Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

20 questions: What to ask the Presidential candidates
Manchester Union Leader ^ | January 5, 2003 | Editorial

Posted on 01/05/2004 2:46:15 AM PST by billorites

ALL YOU Democratic and independent voters not committed to one of the nine Democratic candidates for President, listen up. Should you find yourself face to face with one of said candidates and at a loss to come up with an important-sounding question to ask, feel free to use one of the following.

1. How do you think Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland and America’s other allies in the Iraq war and the War on Terror would react if they knew that in your campaign rhetoric you have completely ignored their contributions to these efforts and repeatedly insisted on characterizing President Bush’s foreign policy as entirely “unilateral,” as if no other nation joined America in defeating the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?

2. Four years from now Baby Boomers will begin to retire. Not long after that retirees in America will greatly outnumber those who pay Social Security taxes. Specifically, how will you keep Social Security from running out of money?

3. Would you ever use military force without United Nations approval, and if so, under what circumstances?

4. Should the United States always wait until attacked before using military force against an enemy?

5. As President, what, if any, business regulations would you attempt to repeal?

6. Do recent medical advances allowing unborn children to survive outside the womb sooner than ever before require any re-examination of abortion policies?

7. Will you pledge never to appoint a pro-life federal judge? What other litmus tests would you apply to the judiciary?

8. Should sales over the Internet remain tax-free?

9. If the rich should pay a larger portion of their income in taxes because they can afford to, shouldn’t they also receive fewer Medicare, Social Security and other benefits from the federal government?

10. Does every qualified American have the right to attend college, with government subsidies if necessary?

11. Are pharmaceutical companies good corporate citizens?

12. In what areas of life would you prevent the federal government from interfering?

13. Regardless of whether it is a federal issue, has the time come for gay marriage?

14. Will there ever be a day when affirmative action is no longer needed?

15. Name a war that America has fought for oil.

16. Is it appropriate for the billionaire George Soros, one of the richest men in America, to spend his money trying to discredit and oust a President?

17. To what degree did Bill Clinton’s behavior in office damage the presidency?

18. Why have Americans elected a Republican President and Congress?

19. In every other nation in which health care is paid for by the national government, that care is rationed and citizens must wait months, even years, for treatment. How would you avoid this outcome in the United States?

20. Suppose you win the nomination. If, in the general election, President Bush wins the popular vote by a few hundred thousand votes, but you win the Electoral College vote, will you concede the election to Bush, as so many Democrats said President Bush should have done for Al Gore in 2000?


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; electionpresident

1 posted on 01/05/2004 2:46:15 AM PST by billorites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: billorites
21)Why are is the President using U.S. worker tax dollars to fund Illegal Aliens?

"Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of July 15, 2003"

BUSH MAY SPEND U.S. TAX DOLLARS TO PROVIDE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS TO MEXICANS LIVING IN MEXICO

"With Social Security facing projections of insolvency, an Administration plan would hasten that crisis by sending hundreds of millions of dollars in Social Security payments to Mexican citizens living in Mexico - including those who have worked illegally in the United States."

ILLEGAL ALIENS WOULD BENEFIT

"Under current law, people who worked illegally in the U.S. can only become eligible for Social Security benefits by becoming citizens or legal permanent residents. But officials at the State Department and Social Security Administration (SSA) are preparing a scheme that would pay benefits to illegal aliens who have returned to Mexico."

DIFFERENT THAN 20 OTHER BILATERAL DEALS

"The agreement would be part of a series of executive agreements designed to ensure that people from one country working in another have their Social Security taxes paid into the home country’s social security systems. The U.S. has 20 such treaties with other [countries], but this one would be dramatically different - not only in sheer numbers of people affected, but also because it would be the first to make illegal aliens eligible for Social Security benefits for their illegal employment."


2 posted on 01/05/2004 2:50:53 AM PST by chicagolady (Jesus, Be my Magnificent Obsession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Rank Location Receipts Donors/Avg Freepers/Avg Monthlies
47 Nebraska 25.00
1
25.00
78
0.32
3.00
1

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

3 posted on 01/05/2004 2:51:02 AM PST by Support Free Republic (I'd rather be sleeping. Let's get this over with so I can go back to sleep!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: billorites
There's only going to be one democrat presidential candidate. Here's the question you want to ask her:

"Tell us what all you know about Vince Foster: what does it feel like to kill somebody you used to sleep with?

5 posted on 01/05/2004 5:00:37 AM PST by greenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greenwolf
"Tell us what all you know about Vince Foster: what does it feel like to kill somebody you used to sleep with?"

She's into guys?

6 posted on 01/05/2004 5:04:46 AM PST by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: billorites
12. In what areas of life would you prevent the federal government from interfering?

I think the Constitution is pretty clear on this one.

Our elected officials have been failing this question for 40 years.
7 posted on 01/05/2004 5:07:02 AM PST by WhiteGuy (Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
A question for all candidates of all parties for all federal electtions; How will you save America's children from the 80% lifetime federal tax rate that the Washington elites plan for them?
8 posted on 01/05/2004 5:27:37 AM PST by yoswif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
16. Is it appropriate for the billionaire George Soros, one of the richest men in America, to spend his money trying to discredit and oust a President?
The plain meaning of the Constitution is that anyone can spend as much as they want to print and distribute expressions of their viewpoint on anything. Whether or not the money was donated for the purpose individually or collectively or (what is practically the same thing) was paid for subscriptions to the publication in question.

Not that the government is now willing to be limited by the First Amendment . . .

9 posted on 01/05/2004 6:24:35 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
2. Four years from now Baby Boomers will begin to retire. Not long after that retirees in America will greatly outnumber those who pay Social Security taxes. Specifically, how will you keep Social Security from running out of money?
The Democratic Party will of course continue to wage political war on prudence--it exists for no other purpose.

The sovereign remedy for a predicitible future cash crunch is savings--in the past hopefully, but certainly in the present and immediate future. The problem we will in future face is the extent to which the so-called savings in the "Social Security Trust Fund" represents merely a claim on general fund treasury revenues--an instruction to raise taxes in the future. At present that extent is, by Democrat-passed law, 100%.

If the SSTF is to represent other than a future claim on general fund tax revenues, it must be invested in something other than government bonds. Therefore if the SSTF is to represent other than a future claim on general fund tax revenues, it must be invested in corporate bonds and/or stocks.

But if the government invests the SSTF in corporate stocks the government will soon become the biggest stockholder in most of the largest corporations--will IOW destroy free enterprise. Therefore the investment of the SSTF in stocks must not be under government control. Therefore individual responsibility for investment of the SSTF is an inescapable necessity.

The SSTF must morph into millions of IRAs, one owned by each payroll tax payer.

The good news is however that the deferred tax liablilty of existing IRAs is an asset to the Treasury which will help defray the Treasury's huge SSFT liability. Infusion of payroll tax money into the stock market via the morphing of young workers' SSTF funds into IRAs will help sustain market stock valuations as the baby boom generation sells off its IRAs to fund its retirement lifestyle.

Unless the Democrats continue to successfully demagoging the issue of "privatizing Social Security."

10 posted on 01/05/2004 7:05:35 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson