Be Part of the 2008 Presidential Youth Debate 513
We participated in this project back in 2004. This year it's hosted by Walden University, and the format is a little less cumbersome than it was four years ago. So go ahead, ask some questions you'd like to see McCain and Obama answer, and they'll go into the pot along with questions submitted through other channels. Later this week you'll have a chance to help moderate the final questions chosen from all sources, and on October 20 you'll be able to see video responses from the two major party candidates. Please limit to yourself to one question per post, and note that questions must be posted no later than 4 p.m. US EDT on Monday, September 29, to be considered.
important question (Score:2, Insightful)
A serious question for both candidates (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Very telling Slashdot editor (Score:3, Insightful)
Flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
John McCain, you've voted for a law to legalize torture for suspected enemy combatants. Do you regret that decision? Does your decision imply that the actions of your captors in North Vietnam were appropriate?
John McCain, you were neck deep in what was up till now the biggest banking scandal and bailout in US history. Does this experience give you any special insight into the current credit crisis?
John McCain, in a recent interview you apparently did not know that Spain is a European country and a close ally. You spoke as if they were some kind of potential enemy in Latin America, even though you were reminded three times that you were discussing Spain. Later, your spokesman said that your dissing of Spain was intentional. Is either interpretation of the interview correct?
What kind of man calls his wife a "cunt" in public?
Don't you feel... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't you feel that elections in the USA are a sham these days, and that for the most part, there is no real difference between the two major parties - beyond superficial ones that get blown out of proportion in an effort to make it seem like people actually have a choice?
Gun Control (Score:4, Insightful)
Senator Obama, you voiced limited approval for the Supreme Court's Heller decision, overturning the handgun ban (as it related to self defense in the home) in the District of Columbia. You stated, "As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
Given that the streets of Chicago were deadlier [cbs2chicago.com] this summer than the streets of Baghdad, is the handgun ban 'working' in Chicago? And, is it Constitutional?
A question of change... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gun Control (Score:1, Insightful)
And, what part of "shall not be infringed" to you not understand?
Re:Very telling Slashdot editor (Score:3, Insightful)
When did yelling "bias" become the automatic first move for you guys? All news channels except Fox News, all newspapers except the wall street journal (and then sometimes), education at all levels, educated people, any author, republicans who disagree with the administration, people with above average intelligence, blue states, slashdot, Reddit...
Or is it maybe not intentional? You're so far right that everything looks left?
In the long term (Score:4, Insightful)
At what point should this drift be made explicit via Constitutional Amendment,
to shut up the cranks like me
who think that Social Security is a 10th Amendment violation?
For both. (Score:5, Insightful)
For both candidates:
In the past 10 years, the Internet has brought consumers more options than ever for communication and entertainment. Our current laws regarding copyright and intellectual property don't adequately describe or encompass intangible digital content which can be infinitely copied with out impacting originals. Do you support the massive entertainment lobby in effecting legilsation that promotes the erosion of consumer rights and choices of a free market or do you believe that the market itself should decide which business models are successful?
Re:important question (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you prescribe to the belief that non-Christians will spend eternity in Hell?
If yes, what influence does this have on your dealings with non-believers?
If no, how do you reconcile this belief with the bible?
Re:Very telling Slashdot editor (Score:4, Insightful)
I am conservative and even I am irritated at those two posts. If they are not intended to be trolls, they shouldn't feel the need to post anonymously.
Not a specific question, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Election democratization (Score:5, Insightful)
Will you demand the inclusion of other candidates in the remaining presidential debates, as the majority of the American public does? Namely, the ones with sufficient ballot presence to win are; Cynthia McKinney (Green), Ralph Nader (Independent), Bob Barr (Libertarian), and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution).
Lack of time in Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
Senator McCain, why won't you release your full medical records?
Hard Questions for Senator Obama (Score:1, Insightful)
Senator Obama, given that Medicare is an even bigger drain than Social Security and will go bust along with it as the Baby Boomers retire, why are you proposing to nationalize the health coverage of the entire country in a style similar to Medicare?
Senator Obama, wouldn't your proposal to nationalize health coverage simply encourage people and companies to drop their current coverage and pile on to the government plan?
Senator Obama, would your proposal to nationalize health coverage cover non-citizens and thereby represent an additional incentive for illegal immigration?
Senator Obama, why are you opposed to Health Savings Account plans, which would protect people from catastrophic illness costs while giving them a monetary incentives to seek treatment early and stay healthier?
Senator Obama, do you think that soaking the so-called "rich" alone will allow for the funding of your indulgent domestic spending agenda, and what makes you think that you won't be punishing incentive and encouraging the "rich" to work less and even hide more in order to avoid excessive taxation?
Senator Obama, will you commit to balancing the federal budget?
Senator Obama, you claim to want to give the "middle class" a tax cut, but at the same time you propose to raise capital gains taxes, the death tax and corporate taxes, among others. Wouldn't your tax scheme harm many small businesses and small investors, indeed much of the "middle class" you claim to want to help?
Senator Obama, are you familiar with the Laffer Curve?
Senator Obama, given your radical connections (Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Flager) and your past radical Chicago politics, as well as your younger days in which you gravitated to Marxism, why should voters believe you when you claim to be a moderate?
Senator Obama, will you repudiate the leftist radicals represented by the sites like dailykos?
Senator Obama, do you support coercing the Israeli government to make more suicidal concessions to its avowed enemies, thereby continuing the failed "Peace Process" initiated under President Bill Clinton?
Senator Obama, if diplomacy fails with Iran, would you allow the country to produce nuclear weapons?
Senator Obama, do you find it problematic that you have been endorsed by the Al Qaeda Arab terrorist network?
Senator Obama, since the surge has worked and has led to the fulfillment of most of the benchmarks set by Congress for its success, is your reluctance to recognize that success based primarily on political expediency?
Senator Obama, will you ever admit your party's culpability in the Sub-Prime crisis (i.e. Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act; Barney Frank declaring the GSEs sound in 2003; Democrats resisting reform of the GSEs in 2003 and 2005)?
Senator Obama, what do the terms liberty and freedom mean to you in political and economic contexts?
Let's see any of these get asked!
Re:Hard Questions for Senator Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
two questions for both candidates (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
Obama is just as "neck deep" if not more in "the biggest baking scandal / bailout in US history"
For Both Candidates (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In the long term (Score:3, Insightful)
You confuse me greatly. Since the New Deal, we've steadily gone closer and closer to free, unrestrained capitalism (you should check out the stock market these days). Social services have been only declining ever sense. Some of the greatest cuts happened under Clinton. Even if I concede the idea that socialism means social services, your view of the direction of America in the past 70 or so years doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Maybe you think socialism means "nanny state". If so, please find a better term and stop embarrassing yourself.
Re:A question of change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gun Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gun Control (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, much deadlier. The fact that you can question that just shows that they didn't add traffic fatalities to the mix.
(Oh yeah, I just went there.)
Re:Gun Control (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you prefer if I rephrased to say 'deadlier for Americans'? You can argue the semantics, but the point stands. More Americans died from gunshots on the streets around Obama's home than in the streets sounding the former palace of Saddam Hussein.
I want the Senator to tell us whether he believes that peoples of Chicago should be prevented from owning handguns to protect themselves in their homes. Because, the police aren't able to do so, and we can't all have a security detail stationed at either end of our block.
Re:Very telling Slashdot editor (Score:4, Insightful)
I am the first to admit that conservatives tend to hyperventilate about media bias more than they should (in many cases, the bias of the mainstream media has been only mildly left, no worse than Fox's bias rightwards). But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is one of those times.
Take, for example, the Fannie/Freddie debacle. Consider that Obama had 2 corrupt former CEOs of Fannie as economic advisors, one of which was the head of his VP search committee. We didn't hear about that until McCain ran ads about it. And then, did the media focus on the story? No - they attacked McCain for supposedly running a racist ad (apparently you can't mention close associations with corrupt CEOs if they happen to be black).
You could also consider the media's attacks on some of McCain's more dubious ads (e.g. sketchy claims about Obama's sex ed bill). The media went on for days about how McCain was such a scoundrel. And hyperbole notwithstanding, he deserved some serious criticism for those ads. But then when Obama played equally dirty (e.g. scaring Florida seniors with falsehoods about McCain's Social Security plans) you barely hear a peep from those same folks (with the notable exception of Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post).
I don't doubt many in the media are trying to be fair, because they are aware that they and their colleagues are overwhelmingly liberal. A handful succeed in being neutral. But for the rest, the prospect of an eloquent, black, highly liberal senator (the anti-Bush as it were) becoming President is such a seductive dream that they can't help but look more critically at his opponent. Love really is blind.
Re:Genocide (Score:3, Insightful)
Why in the hell should we do anything?
OUR money props up these African dictators.
OUR food props up the African dictators.
OUR clothing only warm up the African dictators.
In a way, WE are blame. Let the Africans solve their problems. Once we stop funding them, they will do things right.
Re:Horribly slanted (Score:5, Insightful)
how about this:
Do you believe in legislating protections for failed business models, or do you believe the free market should determine success?
Re:A serious question for both candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? That's a huge softball lob. Why not just say, "Hey, could you ramble on aimlessly with your usual image spin crap for a couple of minutes? Thanks."?
Re:A serious question for both candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that both of them are going to completely lie and twist the truth in their answers, so their answers will be completely useless. In actuality, neither of these bozos is qualified to be President, just like GWB was never qualified to be President. Personally, I don't care what their answers would be, because they'd be just a bunch of lies. Any idiot can see that these fools are not qualified, but unfortunately, unlike a normal job interview, we the people aren't smart enough to just say "no" to hiring either of them. If this were a private company, they'd throw both candidates' resumes in the trash and keep looking.
Re:bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but Liddy was right. ATF agents deserve to be shot in the head. The RKBA is sacrosanct, which is why it has a whole Amendment devoted to it. As long as a group of people isn't committing some actual crimes (the Davidians weren't, that I know of), then the Federal government needs to leave them alone.
Similarly, I see nothing wrong with Black Panthers keeping weapons, and advising people to shoot federal agents in the head, as long as those members aren't felons or committing actual crimes. Free association, free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are all part of the Bill of Rights in this country, and they apply to all Citizens, as long as they aren't felons or in prison.
Now I'm not sure I'd want to vote for someone who associated with the Black Panthers, just as I wouldn't want to vote for someone who associated with a white supremacist organization, but unless they're convicted felons, they have the right to own guns, and even if they're convicted felons, they have the right to free speech, no matter how offensive it may be.
As for Rev. Wright, anyone who goes to his church for 20 years has no business being President, in this voter's opinion. The guy is a nut; some of the things he said may be true, but the crap about the government inventing AIDS to kill black people completely overshadows that. So there's no way I'm voting for Obama. As for McCain, anyone who graduates at the bottom of his class at the Naval academy, and only got in because of his father, and then proceeds to wreck several jets and is such a bad pilot he gets shot down and taken prisoner, and then, after all that, comes home and kicks his crippled wife out so he can marry a rich, politically connected, younger woman, is a despicable disgrace of a human being, and has no business being President either. Add in his involvement in the Keating 5, and the fact that he's said he doesn't know anything about economics, and just recently said the economy is doing great, just before everyone suddenly needed bailing out. There's no way I'm voting for him.
Re:Flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. After all, Obama is also 72 years old, was held prisoner for five years, and has had the most dangerous form of skin cancer a year after he released all his medical records.
Oh wait.....
The need to educate yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah.. because..you know.. when the seeds for this were sown in 1977 the Congress was Democrat controlled and it was signed by a Democrat president. In 1995 President Clinton made regulatory changes (no need for the consent of the Republican Congress) that put the program on steroids, paving the way straight to our current crisis. It was after this that FM/FM started taking on the risky loans to comply with the heightened standards.
Bush tried to fix this in 2003, but the Democrats killed it. "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis." -- Barney Frank D-MA, while opposing stricter oversight.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
we HAVE to pay this, or the economy will collapse in the same way it did when the banks went bust in 29.
What, and no one has thought of *any* viable alternatives?
They need to impose tight regulations again
As I understand it, regulation was one of the causes of this trouble in that in the books they had to value the mortgage securities at a fraction of the actual value and later couldn't sell it for any more than that.
Re:I can answer these. (Score:5, Insightful)
Social security is secure because it's not tied to the volatile open market.
Social(ist) (In)Security is not secure at all, but thanks for dodging the question. SS will go bust without substantial reform. As for it not being tied to the "volatile open market," that's why I explicitly said that private accounts could be very conservatively invested, in things like annuities or municipal bonds, and not the stock market. Private retirement plans that government employees have access to have been shown to give as much as twice the returns of that pathetic Socialist pyramid scheme. It's ridiculously outmoded and should be phased out; intellectually honest people can look at the situation objectively and very easily come to that conclusion.
Our system is horrible because it is run by lobbyists and big pharma, not because state socialized medicine is bad.
If you want to believe those are the sole causes, fine, but it still makes absolutely no sense to extend a system that is performing poorly currently and is due to go bust in a huge way in the next two decades to the entire population. Have you seen the Medicare liability data? I assume you haven't. But again with that response you're not answering the question; you're just making up excuses for the failed Social(ist) welfare state.
And let me say, if you're upset because you'll be required to pay more tax than the less fortunate, and cause you to drive a 5 series instead of a 7 with the 18 inch rims. . .
Once again you fail to address the question. I asked about punishing incentive through excessive taxation, and again you can't answer the question.
Ask Palin... please! The comic world is begging you.
I asked Obama for answer, and again you evade because you have no credible response. Besides, Palin isn't the one naively advocating sky high taxes for those making over $250,000 a year in revenue.
Did Hannity shit in your brain? McCain has Falwell. . .
Really quite mature. McCain has distanced himself from the Christian right to a greater extent than Obama has distanced himself from the "religious left." Indeed, it took Wright several direct jabs at Obama for the latter to flip-flop and pull out of the radical church he had belonged to for decades.
Will McCain repudiate Fox News?
You think Fox News and the DailyKOS are at all analogous? You are truly far gone, as is those who bothered to waste mod points on your stupidity.
Coerce? Does that mean we can say, stop killing Palestinians, arresting them, torturing them, and taking their land with the guns, tanks, helicopters, and jets that we give you, accept UN resolution 242 and go back to your 1967 borders. . .
Israel will stop killing so-called "Palestinians" when they stop making war and committing terrorism against Israel; when they give up their perennial dream of "driving the Jews to the Sea" and perpetrating a second Holocaust. As for "taking their land," it is Jewish land From Time Immemorial, and modern day Israel only holds a fraction of its historical land. As for 242, you should reread it because it doesn't say what you think it says (if you've ever read it at all), and as for "1967 border" it would indeed be great if Israel would return to its post-Six Day War 1967 borders, reclaiming the lands it threw away in the 1970s including the Sinai. (I realize that's not what you meant, but I can use your imprecise language in that fashion against you.) As for the so-called "Palestinians," they can go live in any one of 52 predominately Muslim countries in the world, 22 of which are ethnically Arab. If they stop occupying Jewish land and murdering Jews, they'll be able to live in peace with the one Jewish country on earth. But the purpose of my original ques
Re:Very telling Slashdot editor (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't say that there's a corporate bias... per-se. I'd say that there's a bias towards people paying bills but they're not untouchable, and there's a lazy bias. Why bother writing an article or putting a piece together if you can just crib right from a press release?
Re:The Iran Issue (Score:2, Insightful)
So tell me, where can I go to vote Dennis Kucinich for President of the United States?
Re:Very telling Slashdot editor (Score:3, Insightful)
If you honestly think another Republican president is what we need, you don't know shit about Republican presidents. Ford, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, for longer than most slashdotters have been alive, Republican presidents have meant massive budget defecits and massive debt increases. Now, under a Republican president, we're looking at another 700 billion dollars ON TOP OF budgets which make the current president the biggest spender in American history -- a Republican!
They say reality has a well-known liberal bias. I disagree with this. Reality has a well-known anti-Republican bias. Conservatives have been crying for decades that these spendaholics are going around redefining conservative as "reckless and irresponsible to the point of bankrupting the nation".
And if you think it'll be any different because it's John McCain, you're an idiot. McCain is running on a platform that's substantially similar to the platform that the spendaholic Bush 2 ran on in 2000. He's ducked his tail between his legs on many positions in order to get the nomination, and once he's behind the desk, he's going to continue to be a weak leader.
Prison vs. Drug Treatment--the economics. (Score:4, Insightful)
It costs about half a million dollars to put a single drug user in prison, which includes $150,000 for arrest and prosecution, about $150,000 for a new prison cell, and about $30,000 per year times at least five years. For the same cost we can provide treatment or education for more than one hundred people. Which do you think is the better deal?
Re:Very telling Slashdot editor (Score:4, Insightful)
I am the first to admit that conservatives tend to hyperventilate about media bias more than they should (in many cases, the bias of the mainstream media has been only mildly left, no worse than Fox's bias rightwards). But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is one of those times.
Ah ha. Ah ha. Ha. After the last decade, still claiming that the media has a liberal bias is as laughable as Nader continuing to say that there really wouldn't have been a difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency. As laughable as a Miramax exec still thinking passing up on Lord of the Rings was a good decision, after Peter Jackson brought New Line eleven oscars and a few billion dollars.
If the media has such a liberal bias, why did they hate Al Gore's guts back in 2000, while giving Bush a free pass on his business failures, especially Harken Energy (a mountain next to the molehill of Whitewater)? They were so busy inventing Gore "fib factor" stories they didn't pay any attention to when Bush took credit for passing HMO legislation [fair.org] that he actually vetoed as governor of Texas:
If the media has such a liberal bias, why was it so gung ho on the Iraq war? In 2002-2003, the media conversation was dominated by neocons and pro-war hawks. What has changed since then, long after the public has turned against the war? Now the conversation is dominated [salon.com] by pro-war hawks, some of whom now think "mistakes were made" in the occupation, not that invading was a mistake in the first place. Those who were right that the war would be a disaster are as excluded from the media narrative today as they were in 2003.
And finally, just to put this turd to bed once and for all, compare representatives Gary Condit and Joe Scarborough. In May 2001, Gary Condit's aide, Chandra Levy, went missing. For months, the press obsessed over it, the allegations that he was having an affair and that he might have had something to do with her disappearance. Her body turned up in a park, and while no connection to Condit was found, he eventually admitted to having an affair with her.
In July 2001, Joe Scarborough's aide Lori Klausutis turned up dead, in his office, of blunt force trauma to the head. Dead. In his office. OF BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA TO THE HEAD. No scandal, no media obsession.
Now, try and tell us again with a straight face that the media has a liberal bias.
No - they attacked McCain for supposedly running a racist ad (apparently you can't mention close associations with corrupt CEOs if they happen to be black).
Um, because it was? The CEO in the ad has no connection whatsoever to Obama, but is black. The CEO that did actually have a connection to Obama is white, but was not in the ad. So do, please, explain how that ad was not racist. McCain's ads are littered with code and dog whistles. Watch his "The One" [youtube.com] ad and pay attention to the subtext of Obama being a false prophet - aka the anti-Christ. No, I'm not kidding. Or his celebrity [youtube.com] ad, which juxtaposes footage of Obama, two pretty white girls (Britney Spears and Paris Hilton) and phallic symbols like the Washington Monument and the Tower of Piza. Now, you might be able to make a case for the Washingto
Re:bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great question (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you determine the rights individuals have? Why do you have a right to your property? Why don't I have a right to your property?
Because, and only because, people have agreed to that. Changing those rights is nothing more than a matter of changing those agreements. After all, changing the nature of property rights was at the core of most of the Communist revolutions.
In the end I think we are saying the same thing two different ways. Natural Law essentially is the same as figuring out what rights we have that are by our societal needs.
Maybe. I still have a problem with the phrase "Natural Law" though. As I see it, there is no law in nature. Rights, laws, property, these are things which we create, which having no meaning or existence but that we imagine them, create them, and go to great lengths to protect and enforce them upon those who would disagree.