1. it is dominated by foreign policy issues, esp troops on foreign soil. why don't we collapse most of those into a single "troops stationed abroad" item? that would be distinct from afghanistan and iraq.
2. can't we make this list shorter, generally? surely we could find a handful of issues, say a dozen, that would really tell us what we want to know?
On 8/7/07, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
> Issues over which disagreement would be of interest.
>
> Troops stationed in Korea.
> Troops stationed in Western Europe.
> Nuclear Proliferation.
> Reduction of U.S. Nuclear weapons to minimum for retaliation.
> Troops stationed in Kuwait.
> National rail passenger system, seriously subsidized with federal funds.
> Nationalization of electric power.
> War-level spending in rehabilitation of central cities.
> Withdrawal of support for opposition in Venezuela.
> Senseless ness of War on Crime.
> Senselessness of War on Terror.
> Senselessness of War on Drugs.
> Federally enforced Living (not minimum) Wage.
> Increase number of Supreme Court justices.
> Withdrawal of troops from former Yugoslavia.
> Stopping aid to Israel.
> Withdrawal from Afghanistan & Iraq.
> Military presence in Philippines.
> Troops on Okinawa.
> Open Borders.
> Federal funding of local schools. (Equal expenditure per child in all
> school systems.)
>
> That's a small start in seriously examining "difference" between
> parties.
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
-- http://brainmortgage.blogspot.com/