Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A political experiment

FortKnox (169099) writes | about 8 years ago

United States 33

You're either a money-grabbing, world wide wrestling loving, gun toting rich bastard, or a tax loving, 5 million new buracracy suggesting, dirty hippy.
The one thing I hate about our political system is the extremists. Either Bush can do no wrong, or Bush can do no right. Either the liberals are just digging for something to bitch about, or they are doing hard work.You're either a money-grabbing, world wide wrestling loving, gun toting rich bastard, or a tax loving, 5 million new buracracy suggesting, dirty hippy.
The one thing I hate about our political system is the extremists. Either Bush can do no wrong, or Bush can do no right. Either the liberals are just digging for something to bitch about, or they are doing hard work.

So, I've got an idea. Tell me your political swing (somewhat conservative, hardcore liberal)... be HONEST...
Now tell me what you AGREE WITH on the other side.
So its a little reverse roleplay... instead of bitching on whats wrong... lets talk about the pieces we LIKE from the other side. If you are a hardcore liberal, tell me some things about Bush you like. If you are a hardcore conservative, tell me what points the liberals complain about that you agree with...

And please... PLEASE... stay civil... the idea is to point out things we like, not bitch at those that agree with stuff you don't agree with.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

i'm a centrist (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 8 years ago | (#16105920)

what i like about both parties is that i think by the time they've completely wrecked the country i'll be dead.
on a side note, i have a hard time seeing how anyone can seriously try to differentiate between either group of politicians. they are exactly the same content in different packaging.

Re:i'm a centrist (1)

nocomment (239368) | about 8 years ago | (#16106923)

I think you've missed a point around here somehwere. ;)

Re:i'm a centrist (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 8 years ago | (#16108131)

i know - i'm so contrary.

Social Conservative, Fiscal Liberal (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 years ago | (#16106310)

In other words, Roman Catholic is my default bent. But lately, I find my self getting discouraged with the virtues of patience and forgiveness- and drawn into the politics of revenge instead. I don't like that about myself OR the side that supports it, who are equally out of favor politically at the moment- more extreme than the "extremeists". In fact, you could say I'm more extreme than the extremeists on a lot of things- I prefer distributism to communism, genocide to conventional warfare, the "Seamless Garment Of Life" to "Right to Life", etc. I end up agreeing with a lot of people you'd think should be my enemies, and disagreeing with a lot of people you'd think should be my friends.

Not exactly... (1)

ellem (147712) | about 8 years ago | (#16106313)

seems the gun toters are wacky ass liberals []

Gun violence (1)

rk (6314) | about 8 years ago | (#16107234)

It's not just for breakfast anymore!

I don't know... (2, Insightful)

pythorlh (236755) | about 8 years ago | (#16106353)

I don't know where I am on the spectrum. I certainly can't agree with the extremes of either party. I would have voted for Bush in the last election, but I was out of town unexpectedly on election day. I absolutely would not vote for him now. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anyone I would vote for lately.

What I like:

  • I like lower taxes.
  • I like welfare reform.
  • I like less gun control.
  • I think abortion should be allowed, but not encouraged.
  • I think recreational drugs should be legalized, but heavily regulated.
  • I like school vouchers.
  • I want cheaper tuition for state colleges.
  • I like gay rights, including marriage.
  • I don't like affirmative action.
  • I like personal responsibilty.
  • I agreed with the invasion of Iraq at the time, though in hindsight, it was not worth doing (since we haven't found any real WMDs).
  • I want us to stay in Iraq until insurgency stops.
  • I want us to stop paying for Israel's military.
  • I want us to increase scientific spending in the US.
  • I want us to decrease airport security to pre-9/11/01 levels.
  • I want a stronger border.
  • I want fewer limitations on legal immigration.
  • I want laws that make sense for people, not corporations.
  • I want politicians with integrity, not connections.

What does that make me? An idiot, to many, because I am on both sides of this fence.

Re:I don't know... (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 8 years ago | (#16106690)

I'm very similar to you, although I do disagree with some of your points. I'd consider myself a centrist who tends to vote republican (registered as a republican).
However, I'm not offended by gays or gay rights. They should have the same rights as everyone else (but no special rights). Gays marrying? Gays adopting? More power to them. Although I'm a pretty big Christian, I think that if the basis of love, anything is possible.
I'm against the death penalty, which is a big conservative thing. Maybe in extreme circumstances, but even then I'd rather have them locked in a cage somewhere away from society than to put a gun to their head.
I want gun control to lessen, airport security to lessen... in fact, lemmie get on the patriot act.
I was for the Patriot Act when it was enacted... To be more secure, liberties had to be sacrificed... though the theory is that when things are secure, you slowly bring the liberties back until you are were you were before the incident. So I'm a little upset that we haven't been given some liberties back. Instead of just 'keeping' the patriot act, they should start paring things off.
For the most recent arguments, I side with John McCain over torture. They torture us? That's cause they are savages... we're a sophisticated society that shouldn't be falling to their level. And he's the one who'd have the biggest reason FOR torture, and yet he's against it. One caveat on this: I'm a huuuge McCain fan, so take that with a grain of salt.

Patriot Act (1)

Morosoph (693565) | about 8 years ago | (#16109907)

Trouble is, even when it was enacted, it was security theatre, and played upon many human cognitive errors. Notably, we should (be seen to) respond to the last event, rather than a rational appraisal of risks. To my mind, a general feeling that something should be done is no reason to disconnect one's brain; in fact, it is a reason to fight harder to restore sanity. Thus my respect for the bulk of those who voted for the USAPATRIOT act is close to zero. Their reaction to mass hysteria was exactly the opposite of what it should have been.

The error goes deeper (and is more subtle) than this, for even though some of the laws passed might have been marginally effective, there was no attempt in any kind of cost-benefit analysis. Even if an event causes a rational reappraisal of risks, the response should be to put it into a cost-benefit calculus to judge which changes would do the most good. It appears, rather that "law an order" won a few points, and "liberty" lost a few, without any reference to effectiveness, "balance of interests" may make for good horse-trading and easy political arguments, but it is bunkum in the face of a proper analysis of which changes would be the most effective.

I am in broad agreement with the rest of the list.

Agree almost 100% (1)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | about 8 years ago | (#16106822)

Good list.

I'm not with you on the not sending money to Israel though.

The main thing I'm for is reasoned debate based on the facts. (Yes, on some subjects there aren't really a set of facts that everyone agrees on.)

I'm against pork spending. Anything in a spending bill should be directly related to the bill and nothing more. If that means more bills out of the legislature than so be it.

I'm for term limits and against any campaign funding limits. I say give and spend all you want but report every penny.

Maybe it's time for some of us to form the "Hopelss Optimists" party.

Oh yeah, I also don't think invading Iraq was a mistake even though we didn't find very many WMD's.

Re:Agree almost 100% (1)

pythorlh (236755) | about 8 years ago | (#16107040)

On the Iraq issue, I would rather that we had stayed out of there until there was a real, clear, popular reason to go in. WMD were such a reason, but they failed to materialise. The next time Saddam had decided to gas some of his people would have worked too. In the meantime, we could have spent more time and troops in Afghanistan, and found Bin Laden. Put him on trial, and get rid of him.

Re:Agree almost 100% (1)

SamTheButcher (574069) | about 8 years ago | (#16108830)

And I agree with you, except on the Israel thing (what are we buying there? I'm not sure.) and on the Iraq thing. Bad idea from the start, IMO.

And here I thought we mostly disagreed on political stuff. :)

Well, we probably still do. :D

I'm really not that political (1)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | about 8 years ago | (#16113348)

I've certainly become a bit more hard edged lately but that's because I perceive a real lack of "taking the situation seriously" from a lot of the anti-war side.

First, off, I'm 100% anti-war. War is bad. HOWEVER, sticking your head in the sand and hoping things magically get better isn't a solution to anything.

In the case of Iraq we actually had been in a state of war with them for 12 years and just didn't bother following through. The cease-fire that Iraq had agreed to was constantly violated, the sanctions regime was a joke and UN members were actively working to dismantle what little was left of it. The calculus of ignoring issues until they got too big was proven to be a bad one with the attack of 9/11.

We had a large number of soldiers and material tied up enforcing the "No Fly Zone" and the inspection process had stalled until we increased the troop numbers around Iraq again. We certainly couldn't maintain those levels for multiple years and Saddam was still busy playing cat-and-mouse with the inspectors.

So, at that point we really had two options. Pull out or invade. Now we can't ever say what would have happened had we simply pulled out and lifted the sanctions but we certainly can't claim that Saddam was "in the box" and wouldn't threaten anyone. (He was sending off large checks to families of suicide bombers while under the sanctions regime. He also had sent $10 million to North Korea for long-range missiles that were in direct violation of his cease-fire obligations.)

Have things gone swimmingly in Iraq? Hell no. There are problems and we may not like the country we wind up with in the end, but I still think it was the best of the two bad choices.

Re:I'm really not that political (1)

SamTheButcher (574069) | more than 7 years ago | (#16132518)

In the case of Iraq we actually had been in a state of war with them for 12 years and just didn't bother following through.

I frequently forget that very point. Thanks for reminding me.

Re:I don't know... (1)

IpalindromeI (515070) | about 8 years ago | (#16107946)

I agree on everything except invading Iraq (because I didn't think there were WMDs) and Israel (not informed enough on that to have an opinion).

A while ago one of my good friends was having a political discussion with my wife. In the midst, he turned and asked me what my political sway is, and I told him that I don't know. I know what I agree with and what I don't, but I have other things to do than keep track of which "side" each issue is on. I listen to the candidates when deciding who to vote for, rather than just seeing a republican or democrat. Often in the past I have only been tangentially aware of which party a particular candidate represents.

For the record, I voted libertarian in the last presidential election.

Re:I don't know... (1)

pythorlh (236755) | about 8 years ago | (#16108137)

I don't particularly feel that we should be spending a ton of money on any other nation's military. I almost mentioned Japan, but there at least it's our military, and we just agree to defend their interests. Really, any time our government directly pays another government without it being rent or such, I'm annoyed. If you're interested in helping out poor nations with their infrastructure, then fund a non-profift organisation for that purpose. Don't give money to the government. And really, that's not out government's place anyway. Militarily, it helps to have strong allies, so I can agree with sharing military training and technology with our allies. I can't understand paying their bills for them. In Israel's case, we're paying both them and Eqypt to stop fighting some 40 years ago. I think we can stop now.

Re:I don't know... (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 years ago | (#16108877)

I would have voted for Bush in the last election, but I was out of town unexpectedly on election day. I absolutely would not vote for him now.

What changed in his performance between 2004 and 2006?

Re:I don't know... (1)

pythorlh (236755) | about 8 years ago | (#16109319)

My biggest beef is the executive orders authorising what I consider to be unethical privacy violations, such as the eavesdropping program. In addition to that, there are alot of failings of his administration. The problems in Iraq and Katrina are examples of such. He might not be directly responsible for either, or he might. Either way, he's the man in charge, and I think someone else would do better.

Re:I don't know... (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 years ago | (#16109361)

Ah, aside from Katrina, I had heard of all of this before 2004. I had forgotten that it didn't hit the mass media until after the election.

I'm extremist nut job (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | about 8 years ago | (#16106663)

The left isn't left, the right isn't right. If scientology wasn't already a corrupted term, I'd bend it to my own means, but a bunch of nut jobs took it instead.

I believe in executing people who do exceedingly stupid things.

I catch flies in cups and put them outside.

I believe in freedom of information.

I have no ethical qualms about executing many of the performers on MTV[1].

I believe in protecting freedom and liberties.

I am a strong supporter of property rights.

I am a strong supporter of environmental regulations.

Those last two I resolve as such:

You have the right to do what you want on you property. Have your own polygamous church that requires all women to carry around large fully automatic machine guns. Whatever.

Just don't chop down the trees.

I believe in peace and non-violence.

Except for when I believe in bashing people's heads in.

My overall theoretical world view is pacifistic. My implementation strays for the specifications a bit and encourages large amounts of overt and blunt violence.

For instance, my comment on testing non-lethal weapons on politicians. []

I think the best response was from the user who proposed charging extra for crotch shots.

I emphasize easily, which makes it hard for me to really hate things after I have thought about them for a bit. But the things that I remain pissed off about tend to be so horrific...

It is hard to explain. When someone in power hurts those without, my inner desire, my inner self, says justice must prevail. Destroy the one who has become corrupted, end his existence for ever, for that is right, and that is proper.

When I see how much good people could do, and then I see them do evil instead.... I try not to cry at this moment thinking about it.

I think of the dead, whom killed in our name, and I wonder how anyone can support such acts and wear a cross on their arm.

[1] Specifically any songs that deal with "f*ing the b*es, the joys of crack, or are just excuses to make a music video showing guys humping a girl's leg

I'm an anarchist (2, Insightful)

eglamkowski (631706) | about 8 years ago | (#16106721)

There's really nothing for me to agree with from either the democrats or republicans, since everything they stand for these days represents more taxes, more spending, more centralized power. Nobody (politicians) stands for freedom any more, especially not freedom from government.

A surprisingly large amount (1)

peacefinder (469349) | about 8 years ago | (#16107174)

My political leaning: Moderate libertarian moderate leftist independent.

I agree that the war in Iraq, as envisioned by the Project for a New American Century, could have been a worthwhile undertaking. (But this administation went about it badly.) I agree that we shouldn't just up sticks and leave Iraq in its current state.

I agree that abortion after the first trimester, with a few exceptions, should be strongly discouraged at least, and possibly illegal.

I agree that we need a strong military and foreign intelligence service. I agree that part of this includes nuclear-armed submarines and a widespread electronic surveillance capability.

I agree that we need to allow nuclear power. (But only of fail-safe designs such as pebble bed reactors.)

I agree that it on occasion may be appropriate and necessary to hold battlefield-captured "enemy combatants" totally incommunicado for very limited periods.

I'm a STAUNCH undecided... (1)

TopShelf (92521) | about 8 years ago | (#16107563)

Here's what we need more of:
Lower Trade Barriers (the developing world needs commercial opportunity, not handouts)
Simplification of the tax code. Every exception favors a minority at the expense of the rest.
Greater respect for international institutions and treaties we have signed on to.
Widespread enforcement of our borders and labor laws regarding illegal aliens. If an illegal is caught speeding, get him into the process of deportation, don't just give him a ticket and let him go.
Politicians who can work [] with the opposite party.

Here's what we need less of:
Morally-driven "bans" on certain behavior in the form of federal law (online gambling, gay marriage, etc.)
Tax breaks to alleviate soaring costs of [education, health care, etc.]. Giving consumers more dollars to spend on something only accelerates inflation in that sector.
Partisan bickering. Give us some f**king statesmen already.
The federal deficit. We had a rare opportunity trim the debt substantially and provide real tax relief, but the Republicans flushed it away.
The embargo on Cuba. It's a blight on our diplomatic standing throughout Latin America.

That's all I could think of today.

It's funny... (1)

Otter (3800) | about 8 years ago | (#16107687)

It's funny how most people are responding while completely ignoring your question...

Anyway, I'm a center-rightist and McCain voter, fairly similar to you. My two main points of leftism are:

  • Environmentalism
  • A suspicion that single-payer heatlth care is the least-bad option

hard one (1)

nocomment (239368) | about 8 years ago | (#16108090)

Perhaps a Regan Conservative; if such a thing actually existed. Not ultra Right, but definitely Right-leaning. Right to life, right to keep and bare arms, small governement: meaning as few social policies as possible, and stop passing so many laws!!! Leave the lawmaking to local officials, move more power back to the States. Keep Social Security, but make it voluntary (you'd have to prove you are taking care of things on your own), Vouchers for Schools as someone else has said.

As for what I agree with on the left? Uhm probably replacing Howard Dean with Kerry. That was a good move.

As is the subtle distinction they are making between 'dependence on oil' and 'dependence on *foriegn* oil'. There is more but not much more.

FK: How about when this JE has run it's course post another JE about what you disagree with in your own party?

What I believe... (1)

SamTheButcher (574069) | about 8 years ago | (#16108749)

I believe that robots are stealing our luggage.

Sorry, old Steve Martin skit. :)

Okay, here's where I come from. I'm anti-corporate; pro-states rights; anti-federal government; pro-universal health care; pro-environment (although I think I already said I was anti-corporate :P); pro-civil/personal/privacy rights; pro-choice; anti-religion (or pro-separation-of-church-and-state and yes, this means no "under God" in the Pledge); pro-public schools/education funding, although there's a place for private schools as well; pro-gun-control but I do believe in keeping the law-abiding public armed....

Many would say that I'm confused. I call myself a liberal-terian. :)

What do I like about the other side? I like that they keep me honest. :) No...I've said it before, I like Bush when he's just talking from the hip about what he knows. Non-scripted. He's personable, and I think he'd do more good if he were allowed. I like John McCain - well, I did before he started whoring himself out to special interests/the voting "machine", sucking up to Iowa, that sort of stuff.

It's a tough question to answer because of all the rhetoric and absolute-ism that's practiced nowadays. You can see from my description above that I'm all over the map.

I'll have to read some responses and see what I agree with. This is a *great* idea, though, and I'm taking it in the spirit it was presented and trying to think of things that Republicans do that I like. But it's hard differentiating between Republicans and NeoCons. Again, I like the idea. Josh for Prez! :)

Question on US politics (1)

webhat (558203) | about 8 years ago | (#16111716)

I was wondering, if you register as an Independant, do you get to vote in the Republican and Democratic Primaries?

I'm a socialist, with conservative tendancies...

Re:Question on US politics (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 8 years ago | (#16113696)

Not in most states... in fact, you don't 'register' to a party in Ohio. If you vote in a primary, you just 'registered' for that party. I always considered myself a reformist (though the party, itself, needs reformed), but ended up republican cause I wanted to get a republican out of office...

I am pretty liberal, and have libertartian leaning (1)

nizo (81281) | about 8 years ago | (#16116252)

Frankly, I could argue that Bush isn't even pushing the Republican agenda, so I will stick with the typical "conservative" agenda instead.

- I want a smaller national government. That would lower taxes faster than any tax cut. So far neither major party really seems to be taking real steps to make this happen.
- The death penalty is justifiable in some cases, for the protection of society. Has it been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you killed 50 people over the past twenty years with an axe? Yeah I would call you a threat to society, so until we can get a nice secure penal colony on the moon, adios to you.
- Gun control: I hate guns, but I can see why people want them. I give a cautious thumbs up to guns used for hunting (again, I don't hunt, but some people do), though I do still have a problem with handguns (sole purpose: killling people. Yeah I know some people target shoot with them too, and of course want them for home defense.) So I am a mixed bag on this issue :-)
- Abortion: I think it is indeed snuffing out a potential life, but I also would say it shouldn't be up to me to tell someone else they can't get one. Old enough to get pregnant should be old enough to decide for herself.

All that said, I firmly believe everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, and I don't want to change people's beliefs. However, I don't think morality should always be legislated either, particularly when an action has pretty much no direct impact on anyone else (gay marriage comes to mind here for example, though I wouldn't call it marriage: civil union would be more appropriate). The purpose of laws should be to maintain an orderly society (while reducing as few rights as possible), which can at times conflict with the goals of faith, one purpose of which is to define morality. Note that one religion's moral beliefs can directly conflict with those of another religion (which is where the whole "need laws to live together in society" thing kicks in).

Re:I am pretty liberal, and have libertartian lean (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 8 years ago | (#16116412)

This is NOT an argument (or an attempt to start one)... just me asking for a clarification:
Old enough to get pregnant should be old enough to decide for herself.

You are saying if a little 13 year old girl gets pregnant she is old enough to decide on an abortion?

Again... I'm not trying to start an arguement, nor do I want anyone else to. I just want to clarify that you thought of that particular instance. I don't mind what you say (well, I do, but I'm not going to argue... you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that).

Re:I am pretty liberal, and have libertartian lean (1)

nizo (81281) | about 8 years ago | (#16116751)

In a word: yes. However in an ideal world, that 13 year old would have access to birth control without parental consent; which to me is waaaaay preferable to getting pregnant and having to decide between having a child or getting an abortion. Don't get me wrong: in my opinion 13 is way too young to be having sex (with or without birth control) or having a child; but my (or anyone else's) feelings on the matter aren't keeping young kids from having unprotected sex. To me the best way to stop kids from having abortions is 1) sex education and 2) ready access to birth control. Legislation won't do it, and hiding the facts from kids won't either. Ironically many people who feel a girl can't make any of these decisions without parental consent are more than happy to try a 13 year old for murder as an adult.

Of course I say all this while I reconsider buying a shotgun to ward off the lil slobberin' boyfolk who will be chasing around my daughters soon.

p.s. I respect your opinion too. This is one of those issues that most likely everyone will never agree on. I personally wrestle with it often, but I always end up coming back to this: ready access to birth control will reduce abortions more than any other method. I certainly appreciate hearing other people's opinions and reasoning; I have said it before and will say it again: It would be a sad world indeed if I never heard any opinions that differed from mine.

Re:I am pretty liberal, and have libertartian lean (1)

peacefinder (469349) | about 8 years ago | (#16127766)

"You are saying if a little 13 year old girl gets pregnant she is old enough to decide on an abortion?"

I find it's pretty clear if it's phrased in a different way: Is a 13 year old girl old enough to consent to sex?

If she is old enough to consent to sex, then she has taken sufficient control over her body to make choices with long-term consequences. She's already become the captain of her fate, so she should be allowed to choose how to deal with the consequences of her previous choices.

If she is not old enough to consent, then a crime has been committed against her. She didn't get pregnant by herself.* Regardless of how the pregnancy ends there is another serious problem here, and the debate over underage abortion seems often to ignore this elephant in the room.

Of course, I agree that a typical 13 year old girl is not old enough to choose an abortion... but neither is she old enough to choose to bear a baby to term. Either choice has serious long-term consequences which she is almost certainly unequipped to evaluate. That's why we don't consider her old enough to consent to sex. The main problem isn't really which choice she makes after becoming pregnant. The main problem is that she became pregnant. At the point when the 13 year old girl discovers she's pregnant, society and its law has already failed to protect her and all the remaining choices are bad for her no matter who makes them.

[*: The law should ensure that any consequences of the pregnancy are also shared by the male parent. It's no good just leaving the girl to hang out to dry.]

No label for me that I know of. (1)

rdewald (229443) | about 8 years ago | (#16128376)

I think I lean a bit towards what Europeans mean by Socialist, but I'm not really sure enough about what that means to apply the label myself.

I believe that government should promote the existence of a healthy society by discouraging the extremes, i.e., disadvantaged people should be made more advantaged and the advantaged should forfeit some of that advantage. I think policy decisions should be based upon empirical evidence only, i;e;, what can be demonstrated with cold hard statistics. For example, it seems that fewer laws on things like "decency" promote lower illegitimate birth rates and fewer laws on recreational drugs promote lower addiction rates. One's sense of what is right and wrong may lead one to want to promote a moral code by legislation but it is time we admit this just doesn't work. Another thing that doesn't work is resolving differences with violence. We need to put as much (or more, actually) of our effort and brainpower into figuring out how to peacefully coexist as we currently put into weapon development.

I think it is the government's job to provide for the health and well-being of the governed, including health care. We should have another branch of national service, like the military in every way except in mission, to provide health care to everyone. I believe "choice" in health care is another way of saying "making profits from suffering." It should be illegal to profit from anyone's suffering.

I think we can measure the progress and success of our country by ways other than economic measures. The gross national product is a very poor measure of the success of a society. We could develop metrics that really looked at the quality and safety of people's lives and pay much less attention to whether or not money is being made. This unquestioning value of promoting economic growth at the expense of all other metrics is a real problem for the modern world. Who says we need more money all the time? What do we need it for?

Bush has been right on immigration reform and not much else. My dissent is not blind, he is just very ill-suited for his job. He'd make a superb baseball commissioner. I knew from the start that the action in Iraq was in too large in part motivated by his subconscious, unexamined desire for revenge for Hussein's assassination attempt on his father. The real problem is that Bush lacks the heartfelt understanding of the value of introspection and he lacks the personal character to courageously indulge in the kind of honest self-examination to realize this himself.

I think we should leave Iraq as soon as possible. It is the way it is now because in large part of our presence. Without an enemy to rally people in opposition to the forces of violence there would be much less persuasive, just as Hamas would not exist without Israeli racism and abuse. We need to leave and apologize for our mistake as soon as possible. It will be ugly, but that's the least ugly way to peace.

I think private finance of political campaigns whould be expressedly forbidden with disqualification of the promoted candidate being the penalty for any private campaign expenditures, except when it can be demonstrated that the opposition did the promotion as a dirty trick. In place of legitimate lobbying there should be academy of political research, publicly funded, which only gather statistics and promotes philosophical development. K street should be turned into a parking lot. They need the parking space.

I believe it should be illegal to own more than one media outlet. That's it, one newspaper, one radio station, one TV station, period. If you own one, you can't buy another of any size at any other place in the country.

I think travel should be heavily subsidized. It should cost no more that $50 to go anywhere in the country.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>