I've proposed a system for this in the past.


Basically, each candidate would need to develop a 10 question multiple choice "quiz" about their policies.  When you go on one of those nice touch-screen voting machines and select "Bob Smith", you would then be presented with this quiz.  If you got <5 correct, then your vote would be silently discarded and not counted.


First off, it would ensure that only those people who actually knew something about the candidate they supported would be voting for that candidate.  If you don't know what you're voting for, why should your vote count?


Second, as a secondary benefit, it would reduce the amount of "negative" campaigning.  If you spend all your advertising money telling voters what a jackass Doug McKenzie is, then those who go and vote for you won't have a clue how to answer the questions.  Candidates will be forced by necessity to spend their time and money on ads about what their platform is, and that will take money and time away from the negative attacks.

What were your and his college majors?

I thought all Packers fans were pinko commie delusional freaks!

I guess I was biased against CAPD.


I loved the book...it was the first Clancy book I ever read, and I had to buy a new copy a few years ago because I'd worn out the paperback version thereof! 


The movie sucked really bad for people who had read the book.  The portrayal of John Clark as a money-grubbing mercenary, and the killing of Dan Murray, made me sick to my stomach when I saw the movie.  I remember another person who saw the movie but hadn't read the book that absolutely loved the movie...but I was forever negative on the movie.

Socialism/Communism/Fascism/Progressivism are just synonyms for the same thing.  Oligarchy.  Control in the hands of the few that do NOT EARN IT.  They risk nothing, but their cult of personality.  Our society is crumbling before our eyes, yet many can not see that.  Kommiefornia is a ruptured shell of itself.  It is unsustainable, and that's where we are all going.

I want to address this and it took me some reflection to figure a way to properly communicate to the audience here.
 
I first want to say that the over-arching principle should be respect for the property of others and their beliefs, even if one doesn't agree.  In Islam, forced conversion is not condoned.  Nevermind what we hear on the news, I'm telling you from my scholarship and from principles of correctness that "there is no compulsion in Religion (Islam)", reads the Holy Qur'an.  It is proper to judge the actions of someone against what they say they believe in.  The HQ says that it is abhorrent to say one thing and do another.  So if one were to condemn any action it should be done based upon the principles that have been professed and not from our own perspective; 'judge a man on what he says he believes' - Prophet Muhammad, pbuh.
 
Should an "ancient" Buddhist statue be destroyed?  When I first read the passage, it did not agree with me on the face of it.  It seemed against what I believe and what my scholarship tells me is proper conduct.  But what are the circumstances under which Bob Noel is speaking?  It is unknown at this juncture.  With the help of our friend Google, we find this.  I assume this is to what he was referring, an incident that occurred in 2001.  Certainly, a turbulent time in Afghanistan and many other parts of the world where antiquities were destroyed (ancient Iraqi libraries and museums, anyone?).
 
In thought, I likened the situation to a question of would I destroy an ancient Madonna.  It depends upon the circumstances.  It may also depend upon if one would consider 1500 years to qualify as "ancient" or the fact that the man Siddhata Gotama, known as the Buddha was alive only 2,500 years ago.  This is recent from my vantage point.
 
As I stated in a previous post, I have purchased property and subsequently whatever was left behind was my choice to with the contents as I saw fit.  I think there is no error in the rightful owner, inhabitant or controller of a parcel of land or property to do as they please with the remains.  However, it may be preferable that if one finds something that may be of value (even if sentimental) to gift it to someone who would appreciate it, assuming that it's transportable.  But it is not required.
 
In the case of the Taliban, they considered they were the absolute ruling party of the land and had the authority to establish religious rule there.  If the religion was declared something that is in conflict with the statue, then it would be lawful to remove the relic, as in the case of the story of Prophet Muhammad removing 360 idols from the Kahbah (I have been unable to corroborate if they were removed or destroyed, but destroyed seems much more likely and no one have since missed the idols).
 
If however, you are on a military campaign and you are the invading force, according to the precepts of the Islamic laws of conduct of war, it is NOT appropriate to destroy or target religious relics in the land that you are invading.  This is in keeping with a Hadith regarding respect for your enemy's property, livestock and crop - you may not destroy or harm it (intentionally), not even a single tree.  Every effort is to be made so that if peace can be brokered and hostilities ceased, peace will not be disturbed by deep-seated resentment causing the peace to be broken.

Lastly, religion has been corrupted. This includes Islam.  There are some symbols that SHOULD come down that worship in this day will only be for The Creator, Lord and Sustainer of all the Worlds.  This is a video that I saw recently of a Christian preacher discussing how religion and religious idolatry has become an obstacle for True worship.  I hope that you get something of value from it.
 
Peace.