score:3, Insightful)
He (either of them, Bush with more enthusiasm) will throw you in jail, and then point to you as an example of a productive student with a bright future who's life was destroyed by the evil marijuana.
He will not call it pot, and he will not admit that he destroyed your life, not your recreational substance of choice.
What? Me, cynical? Nooooo...
Re:From a conservative (Score:4, Insightful)
We're spending $2 billion a day to continue the war.
If we were to rewind two years, imagine if we offered a $2 billion reward -- in gold, or currency of your choice -- for Hussein's head. No questions asked. Witness Relocation Program included.
Somehow I think we would have had a dripping head on Bush's desk within a few days.
National Review agrees (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does the buck stop? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are the Commander in Chief. You are ultimately responsible for all of the actions of every branch of government and military that you oversee.
You were wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Your administration was wrong about believing in a tie between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, ignoring national sovereignty solely to end dictatorships is plainly illegal under international law.
Why won't you admit that you were wrong?
Changing the subject to "expanding freedom" does not count as an answer. Changing the subject to "Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator" doesn't count either.
Re:The draft (Score:4, Insightful)
Some facts:
- George Bush miraculously jumped to the top of a 500+ person waiting list to get his berth in the Nat'l Guard and then failed to show up for a flight physical after the US spent approx $1M to train him as a pilot.
- Dick Cheny got five deferments because he had other priorities in the '60s than military service [msn.com].
- John Ashcroft received several deferments [subgenius.com] during Vietnam. One was a critical occupation deferment for teaching business law at a Missouri college.
- Trent Lott (R, MS) avoided the Vietnam draft and lies about it [talkleft.com].
- Out of the top three Republicans in the House and the top three Republicans in the Senate, none served in the military.
It seems only fair that the children or grandchildren of these fine folks should be given a chance to die for their country just like the rest of us. Maybe it would make their parents think a little longer about the need to go to war and then do a better job of planning for the occupation afterword.Re:Womens rights (Score:2, Insightful)
My point was that you just have a slightly naive point of view based on entitlement from a phantom unlimited financial source, which is not realistic or economically feasible.
Re:A better question, (Score:2, Insightful)
What we have today should be referred to as a war on certain religous zealots that do not like the U.S.A. The war should not be limited to military operations against the group (and some countries that may or may not support the group) but should include actions to stem the anti-american sentiment.
So a much better set of questions related to the misnamed "war on terror" might be along the lines of:
What will you do do improve the perception of the U.S.A. abroad?
How do you plan on removing the financial backing of the anti-U.S. groups?
Do you have a plan for reducing the anti-american feelings in the arab world?
and on the military side of the "war", How has the invasion of Iraq detracted from the pursuit of OBL and al Quida as well as other anti-U.S. groups? What are you planning to do to recify the situation?
my question (Score:2, Insightful)
Growth of Government Spending (Score:2, Insightful)
Democrats are historically tagged, right or wrong, as "tax and spend." With the Baby Boom aging, a shrinking tax base will have to pay more, proportionally, to maintain the same size government spending.
I am part of the generation that will have to confront the consequences of economic choices made today and the realities of an aging population, and I would like to know how are you looking out for us. What steps are you planning today that will ensure that America is solvent 15 or 30 years from now?
Re:Breaking gun control laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Even stranger to some is that gun control doesn't reduce crime like some think it will. Compare violent crime rates in DC (which has very strict gun control as noted above) with those in any state with a concealed handgun law. I'd actually be willing to bet that DC has more violent crime than any state without such strict gun control.
And no, I don't have any references. sorry.
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt you fundamentally understand evolution.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
Genocide in the Sudan (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For Both Parties (Score:4, Insightful)
Or how about
"Use of military power: If going to war with Iraq was so important, why was a declaration of war not asked for?"
You know, just to make it a question.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Your position on scientific exploration: (Score:3, Insightful)
1.) "What is to be done with stem cell research? Will more federal funding go into this line of research? Will the restrictions currently in place ever be lifted?"
2.) "The space program is a joke. Decent advancement has not been made in the last twenty years. Will America cut this expensive program, or will adequate federal funding be provided? Will goals be set to form a permanent presence on the moon? On Mars?"
3.) "When the Religious community calls for a ban on a new technology, will the government listen? Is the separation of church and state truly coming undone? Are we doomed to become the Amish of the world? "
4.) "Nuclear energy is the only way to prevent the impending energy crisis as oil and coal reserves dry up. Will federal funding be provided to accelerate research in this field? Will new generators be built? Will new and better types of generators be developed?"
5.) "Will more money go into developing better science programs in public schools?"
Pick and choose if you like any of these questions I stated above...
"P.S, releasing all of the papers of Nikola Tesla that were seized by the "Office of Alien Property" and declared "Top Secret" when he died would be nice."
Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:5, Insightful)
What does god have to do with this? The primary reason for goverment recognition of family to to encourage children and a stable social environment for future citizens. If you're not encouraging "family", then there is no point in government recognized union. This has nothig to do with "god", just common sense.
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:2, Insightful)
That's YOUR opinion. So does that mean heteros who choose not to, or are not able to have children, are "less" married than a family with 10 kids?
That's an extremely narrow-minded view of marriage, hell, it's a load of sh*t. And if 2 straight people marry because of 'affections', so be it, it isn't any of your or my freakin business. I don't care why they marry.
The implication that 'strong families' only come from straight unions is also crap. Gay or Straight, some couples are healthy and strong, some aren't. I know gay couples who've been together for years, and straight people who are on their 3rd marriage - does that mean anything? No, you just can't judge all relationship with sweeping remarks. You make broad generalizations with nothing to back it up whatsoever.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Revenge on Saddam for murdering innocents, simply does not justify our own murder of innocents. Perhaps, if the fantasies of Iraq as a shining bulwark of freedom and democracy were to be realized it would be worthwhile. But the reality is that we are looking at ongoing bloodshed, and a pending civil war bloodbath worse than the inhumane and barbaric regime we cast down.
Re:My Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
And I have no problem if the cops arrest you for "terrorist activities" by tapping your cell phone without a warrant, and arresting you without trial. After all, it IS a law.
Sheep who mindlessly obey their government deserve to be slaughtered.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some things that are more important than others not because of their immedieate consequences, but because of the CONCEPTS behind them. I agree that for the welfare of the average American, marriage reform won't make much of difference any time soon.
The problem is that this is a slippery slope that we are in the process of sliding down and if we don't grab a branch soon we're gonna hit the bottom fast. If the government can tell me what marriage is about then it's not a huge leap to assume that it can tell me what a "friendship" is. After all, friendship could be a legally viable term: for instance, "friends" are the only people, along with "immediete family" that can come over to watch a movie before I'm illegally displaying it in my house.
Soon I can't be friends with someone officially unless I've known them for 3 months (and see them at least an average of once every 2 weeks with no more than a 4 week break). Maybe friends are people that agree with you... so you, legally speaking, can't have any outside of your political party.
Yeah, it seems pretty silly to me too, but then again so does the government telling me what marriage is.
Child care vs stay-at-home parenting (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I think we should be encouraging potential parents who can't afford it to NOT have children.
This means free contraception/sterilisation. Maybe even means-tested payments to childless couples.
Re:My Question: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may now go off about my comparing slavery to incarcerating people for their choice of intoxicant.
Never drank underage I presume. I want to see THOSE little punks tried as adults and carted off to jail. They certainly kill more people.
My questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Ridiculous (Reductionist) Arguments? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't recall having run into one blinking person who's said that she thinks Bush and his cronies are secretly plotting to reinstate the draft. Heck, Rumsfeld went out of his way to dismiss the military significance of draftees in previous wars, in a move I remember particularly well because it so upset my Uncles down in Oklahoma who served. Your entire premise is a misstatement of the objections to Bush's policy.
What is said is that Bush's policies have made the reinstatement of a draft more likely, and that the specific changes made to terms of military service -- not allowing scheduled retirements, dramatic changes to the terms of service of the national guard -- amount to a "back-door" draft right now.
It's funny how your "who's who" of the left in congress didn't include Teddy Kennedy or Mark Dayton. Those were the first names on my lips. Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.
There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.
You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points. Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...
Re:The draft (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the purpose of the bills is to scare the soccer moms into voting for Kerry.
Question about offshoring (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think companies that do this deserve all the benefits a company that does pay its U.S. taxes gets? Do you think the US government should do business with corporations that practice this behavior?
Do you think the law needs to be changed and if so how and if not, why not?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Contextually, you'd be hard pressed to argue that the founding documents' primary impetus and foundation was not driven by the Enlightenment and the entire concept of the "Rights of Man". If it were a Christian document at heart, you'd see more than passing references to God.
check this out. (Score:4, Insightful)
But first let me state that many Christians do not know there own theology.
here we go:
What you listed are from what is knwo as the Holy Code. Which was abandoned by Jesus Christ(Yes, THE Jesus Christ) who laid down the New Covenant.
Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."
Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."
Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."
Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."
As you know, this all stems from Leviticus 18:22
"V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
Literally translated:
"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"
nobody really knows what "lay lyings" means. It is assumed to be anal sex, but other interpetation exist.
At this time it is my opinion that the sins is not 'anal sex' but 'treating a man as a women'. remember the era. Men were perfect, women were considered property. This would be mistreating a perfect(and thus 'clean') thing as unclean.
This would also explain why NO WHERE in the bible does it condone lesbians.
Modern bibles(who need to sell a product) have added the word homosexuallity to the bible. There is no hebrew word for this, and in fact the word homosexuality was created in the 19th century.
God's word does change...hence the sending of his son, Jesus Christ.
And of those people killed, (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What, you don't want to be living in sin? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most gay couples I know just want the same legal guarantees as different-sex couples. Such as, if you have lived with your partner in a flat for 20 years and he dies, you don't want to get kicked out of the appartment overnight.
Or, if your partner had an accident and is in intensive care, you don't want to be told by hospital personnel that you can't see him because you are "not family". And that you can't make any decisions on his behalf when he's unconscious, and instead his parents get to make decisions (who maybe have deserted him 20 years ago because he found out he's gay).
Etc, etc.
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:3, Insightful)
And, polygamy is perfectly consistant with Islam and the Mormon faith (before they were forced to change it). So forget the religion argument - polygamy is illegal only because of tradition and the moral positions of the religious philosophies of those in power.
So, my question to you is this: If two same sex people can be married, then they shouldn't three same sex people be married?
Re:Womens rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you FEEL that way, huh? And how can you possibly justify that? Why should I be burdened because YOU decide to have a child? You make a decision to procreate, you'd better understand the consequences of your actions. I have two children and never asked anybody for a dime, and NO, I'm not an evil rich republican greedy bastard, thankyouverymuch.
Business's should be able to afford it or people won't work for them.
Now I know you're smoking crack... you realize the majority of people employed in the U.S. are employed by SMALL businesses?
So let's say you start a small house cleaning company. People like your business and soon you have a full schedule, so you hire someone to help you to expand your business. First it's part time, but business keeps expanding so you hire her full time. Now you and her are making a living. You make a little more, say 25 to 50% because it is, after all, your business. Then she gets pregnant and has a baby. Now you need to hire another person FULL TIME to take her place AND pay her?
Your mistake in logic is that all businesses must be run by greedy republicans who can afford to pay people for not working.
This is one of those "sounds good when I wrote it" things, I hope... because what you'd be doing is encouraging employers to avoid hiring women at all.
When you take a job it's a private contract between you and your employer, and if you don't like the terms you can leave it to someone else. Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out while they're laughing at you for saying "but you run a business, you should be able to afford to pay me for not working!"
Re:Taxes and Spending (Score:2, Insightful)
the predictable copout (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, military service is certainly a way for lower income people to bootstrap their way into a better economic class.
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What, you don't want to be living in sin? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More to the point... (Score:3, Insightful)
That does not equal mob rule. It never has.
The last presidential election should have at least taught you THAT much.
Don't Worry About It (Score:2, Insightful)
Interestingly, President Bush's position on reinstituting the draft is similar to his positions on things like deficit spending and the Iraq insurgency: "Don't Worry About It." [whitehouse.gov]
Re:From a conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting
Just keep telling yourself "they are sub-human, their lives don't count", and you can probably justify any number of deaths. That sort of thinking is how genocides happen.
Re:Question for President Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Environment & Corporatism (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. President, you say you share family values. In my family, one of the aspects my parents taught me was to not leave a mess behind me, and also how to take care of the environment. Shouldn't that be part of your plans too? Or do you favor the coal plants more because they donated over $100 million to your campaign? Also, according to Mr. Kennedy's lecture, the mercury contamination in water will be responsible for up to 30,000 deaths a year. That's more deaths than the ones that happened in the Twin Towers on sept. 11th! WHY are you letting American citizens die? And why do you appoint people that fake the numbers when it comes to science? Wouldn't the space shuttle Columbia disaster be related to your negligence in appointing people knowledgeable in critical positions?
Mr. Kerry, what will you do to support the environment? Will you re-open the lawsuits that our President has closed against the coal burning plants? Will you listen to the scientific community in general instead of a selected few that tell you what you want to hear instead of the truth?
Yes, I am a supporter of John Kerry in this campaign, but to be frank it is more because I fear President Bush more than Senator Kerry.
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you can't do it without reference to religion, then the separation of Church and State says its none of the government's business.
(Of course, what you'd have to do is define objective morality. And its hard to make a good case for objective morality. Murder's pretty easy. Anything that directly affects people who are non-consensual to the act... you can make a case for that. Consensual gay marriage? Good luck with that.)
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:3, Insightful)
And if these people aren't willing to say that we also need a Constitutional ammendment to stop impotent men, post-menopausal women and people who just don't want to have children from marrying, then I will just ignore them.
A few simple questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Second, how will tort reform lower the costs of my health insurance when we barely do anything to keep out illegal aliens? When we combine their emergency room coverage with the ever-growing numbers of uninsured Americans, those costs have to be paid by someone, and that someone will either be the government, which uses my tax dollars, or my insurance company, which will charge me higher premiums. Please explain this logic.
Third, what is a service economy really? If we keep shipping manufacturing overseas, then those who produce will have control over the products we receive and control the price charged. So, should we start language education so that we can handle the future call center jobs here that will support China and India?
Fourth, what good is No Child Left Behind if all it does is bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator? As everyone must agree, the job of President is a demanding position requiring a person of exceptional skill and intelligence. That being the case, why do so many politicians try to act like dumb everyday people?
Fifth, let's assume terrorists are like fire ants. Nasty little creatures! In numbers, fire ants can take out a person, as terrorists can take down a nation. Do you think big-stick politics (invasions and warfare) are a real solution? I know fire ants are a problem in Texas. Has the President ever dealt with them directly?
Oh well, some questions. I just which they'd allow charts and pictures at the debates. I'd love to have an impromptu section where the candidates are asked to point out countries on a map, name capitals, name current world leaders, name the basic price for common goods, answer questions about common costs, etc.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus far our track record in wars that don't directly involve American safety (ie WWII) is pretty poor, particularly in cases where we replaced a sitting, legal government. I can't personally think of any examples where that sort of conflict worked out well for the citizens of the country where the war actually happened (feel free to correct me on this, my knowledge of American military history is far from complete).
I feel sorry for the people of Iraq. They've gone from a brutal dictorship to a brutal power vaccuum, and will most likely end up with another brutal dictatorship within a decade (I'm sorry, but all signs currently point to democracy not working out). They probably would have been better off having a civil war and being done with it - at least that way the new goverment would have some legitimacy.
Fine Tuning the American Democratic Experiment (Score:1, Insightful)
We are experiencing a true constitutional crisis that transcends mere campaign finance reform. We must eliminate the Electoral College. We must move from a winner-takes-all electoral system, to a multi-party system.
Personally, I am saddened we American's have not used our wealth, influence and might to solve global problems. Providing health care that is more concerned with helping people than making money, pursuing environmental policies that make long term sustainability a higher priority than short term profits, improving global education, fighting poverty, and finally, pursuing global justice.
Clinging to the myth that we can achieve security through violence is another serious flaw. In fact, when policy makers have close connections to large corporations that benefit from war, and then decide to pursue war, we have a total conflict of interest.
The war on terrorism has been pathetic. Basic conflict resolution requires an understanding of the positions of all parties involved. The Israelis and the Palestinians need to lay down their weapons, and get back to the table. Compromise is the only solution, as continuing this war will only continue the death and destruction that serves to cultivate the very roots of militant terrorism.
So I guess my question is: Is holding these beliefs a crime of sedition? Is forming groups who share these beliefs illegal? Is actively trying to change the system, not through senseless violence, but education something that threatens the status quo to the point that it is too dangerous to do?
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:1, Insightful)
"Threat Level" to Low? When? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think that in your lifetime, the Dept. of Homeland Security will reduce the threat level to "Low"?
How about even "Guarded"?
How about ever?
Digital Rights and personal privacy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What, you don't want to be living in sin? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not a question of forcing all religions to offer marriage to anyone, that would be "wrong". Rather it is allowing all couples to have the benefit and responsbilities inherent in the word "marriage".
In other words, what's the point of trying to define a "civil union" to match the same benefits of "marriage" if we already have a perfectly good working definition in the word "marriage"?
If the only point is to not offend the sensibilites of your christian majority that's simply not a good enough reason.
Well, well, well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Social Security. (Score:3, Insightful)
While stocks are risky in the short term, their risk over time is much less. Examine the Historical Behavior of Asset Returns [duke.edu].
I much rather invest $10,000 in an diversified stock index fund today than in bonds if I want to take that money out in 40 years. If I want to take it out in 1 year, I would put it in bonds.
Another issue: if a stock index fund does not have a strong return over 40 years, the economy, as a result, will be so screwed up that the government won't be able to tax people to come up with the money anyway...
Re:Breaking gun control laws (Score:3, Insightful)
As an active member of a volunteer homeland defense force (militia), I'm the last person who wants to see erosion of the second amendment.
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:1, Insightful)
If I was married to another guy, I'd be pissed that I had to pay the same taxes as a opposite-sex couple would. If I can't have kids, why should I pay school taxes? Why should sterile opposite-sex couples be allowed to marry? By your definition they should not be allowed since they will be returning nothing to society as well. There are plenty of people out there poppin out babies, that we don't need to worry about those reasons.
Marriage is a construct created by humans, there is no biological need for it. Since the definition of marraige was created by us, it can be changed by us.
I see no burden the government would have to carry beyond what it already carries for sterile couples.
Re:Presidential debates (Score:3, Insightful)
So I was treated to canned 30 second sound bytes from everybody who managed to get his name on the ballot, instead of longer, more thoughtful responses from the people who I really wanted to hear from. That debate didn't do a thing to help me decide who to vote for and was, in my opinion, a complete waste of time.
Re:Womens rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, you FEEL that way, huh? And how can you possibly justify that? Why should I be burdened because YOU decide to have a child? You make a decision to procreate, you'd better understand the consequences of your actions. I have two children and never asked anybody for a dime, and NO, I'm not an evil rich republican greedy bastard, thankyouverymuch.
So instead of addressing her belief logically you go on this holier-than-thou tirade. How civilized of you.
This is her point. Raising children properly is in the national (common) interest. Since we all (you included) have a stake in the positive outcome (the child becoming a productive member of society), this is something the government should support. We already do to a certain degree (child tax credits and such), but she would like to see even a higher level of support.
Now you, mister "never asked anybody for a dime", have a different opinion about how much the government should spend. So, did you accept the handouts that you didn't "ask for"? Did you "Just Say No" to that tax credit when you filled out your 1040? Did you write to you congressman and ask for that credit to be repealed?
And it's also possible that you have a nice, well-paying job, who can afford child care and such a lot better than the checkout clerk at Wal-Mart, and so your children have a much higher probablility of success than the children of the Wal-Mart clerk. But that doesn't affect you in your gated community, right?
Now I know you're smoking crack... you realize the majority of people employed in the U.S. are employed by SMALL businesses?
And the small businesses can't afford it, because they don't have the resources. Very true.
But, that's even more reason why the government should be more involved. Why should large companies have that kind of advantage, when small business is so important? If the government were to do the things that are currently the domain of "employee benefits" you would see a much more level playing field between small and big business. But the business community is always railing against "big government."
The irony here is that big business has gamed the system, making it more difficult for small business to succeed, and it has also convinced small business that the government can't help them.
Machiavelli would be proud.
Re:Answers (Score:5, Insightful)
"And "Al Qaeda" is rooted in the mideast. NOT in Iraq, but in the region. "
First of all Al Queda is not rooted in the mideast. It WAS kind of rooted in Afghanistan but now is a diffused worldwide cult. That's right, it's not an organization it's a belief system.
Secondly if it was NOT in iraq then there was NO reason to attack Iraq. Why not attack where it was? Doesn't it strike you as the supreme height of stupidity to start the attack on Al Quada by invading a country that they were NOT in? Explain that to me.
"And much of the Arab/Muslim world shares a lot of the same disdain for the US and/or West-at-large for much of the same reason."
The war is against the US not the "west at large". It's basically against the US and Israel until Iraq was invaded. Right now Britain and a few other allied who took part in the invasion and occupation of iraq are also in their target list.
There are specific reasons why the US was attacked and not Canada, New Zealand, Finland, Germany or any of the other western democracies. All those countries are also "free", they are all also "western". Americans for some reason can't understand why anybody might hate them or how any of their actions may be seen as hostile but it's true. They hate you for what you do. Not because you are "free" or because they "hate your way of life".
"Israel. Bush is the first president to call for a completely autonomous, sovereign Palestine. Short of exterminating Israel as a whole, that's the most dramatic position in FAVOR of the Israel-opponents' cause any US president has ever taken."
I think just about everybody realizes that it was all talk. Bush has done NOTHING to make that happen. He has completely abandoned his "roadmap". He refuses to even critize sharon for expanding settlements or building that wall. Even a casual observer of the situation knows who wears the pants in the Sharon Bush relationship and it aint bush. Do you remember when Bush told Sharon to pull his tanks out of some city (I forget which one now) and Sharon basically told him to fuck off. Bush did nothing. That was pretty early on in this administration. From that point on everybody knew who was in charge and it wasn't bush.
"Eliminating dependence on mideast oil. A nice idea. One wonders how he plans to accomplish that since he's also opposed to any new nuclear reactors,"
Conserve a little, increase gas mileage requirements and voila you are there. Nuclear plants are just gravy if they are built (and they should be IMHO).
" "Iraq" is but a first step to gain positive influence in the area as part of a much larger strategy. "
You keep saying that but there is no basis for it. You yourself admitted that Al Quada has no presense there. In fact Iraq was a SECULAR SOCIALIST state not a religious state like Iran or saudi arabia. If you want to attack "panislamic radicalism" (what an inane phrase did you come up with that?) then why not start with an islamic state?
"it will take a long time, will make a lot of people hate us in the meantime, and will require a lot of hard work and sacrifice."
Hundreds of billions of dollars that could have gone to repairing your schools, providing healthcare, feeding the hungry will be flushed down the drain. I guess your kids don't need those new books after all. Oh and all those people who hate us do you think a few of them might want ot kill us in the same numbers as we are killing them? You think one or two might resort to chemical or biological attacks on US soil? It'a all fine and dandy to talk about sacrifice now but wait till you actually have to start paying for all this with your money and lives. You think right now that OTHER people are going to die and OTHER people are going to pay and you are fine with that. But I bet you'll be singing a different tune when the economy starts backtracking and your city gets hit.
"But ULTIMATELY, it will be better for us, better for Europe, and better for the peoples of the mideast."
Ah
Re:Mod parent up (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems obvious that either people must place restrictions upon themselves, or that someone else will do it for them.
Hmmm, I seem to recall some states used to have laws prohibiting interracial marriage. When people can't restrain themselves from passing discriminatory laws, well, the Supreme Court has to step in and smack them down. Just something to think about.
-
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:4, Insightful)
$2000s =~ s/nigger/faggot/g;
print "vote Bush";
Huh?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:2, Insightful)
their vibrators. But as another submitter said,
the costs of entering into these non-traditional
relationships should be born by the individuals,
and not society.
Fine, keep it to an individual thing. So why should people who are single, in a same sex or polyamorous relationship, support the costs or monogamous opposite-sex couples getting married? I don't see why I should have to.
Anyone who labels this as a false slippery slope
is betting that there are no judges that agree.
It is for certain that laws against polygamy,
polyandy, group marriage, bestiality, marriage
with underaged but mentally mature children,
etc. are all going to be overturned in the courts.
That's irrelevant - it's still a slippery slope argument. If judges allow polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, it's because they consider good reasons for doing so, and it's hardly a problem to allow such marriages. But if you think there are reasons why a particular type of marriage (eg, marriage with children) is wrong, then arguing for same sex marriage doesn't imply that marriage with [something-bad] should be allowed.
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:3, Insightful)
Hard to look at the statistics without knowing how you define "healthy family structure". My definition would be looking at eliminating violence, abuse, and neglect from the mix long before I looked at the gender of the parents, but maybe that's just me. (Heck, for that matter, I don't know how you are defining "success," either, but that's probably much less problematic.).
Mr Kerry, Why Are You AWOL? (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you account for the 17 days of active duty and 47 drills over two years you failed to attend as you had agreed to do when you were given an early release from your Naval Officers Commission? Additionally, how do you account for the fact that you have been absent from 32 Senate votes since November of 2003?
Re:Answers (Score:3, Insightful)
It also requires one to subscribe to the notion that our style of "freedom" can and should be forced upon a population that doesn't necessarily want it. Personally, I can't support imposing a government on the unconsenting.
Re:For President Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
WWJDD (What would Johnny Damon do?)
Re:should the gov decide who has the right to marr (Score:3, Insightful)
The damage to a child's psyche that happens due to growing up with gay parents is much more attributable to the bigotry and cruelty of other children rather than the role models that the parents provide. Hopefully this is easier now than it was 20 years ago (when my mother came out) since it is not as fashionable now to gay-bash - I would hope that most parents would at least not encourage their children to make fun of children with gay parents, although this may not be the case.
I learned a lot about hatred growing up with a gay parent - my mother and her partner ran the gay helpline for the city we lived in, and the phone company 'accidentally' published our home address as the address for the helpline. We finally ended up taking the house numbers down to discourage any further vandalism. Before we lived there, we were evicted from an apartment complex for not having my mother's partner on the lease - despite the fact that LOTS of people had live-in partners of the opposite sex that weren't added to leases. I was ridiculed in school to the point where I begged my mother to transfer school districts (fortunately, this was right before we were evicted, so I indirectly got my wish).
My mother's partner was, and is, my closest and most supportive parent. I feel lucky to have her as a parent and as a grandmother to my son, and I am fairly certain she is my husband's favorite (or a close second to my geek father) in-law.
That said, I don't understand gay support for the Democratic party, or for John Kerry. Clinton's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy was a load of crap - my mother's partner was in the Guard, and she wasn't directly asked about her sexual orientation, but questions like 'Who's waiting at home for you?' were frequent. Hell, Kerry and Edwards couldn't be bothered to show up to vote against the amendment banning same-sex marriage, and Kerry has spoken against gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts.
Different views of freedom (Score:4, Insightful)