Slashdot Log In
Be Part of the 2008 Presidential Youth Debate
Posted by
Roblimo
on Sun Sep 28, 2008 04:29 PM
from the they've-already-promised-to-answer dept.
from the they've-already-promised-to-answer dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: Help Select Questions for Bush and Kerry 1501 comments
This is a strange post in that it has 50 comments attached to it already. These are 50 questions for Bush and Kerry selected by non-Slashdot moderators, as explained in our original call for help with the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate. At this point, where you come in is not only with extra-insightful moderation of these 50 questions, but with your "many eyes" trying to spot questions these two candidates have answered elsewhere so that the final questions presented to them are not repeats. The first 40 questions are from potential voters aged 18 - 35. The last 10 are from future voters 13 - 17. And that's enough explanation. From here we might as well jump right into the questions...
[+]
Politics: Presidential Youth Debate Answers and Details Now Online 74 comments
Last month, Slashdot readers contributed their own inquiries to the pool of questions for the Walden University Presidential Youth Debate. Two of those questions made the cut, and you can watch either the individual video responses to each of the questions presented to John McCain and Barack Obama (by scrolling down the just-linked debate home page), or the whole debate straight through. For something meatier, if you are weary of predictably slippery campaign-style answers, Ethan Rowe of End Point has a very interesting blog post about the technology background of the debate.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Varying royalty rates for offshore drilling (Score:5, Interesting)
Currently the Minerals Management Services in the Department of the Interior has companies pay between 12.5% and 18.75% royalties to use United States public land, depending on the mineral being harvested. Senator, do you believe that the amount of royalties they pay should also vary depending on environmental sensitivity, such as when drilling offshore?
This is not a question as to whether we should, and it is addressed to both candidates.
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?
Re:Gun Control (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Gun Control (Score:5, Informative)
The President will have power to appoint new SCOTUS justices if the need arises, and an Obama court would be very likely to overturn or confine Heller.
FYI Obama supports a total handgun ban, 500% increase on firearms and ammunition taxes, reinstatment of the Clinton Gun Ban, voted against a bill to allow self-defense in your house in Chicago, and on and on. So let's not have anyone debate over whether or not Obama respects our gun rights. Voting speaks far louder than rhetoric.
Parent
Re:Gun Control (Score:5, Informative)
The so-called "Clinton Gun Ban" was authored by Joe Biden, FYI...
Parent
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.
Parent
A question of change... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A question of change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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?
Re: (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 bett
Evolution/Creationism (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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?
Parent
question: (Score:4, Interesting)
Where is the congressional accountability for the subprime loan mess? The Bush administration, as well as democratic members of congress, pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to make more loans to poor people, inner city hispanics, african americans, etc. Not surprisingly, they defaulted (maybe that's why they weren't given loans in the first place?) and everyone is suffering as a result.
All I hear is complaints about greedy wallstreet types. What about the people who signed up for loans they couldn't afford? What about the congress that ignore Allan Greenspan's 2005 testimony that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were a serious problem? What about the congress that didn't believe poor credit meant an increased risk in defaulting on a loan?
Re:question: (Score:4, Informative)
sorry, the emphasis isn't on race, but on income and ability to repay loans. Fannie, Freddy, and other lenders were threatened with lawsuits and congressional complaints for not approving (subprime) loans in ghetto/slum areas. Maybe they didn't approve the loans because they are racist. Maybe they didn't approve the loans because they were a bad business decision.
From a George Bush 2002 speech [youtube.com]:
More and more people own their homes in America today. Two-thirds of all Americans own their homes. Yet we have a problem here in America 'cause fewer than half of the hispanics and half of the African Americans own their home. That's a home ownership gap, a gap that we've got to work together to close. And by the end of this decade, we'll increase the number of minority home owners by at least five and a half million families.
(applause)
And of course, one of the larger obstacles to minority ownership is financing. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have committed to provide more money for lenders, they've committed to meet the shortage of capital available for minority homebuyers. Freddie Mac recently began twenty-five initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for home ownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for home ownership loans. You don't have to have a lousy home for first-time home buyers. You put your mind to it, these first-time home buyers, or low income home buyer, can have just as nice a house as anybody else.
Parent
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).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you just claim that those three candidates have sufficient ballot presence to win? You mean, what, win the election? Because they really don't.
I suppose, if by that, you mean they technically appear on sufficient state ballots that were they to, through a stunningly miraculous coincidence win the electoral college votes of sufficient states to be declared president, perhaps.
However, none of those candidates has any chance whatsoever of winning, and I'm not sure allowing them to enter the debate will all
Copyrights terms (Score:5, Interesting)
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, states:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Currently, copyrights last 50-70 years after the creator's death. How does this advance Science and useful Arts?
Voting system (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you plan on making changes to the antiquated voting system, especially its tendency to give minority voters (whether third party or just the unfavoured party in their state) no ability to influence the outcome of an election? Do you think the voting system does or does not have an influence on the feeling of disenfranchisement among voters and the low voter turnouts?
The Iran Issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Iran is the second most vibrant democracy in the Middle East, and the USA's invasion of Iraq has allowed Iran to make a shot at becoming a regional power. How do you plan to broker friendship between Iran, the USA, and Israel?
Lack of time in Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Score:5, Interesting)
Debates (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you believe that including third party candidates - such as the Constitution, Green, Independent, Libertarian and Socialist parties - in the presidential debates would improve the debates and make our election more democratic?
If no, why not? If yes, why have you not announced that you support the inclusion of third party candidates at any point in the primary or presidential campaigns?
Mandatory National Service (Score:5, Interesting)
To both candiates:
At times both of you have expressed support for the idea, and organizations promoting the idea, of Mandatory National Service, whereby all adult citizens under a certain age would be forced to work for government agencies or government-approved entities for a certain period of time. Senator McCain, you've stated your agreement with the idea that we should re-institute a draft to go after Osama bin Laden.
Could you both please clarify, for the record, the conditions under which you believe a government has the right to conscript its citizens, and the degree to which your administration would do so?
How about fiscal responsibility (Score:3)
I watched the debate, and neither candidate seems to want to scale down government spending: Obama wouldn't admit to wanting to cut anything, and McCain paid some very unconvincing lip service to the idea. Why are we stuck with choosing between two candidates that both want to increase the scope and cost of the federal government?
Signing orders (Score:5, Interesting)
The Constitution says that a President shall sign or veto a bill (or not sign it, and it will become law after ten days). Since it says nothing about "signing orders", do you promise to comply with the Constitution by either signing, vetoing, or refusing to sign all bills that come before you and nothing more? Will you refuse to issue "signing orders" since they are not a power specifically given to the President by the Constitution?
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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?
Re:Very telling Slashdot editor (Score:4, Funny)
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Very telling Slashdot editor (Score:4, Interesting)
(in many cases, the bias of the mainstream media has been only mildly left, no worse than Fox's bias rightwards).
nice, trying to sneak this by.
MSM has a bias toward corporations, but is otherwise neutral.
If you think the MSM has a liberal bias, I refer you to the colbert quip about reality having a well-known liberal bias.
Fox deliberately distorts, and often times fabricates, the stories they present. The obama muslim kick, the deliberate mischaracterization of palin's crusade against the library as false, simply because she didn't do it as mayor (but as city councilwoman), the oreilly factor's invented statistics, the "balance" of the dingbat-right hannity and the cowed, confrontation fearing moderate, colmes.
The list goes on and on.
Fox news is a propaganda arm of the extreme right, it is NOT to be compared with the MSM, which is center-right because it's neutral on social issues and parrots corporate and political press releases whenever it can to avoid actual investigative reporting.
Parent
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
Parent
Re:Very telling Slashdot editor (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:Correct Answer: (Score:4, Informative)
Uhh, read that again, I think you must have made a typo or something.
The bible doesn't say that non believers will go to hell. It does say that those that do God's work will, even if they don't know they are doing God's work.
Actually what the Bible says is, based solely on our actions, all of us, including Christians, deserve to go to Hell. We are all sinners, and there is nothing any of us can do to earn our way into Heaven. The punishment for sin is "death": separation from God, and we have all sinned. Sometimes Christians lose sight of this, and act as though they deserve to go to Heaven while the non-Christians around them do not.
Parent
Re:I got one. (Score:5, Funny)
So my question is: Sen. McCain, why'd you put that turtle on that post?
Are you trying to determine if he's a replicant?
Parent
Mod parent up (Score:3, Funny)
Additionally, which of the candidates believes that a well-informed and well-educated voter base constitutes a boost, rather than a threat, to your job security? How much money will you put where your mouth is?
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Funny)
How is it flamebait to ask valid questions that the media should be asking? All of those are completely relevant. The only change I'd make is to the last one - "What kind of man, living today, uses the term trollop in everyday conversation, let alone in reference to his wife?"
Parent
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Informative)
I wish I had mod points. The McCain Torture Ban, as written, is an absolute ban on torture. The "legalization" you refer to comes from a "signing statement" by President Bush. A signing statement is when the President signs a bill into law and says "Part X of the law is unclear, so I'm going to interpret it to mean Y." In this case, President Bush said "The part of the Torture Ban about whether torture is banned is unclear, so I'm going to interpret it to mean 'Torture is NOT banned.'" John McCain waved the bullshit flag. A day or so after the signing statement was made public, McCain was asked about it and said, "If Bush didn't like the bill, he should have vetoed it" and then promised that if he was elected, he wouldn't make any signing statements at all. John McCain is NOT in favor of torture.
John McCain, you were neck deep in what was up till now the biggest banking scandal and bailout in US history. Does this experience give you any special insight into the current credit crisis?
Yeah, he's got special insight into banking scandals. That's why he cosponsored a bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac far more strictly in 2005. If the Democrats hadn't blocked that bill, the companies wouldn't have melted down. Of course, if the Democrats hadn't blocked that bill, they wouldn't have been able to give so much to Democrats in campaign contributions.
Parent
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Funny)
Obama is just as "neck deep" if not more in "the biggest baking scandal / bailout in US history"
Personally, I'm appalled at the special treatment the baking industry is getting. It's not my fault they made too many cookies and loaves of bread and had to eat the loss when they spoiled. Why should I have to pay for their lack of foresight? They decided to overbake because they got greedy, and then they got caught with their pants down. They now have to try and sell a ton of day-old bread that no one really wants at steep discounts, and my tax money gets to make up the difference? Give me a break!
Sure, you hear a lot of nonsense about how the baking crisis could spill over into the fried foods industry or, heaven help us, deli meats, but I don't believe it for a second. We have plenty of preservative-laden Wonder Bread to take us past any temporary fresh bread shortage, and if worse comes to worst we still have emergency Twinkie rations left over from the Great Yeast Die-Off of 1983.
All this talk of a bailout is short-sighted and foolish. If we bail out the bakers now, who's next? The butchers? The candlestick makers? It boggles the mind.
Parent
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Funny)
Not that type of baking, silly. This kind [dilbert.com].
Parent
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Informative)
Follow-up Senator Obama. Senator McCain released all his health records back in 1999 [cnn.com]. Will you match Senator McCain and release all your records prior to 2000?
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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."?
Parent
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.
Parent
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
Parent