Like best about OR casinos
the oregon casinos, probably the shows and entertainment and things to do
it is just fun, i don't know, the excitement
they are honest and prettty clean and neat
They are close-- you can just drive there
i just like to go there once in a while. nice good just nice. it's nice to get away and do something
They are close and they are smaller. They're more homey. Nice people, not loud and crowded.
kind of fun, have all the bells and whistles won a few times.
Nothing. I would like them to me smoke free.
I guess location, accessibility, some of them are non-smoking.
I like the environment inside the Casino.
I don't like anything about them. it causes gabling addiction
Well, don't like them, if we're at a certain, like on the coast, we'll stop by. Just for a couple of hours.
I like the fact that they have a bar with games inthem. The fact that they are small and everyone knows you.
I personally don't use them because of finances. I don't have money to burn. (p) they're in in material to me. I don't like them or hate them. We don't use them
Just to get away, we are not big gamblers, fun to play the penny machines
only Seven Feathers because it has Las Vegas-styled gambling
Not much, I'm not a gambler so it is ironic that I even stopped. The aprking and dining was good.
I don't have to get on an airplane to get to one, location I quess
well the one is close to where I live, it is kind of my break, my getaway
They are quiet,orderly, clean, no drinking at the machines.
I like the kined that makes a lot of nios
I don't like anything about them but aI accompany my mother
that they are not in my neighborhood. i am not a big gambler i went there once with my friends
they are fun to go to. i understand that you are trying to put slot machines in every neighborhood. i would go 100 percent against. there's a lot people who can't stay out of these thing. i have personally seen the damage it has done to people.
I play table games and I like that they have those
I have a hard time thinking of anything....probably the food.
It's simple. We like that they bring in entertainment
To be truthful, on the way to the coast we stop to use the bathroom, put in a few dollars, and leave. I don't think we're heavy into gambling.
The good food and some of the entetainment
Not too much, in fact. I am disappointed.
wel ive only been nothing I don't like anything about em
i haven't been there enough to establish an opinion i spose if I had to est anything at all it's that they have non-smoking sections
well i've only been to one so i'm not qualified to say
i don't know I don't know anything different
there more convienent because you don't have to travel to another state
I don't care for them all that much. I take my mom there.
alot of penny slots, no drinking at the tables and no smoking
i DON'T LIKE THEM, i AM A SLOT MACHINE MAN
theyre close at hand and the money goes to tribal agencies for the most part
they are convenient, closeby. Were not big gamblers. I suppose I could say the buffet.
it was just out of curiousity I problrably won't go back
I haven't thought about it. I don't know. I don't care about it.
Usually they are in places that you can visit, like the coast. That's the only place I go.
nothing really, i think they are a rip off
I'm pleased with the way that some of them give mony to the state and to them slves
Well, their restrooms and their eating facilities.
i don't like them I miss the Vegas style
I didn't play that much, I'm not really a gambler.
Bets the heck about me. Never really thought about it. Probably bingo.
I don't gamble a whole lot so I really don't have an opinion either way.
It was entertianing -- they had nice people working there
It isn't a pre-arranged ticket type thing. You put a bill in and play what you want.
their food, that's about it, I am not really crazy about casinos or gambling. It just doesn't appeal to me. I have gambled in Las Vegas, but I miss the sound of the ching ching of the money.
they are novelty. i don't see them as agood source of state revenue, but they are mildly enteraining i have two
Well just it was at spirit Mountain, all the people, lights stuff like that.
there close. and non smoking areas which is really great. spirit mountain has things to make you come back. schnook winds has entertainers. i used to drive my mom who is 80 years old.
Heavens, I don't know, I only played once. I really don't have an opinion on that.
we go to the indian casino, 7 feathers, it is clean and nice kinda like vegas
i reall don't know, theyre just a place to have some fun
i guess the convenience of passing through on the way to the beach and stopping for lunch.
i like the revenue that they generate for oregonians.
I like that their closer, that I don't have to go so far. I like to do a little gambling once in a while.
i don't know. i really don't like them at all
i dont know. we dont hardly ever go to 'em.
I don't like 'em at all. I only went as a favor to my mom.
I never really had a chance to judge it that far, I guess it's alright. It's been too long, eight years.
Not much, I haven't found one that's been particularly inviting.
I don't, I just did it on a fluke a couple of time, we walked in, had dinner, played a few dollars.
I don't really like to gamble, I just happen to go to the beach
i have been to some concerts at the oregon casinos
i don't know, i really don't like to gamble.
i don't really care for them one way or another I've only been there once in my life
i don't know that i have an answer to that what do I like best i don't know
i don't really like them , we go there eat, might as werll gamble.
i don't go that open, i guess the convinience,
couple things we liked have a no smoking section at Spirit Mountain. Like dealer checks to see if he has a blackjack as opposed to deal out the hand.
Oh, I think it's certainly a good thing for the tribes that were screwed out of their holdings back in the 1800-1900. Economically, it's boosted them tremendousl.y
i don't like anything about oregon casinos
Nothing, it's just entertainment. I like Vegas casinos better.
the one I play most is kineta its clean and they are firendly
oh to me it's all about th bar who's got the best bar
that they are close and I enjoy video poker
i like them much but maybe the people there
if we are the coast we go there to eat and maybe play a little or an entertainer
they have a good variety of slot machines
get away from the kids-- we go just to take 20 doollars
I like to watch the other people gamble, but i am not a gambler myself
Beautiful babes and hope of doubling money
I went with my wife. I could care less. My life likes 'em.
not anything it's just like recreation or something there's nothing appealing about them
I like the buffet and the no smoking while you eat
non-smoking isn't you know there's a non-smoking section
I don't like them because I have a gambling problem
the other amenitie they offer other than gambling
the one casino I was in was quiet, i remember that
nothing. i wish they didn't exist they father a lot of things that are not beneficial to the human race. It has caused a few p[eople a lot of happiness but more of the people have lost everything

Like least about OR casinos
I don't think any thing, except Cow Creek buying up land and doing nothing with it
the food it is terrible compared to Nevada and the prices , compared to Nevada
if you are busy at the tables and somebody gives you a bump I don't like that
they hit the wrong people the people losing money are ones that can't afford it
i nothing to say about it. it's wonderful
they're everywhere and they're getting hooked. I had a friend who killed himself over it.
I am not fan on gambling and I beleive in the indian cause so I quess that is good but I am worried about teh addiction for some people
not helping the school system the way they were set up too
Because the Indians own them and they're getting all the revenue and OR should have seen this coming.
You can't hear the money drop and I don't like the smoke.
They don't offer a lot of the games that are offered in CA.
They just aren't comparible to Nevada casinos, not on the same level.
people who can't afford it or the ones who go to them
i'm a non-smoker and what I don't like is that every time I walk in there there's smoke I have to go there for my job for seminars and wehn I walk through to the meeting rooms I smell the smoke which is annoying to a non-smoker
I don't have likes or dislikes because they do not enter into our lives. We don't have any interests in them. none of us do.
you can't have cocktails at the gambling table
nothing really casue i've been a few times
nothing i think I like them being indian I don't want them to be anything bu t indian
the way I saw it its become modern cash cow, and adult day care center. It concerns me if people want to privatize social security, essentially theres people who are going to end up with nothing and the federal govenment is going to help them get there.
they most of them very small nonsmoking area. I don't beleive in banning smoking but they can do better, We have allergies and so that an issue
The lack of drinking, they don't serve alcohol
the machines the poker machines I don't ever win money on those
Smoke - there still haven't figured out the smoking thing
I have only been there once, so that is hard to say. I guess, there is not enough variety in the machines.
well i just think, i just liked a lot better if the casinos were onlyin nevada, i think casinos do a lot of damage.
i have no preference one way or the other. if people like them that's fine
there's nothing i don't like about them. if people would make better judgements about their gambling. i do believe that gambling places in Indian reservations they cheat people on their money. the chances of winning anything are a miracle
That the Indians do not have to pay taxes
They aren't run by the state, they are run by the Indians
let's see, I guess it is not specific to OR casinos, but they tend to rip people off.
I just don't care for gambling. I don;t care for the atmosphere.
that their located in beautiful settings,
The smoking. We would go more often if there were not smoking.
Went once. It didn't have the feel of a Reno or Las Vegas casino. When you win on the slot machine, you're paid off in vouchers instead of coins. People like to hear the 'cling, cling, cling' of coins.
Well, I don't live near one, which I'm very thankful for. I would imagine the noise, the traffic, an abundance of people coming to one stop, which must be a nightmare for people living close to a casino.
It is most of the time, it is too crowded, not enough space at the tables.
I've been only to one once it's just for gambling I'm just not into gambling
They don't let you drink like in Vegas, you have to go the bar
the bars and casinos should have more machines
They are pointless, waste of time, waste of money.
they should pay their fair share of taxes. People there who can't afford to lose, its sad when people loose it all.
they don't have all entertainment Las Vegas
some people are vulurnable and loose more money than they can afford.
there is just one goup og people that can operate a casino
no comment there, maybe the distance traveled, and theyre smoky
would be nice if they served alchohol, not that I'm a lush but... kind of takes away the whole exp.
worse thing for me is the smoke in the air.
you're not allowed to pick up your own cards when you're playing 21. Worse yet you can't even touch them. As such you might as well be playing video poker, and I dont' do that.
I think the fact that I knew I wouldn't come out ahead, knowing that its rigged in favor of the house. lost the money very quickly
too easy for someone to go overboard, too inviting
all of the proceeds go to Native Americans. They are the only ones who have the rights to set up casinos.
it's getting too crowded around them, like Lincoln City, where I go.
i don't know there's not anything i odn't like about or casinos there's two of them that I go to
not equal to nevada casinos, where you get free drinks and other perks. they are run by indians and private owners
it's not like vegas let me see I don't like change not coming out tickets not coming out and going back to cashier it's not like in vegas
don't like the piece of paper,m I'd rather hear the coins come down loudly
it seems like the better chance fo dealing goes to the dealer
That's a crazy question. I have no idea.
Oh, probably the method of playing, I mean I don't have much feeling one way or the other. I would hate to see one built int he Columbia Gorge.
I don't believe the Indians have anymore right than anyone else. If they're an autonomous natino then let them pay their own taxes.
the smoke was too strong and i am a smoker They need better ventilation
probably the economic factor its not a good way to raise money. I know native americans need to find alternativces but I don;t think gambling is a good industry
someimtes it gets a little smokey I guess, but i dont have anything i like the least
Just having enough money to go to one I guess. Does that make sense?
right now the one i was at. i would like to have spirit moun. have concerts or shows. i would like to see more non smoking areas, or enlarge non smoking areas. the other thing would be to have the ventilation systems so the smoking and non smoking arfeas
Oh, gosh, I really can't think of anything. I went in, I was probably there for an hour.
i dont like the odds and i dont like the smoking
really nothing, i just go up there to have fun
that you c an't win any money, the pay of f is bad, u waste your money
the disease, the mental illness of gambling
What I don't like is that I don't hear the money coming out. You only get tickettes
I guess the crowds but you can't get away from it.
they take money out of people that can't afford it. People have dreams and think that's the way to do it.
The element of crime or the appearance of elements of crime that we didn't notice in our neighborhood before. Live within five miles of casino.
nothing against them, i would vote for all kinds of them
The general public gets screwed over by the way it's structured. ie, who owns them & who runs them. And who benefits from them & subsidizes them.
you don't use money, put cards out and you don't have the money
The environment, for example, alcohol - it lowers the value of the surrounding community.
The slots are all I ever play. Nothing that I like least
They don't give you real money, they give you paper receipts, you're not playing with real money.
I they're a parasite on society. They suck people's income.
That I can't put my coins in the machines.
I really don't know anything about the casinos, to tell you the truth.
the fact when you play you just get a ticket.
That you can't drink while you're playing.
Smoking. I've heard some have non smoking areas, but I haven't been to one. I wish all of them were non smoking.
I like them. Have to have something to do.
well there's actually two things there's the cigarette smoke and I like to goto reno because I like the clinging of the change machine, and they don't pay out enough here
I think that they try to make too much money off of people.
The tickets that come out. I'd rather have tokens or cash.
i don't think i have anything against them that would be difficult to say. they seem to be well run. i have no objections to them
the traffic around the coast near the casino, there are alot aof wrecks there
too formal and bussiness like in oregon casinos, to commercialised
everything, I don;t think they are good thing to have around
the fact some people can waste a lot of money there.
they are indian casinos, they don't make the noise like Las Vegas casinos, no clink clink clink, just paper, it isn't as much fun as getting the coins
It takes a lot of money from people who don't have it. A lot of people become addicted to it.
that they are designed to make it hard to find your way out
The fact that they pay with a sheet of paper, I'd rather have them pay with coins
I don't really not like anything about them
it's a fudning structure for the state the money is going to the indian tribes instead of the state and then we put all our state police in there for regulation
uh sheesh what would it be the one i'm experienced with it's too brightly lit you can't drink on the floor it's too bright that's my biggest probelm there isn't a lot of noise or coins falling
particularly the smoking, i hate the cigarette smoke
so many sorry people plunking money into machines. It is a sad commentary on society.
I think that whereever who have a casino its draws prostittion adn alcohol abuse and it also has broken up homes becuase they sneak around and gamble

Change about OR casinos
make them a little bigger, and hiring more employees, so we would have more jobs in the area
i don't like the paper money that comes out, I like the coins like in Los Vegas
the locations, the closest one to where I am at is 86 miles
they should watch people who come in and who comes out some people have been robbed
A lot of people woul dlike to be able to drink in the casino
they should make gambling a non-smoking area. they have a little;they should make it bigger
that half of the proceeds go to the school system, and the state r0oads
they need to use some of the money on the roads.
I'd change to money instead of tickets. Change the payoff rate would be nice. I'd like them to be able to serve alcohol on the floor.
Offer more games like they have in CA; a lot of nickel ones; they are fun.
Gosh, I think just improvements to their amenities.
For them not to be in existence. To get rid of them.
there should be a limit on how much you spend
In certain places they say there's no smoking yet people are smoking. I'd like that to be changed.
actually you know I think they're fantastic for what they are they're just fine I'm a big fan of spirti moutnain casino I don't want them to change to state of oergon and they support the community
open it up to more enterprise other than just indian tribes
close them down, (p) because people lose money and addicted
social responsiblities improvements (p) no
I would make the open areas non-smoking and move the smokers into the seperate room
I don't have an opinion on that I guess they serve a purpose I think the state gets 6% of the revenue
the machines instead of printing out paper would actually have the coin drop
probably the amount of money that would go to the state
The slip is not as much fun as getting real money.
well I haven't played in them enough to know
to let the machines win more for the people
non-smoking or different building for smokers
i would allow smoking and allow it to pay off more. More frequent pay-offs
i don't know enough to make a comment on it
Ah, that the Indians, I am not prejudiced by any means, but what our forefathers did we should not have to continue to pay for. they should pay taxes.
more the health of people that get themselves in trouble by gambling..
The profits should go to the state of Oreogn to lower my taxes
This will never happen, but a maximum amount of money that people could spend.
nothing , i think they have a good system going on.
more no smoking areas. smoke from smoking areas drifts into non-smoking areas.
I would probably have them totally smoke free.
their location and design, and the fact that their not tax
I've only been to one. I'd make them nicer; it seemed imitation (low rent).
I don't know, I'm concerned about the fact that Oregon seems to think that casinos are going to solve our problems, and I don't think that's true. I think casinos will probably have concerns of other problems, people having the ability to gamble, and I t
If I could change anything about a casino, I'd have the slot machines pay off better. I think they run about 97%, they ought to be 99%.
Donate profit dolars to local communities
I really don't know. too many people are getting addicted to gambling. best if they disappeared
I don't know casinos are just one of those things that I might go to once ever four or five years and stop in again in another four or five years
the people that play i guess have em pay out more
I don't have a problem with them they seem to be run just fine.
more of the money would go towards the schools
I don't...I can't think of a thing except for their payout
i suppose their location more convenient to urban area
i don't know, i suppose to loosen the machines up more, but then that's natural
I don't think there's anything I want to change
Take most parts and make them smoke-free
add more machines, better and different ones, same with the bars
I make the whole thing a non-smoking building
They should allow them to have more games
Probably have some more things for kids to be able to be there, accomodations for children
I don't know, I guess I don't care enough to really have a solid opinion,
you could drink throughout the casinos, or more of them
more money should be alloted to help people before they become addicted, rather than after.
being able to have a beer with you at the machine
I think there should be less of them. They take too much of people's money.
thay have to pay taxes like evry oner els
no smoking, period, anywhere on the premesis
I would like to have a local casino I think that they are ok to have
I'd have the smoking zone smaller than the non-smoking zone. I would reverse it.
Well, the last time I ate there, the food was pretty bad.
Allowing people to hold cards when playing 21.
don't think they should allow people use credit cards in those machines.
No, I think they're fine, just the smoking, or maybe the OLCC can let them serve drinks.
Golly, I don't know, I think they're very nice. I lived in Nevada for a period of time, and I think the ones in Oregon are much nicer.
make it where they(owners of the casinoes) have to pay taxes too
i don't know that right off hand today I would change anything
free drinks and more benefits, perks. more accessibility to them, bigger casinos, more machines.
I don't know, more spacious, not so machines in certain areas
slot machines would be fun in the bars instead of poker
Not just be for Indians, anyone can open one.
since there are some non smokers it mighrt be nice if you now
Well, I haven't really thought about that one either.
more gaming tables like roulette,more varity
effect that it has on people that shouldn't be going down there
I think that There is a control in the state that doesn't allow you to play very long. They don't pay out very well -- the machines aren't loose enough to make it fun.
Probably the way the games are played, where if you win you have to go stand in line to turn it in. It is too much like grocery shopping.
I'd do away with them or tax their profits.
the ventilation system needs to be improved. or a nice smoking lounge.
the part of the money miught tbe usyed to help those with serious gambling addictions would be agood step
maybe getting more entertainment, you know, besides just gambling
Probably where you can sit and play and eat at the same time.
the air conditioning. the one thing would be to have a larger non smoking area. the second hand smoke is even worse. i stopped smoking in 1973.
I'm probably not the greatest to ask about these questions. I've only been there once, and I really can't say.
more smoke free environments or better smoke free environments
to add the cling, cling, cling of the coins
i don't really have an opinion about that. i don't really gamble that much
well maybe u can stay a little longer and play a little longer, it's not too much fun if you can't play for a while.
I couldn't begin to tell you. I wouldn't know.
I don't know. Don't think there is anything that needs to be changed.
having not participated that often, I don't know if you could. I am Native American. I would ask for a share of the money that it should go toward roads and other things.
I'd make it so anyone could own a casino.
I really don't know. Outside of no being able to put money in , they are pretty good.
I guess make them more state or city owned so there's better taxation on them.
I'd like to hear to hear the coins drop into the pan, I don't like the tickets.
im not really interested in gambling, so i wouldn't really care
I can't think of nothing off the top of my head. Being able to drink in the gambling areas in the casino.
i cant give you an honest answer because im not in a casino but once every three years
Outlaw 'em. To me, there'a a parasite. I know people who have lost their homes. And they make good money.
Very bluntly and honestly I don't know because it's not a habit.
Actually, I think they are doing a good thing./
I don't think, I wouldn't anything to them, I wouldn't change anything.
They're fine. Even if you're not there to gamble, you can eat at the restaurants, etc. Free coffee.
I don't know, money would be more equally divided between the schools,and programs that need them.
i really don't know, i don't go that often.
The fact that it's bad for the people who are there all the time.
No smoking indoors even in an Indian casino
It would definitely be the smoking problem.
i think I'd ask for all of them to offer poker
Just that, I guess, change the slots back to the way they used to be.
my understanding they don't pay as well in the indian casinos as in other gaming establishment around the country
more roulette and craps, everybody has the same standardized tables
even though they have some nonsmoking areas they are still very smoky and I think it must be bad for them too.
i don't know i would change a thing. i can't think of anything that would be important
the ability to have refreshments in the gaming area
Put them in the middle of the ocean ..down this atlantis
have them pay me more money, not too move the machine around too much. I ahve a favortite machine and all of the sudden its not there
i guess maybe that wouldn't use paper receipts.
I hadn't given that any thought. as far as I'm concerned I don't need them.
they should look more like a resort,,if you are gonna spend your moeny there just a view might make it worth it. In linclon city it is right there on the ocean and it desn';t have a view.
sound be more like Reno or Vegas, the sound of the slots
to make them have mechanical slot machines instead of digital
mandatory that they should donate to schools, they are closing schools in oregon
Get rid of 'em, and I'm very adamant about that
it's a state government would profit from the revenues
more like spirit mountain and chinook winds, I like to have no smoking
i don't know there would be something it would be nice if people somehow poeople that difficultly with gambling and that addiction could somehow be prevented from that temptation but I don't know how you do it
uh you know I have another cause something this is totally like the devils advocate though I would say drinking out in the casino area
I would eliminate them , there are more healthy moal activites that could be done in this state

Reason(s) given for the stop
the last time was for license plate covers he said were too dirty, other times were for I don't remember
Failure to maintain driving in proper lane, was driving on the shoulder.
because he said that my car had warrants on it
It was an incomplete stop at a stop sign.
Speeding. Said I was going ten miles over the speed limit.
just minor ones to see if I'd been drinking and driving but I don't drink and drvie so they were happy
left hand turn from a restricted highway
said I was going 49 mph in a 35 mph zone
one he said i was driving too slow, the next one i forgot to turn my headlight on, the next one i didn't have a front license plate and the fourth i'm not really sure why
Suspicious behavior, once; speeding, the other four.
I kind of rolled through a stop sign a little bit
well there was different reasons. one was that i had a light out and the other is that i was driving irratically because of the pot holes in the road
he pulled me over for speeding but my ticket was for failure to show proof of insurance
Illegal right turn on a red light where there was no turn permitted
once Speeding, two were for making a turn without signaling
Because we were driving home late at night. And my husband was sleepy, officer noticed car weaving and I believe he saved our lives.
Let's see, just, following too close and the other was getting into tresspassing, and they didn't have, lets say, they didn't show me no warning, they claimed i was kicked out of salvation army, I never saw no reports or nothing on it, they had me arreste
1)two lane change 2)not pulling into the closest lane 3)seat belt
They thought I robbed a circle K, I drove off a little too fast from there. The other times I was going a little too fast or I had a brake light out.
speeding and they were all like 5 7 miles anhour over the speed limit
Speeding; about 15 MPH over speed limit.
see me leaving a bar, I work at a bar, potentially a drunk driver
speeding, 10mph according to officer, was really 21mph according to me
speeding, 15mph, actually going 20 mph over
I was in my driveway, in a very rural part of oregon without my seatbelt on, and he said that I was approaching the highway. I had about 300 yards to go, I was changing a cd in my car, and I was ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt on private property.
I had a license plate light that was out
Warning for no turn signal when I was changin lanes
1. Not wearing a seat belt. 2. Speeding; don't remember how far over speed limit.
Once for headlight was out, the other time going about 10 over
Warning, ran a yellow light, Ran a red light.
tail light out, and other sd I was speeding
went across railroad track when arm was coming down.
speeding and being in a wierd place at a wierd time. For speeding, most of time 5 MPH over speed limit, one time it was 20 MPH over speed limit.
going to fast in the fog both ticks at the same time
expired tags month and year tags were in wrong squares riding in an illegal part of the road
I made an illegal left turn, I turned into an illegal lane. I was given a warning.
that I had not stopped completely, it was a California stop
He said I was not staying inside my lane
1st time speeding 2nd time stopped and picked up gasoline and attendant saw empty beer cans in back of vehicle, Next time my wife was in an accident
Really speeding. Going ten miles over speed limit.
1. Ticketed for having a cover over my license plate. 2. This time, my turn was a little wide.
he claimed that that one was unsafe passing
It was kind of bogus, actually. He sd the lady in the cross walk had the right of way, which she did, but it was an old lady who stopped and backed up to the curb. Then I proceeded and the police stopped me.
Cause they got behind me and ran my license plates and my tags, and my tag 06, but in their computer it said 04. I went to DMV a week prior and got my tags good, and so my tags were good on the car. But in the computer it said 04, so they just wanted a
claimed that i did not make a stop at a 4 way stop, no turn signal, thought that i was drunk when i was sober
I was speeding or not wearing my seatbelt, I'm not sure, and the other I failed to stop at a stop sign.
jaywalking, failure to use blinker, how's the weather
light out and other warning made a turn to quick, no ticket
it was changing lanes without going 50 feet but the cop in front of me did the same thing but he did not signal. you are suppose to go another 50 feet to make a lane change that what the cop said to me
speeding. I don't remember speed he reported
temporary construction zone, speed had been changed, given a warning
allegedly speeding, burned out licsence plate light which was malarcky
I believe it was speeding, (Probe: How many miles of limit did officer say you were going?) 7 miles over

Reasons(s) for believing reason was false
the one with the license plate covers, he was very far away, I don't see how he could see that clearly, I questioned that one
I saw a police officer committing a crime. I interrupted him whilw eh was beating the crap out of a person on the ground. The person was down, motionless and handcuffed, the officer pulled on his shoulder and asked him to get up and when moved his neck an
I think he stopped me because he was looking for drunken drivers, but he didn't find one. I was driving slowly, because it was dark, and I wanted people to pass me, but they didn't. The car swerved because there's weeds and it's rough. The officer wasn't
I disagree with the reason because I was unaware that my insurance had lapsed. I had transferred all my other insurance and forgot to for the pickup. I believe I was pulled over in the pickup because it's an OLDER pickup.
it was strictly for generating revenue, had nothing to do with actual driving.
i don't think he measured my speed. he picked my car out of a group
because he stopped me a little bit further than where he clocked me he probably waited 5 minutes I thought he waited a little too long to put his lights on just for speeding
there is no way I could have been going 49 in a 35
Well, because I look like a stoner, and I have dreads and in general I'm a college kid, and, you know, cops are dicks, some of them
just because there were certain elements. I think they profiled us because we were young and were just leaving an area that was having a party
because i didn't find it was true what he was saying
Because I never go over the speed limit. And about suspicous behavior, I'm a kindergarten teacher, I'm black. I was on the way home from work & there was nothing suspicous about my behavior.
I think he was grumpy. He just yelled at me for a minute and drove off.
He sd I did not leave enough room to pull out, and just the way he acted towards me and talked to me when he did pull me over. He was very rude, and I told him to talk with me like a human being, and I would show him respect if he showed me resepct.
Once it was at like two in the morning and I don't know why he stopped me. I think maybe he wanted to see if I had been drinking. We were the only two vehicles on the road.
I don't think that I was speeding as much as he said i was but i really don't know
I'm driving an old beat up Volkswagen. 9 out of 10 times this kind of vehicle is used as a stoner wagon. He said a faulty light.
The questions he asked me: if you had drugs, weapons, where am I going - all of none of his business
The time they stopped me leaving Cricle K I think it was because I had a mohawk and a leather jacket. I think that had more to do with it than the fact that I left the parking lot pretty fast.
the first time, it was what he said. for the second time, he was following for a long time, just looking for an excuse to see who was driving with you
It's too lengthy to explain, he was determined.
I am 23 years old, and drive nicer cars, leaving a bar
I'm a victim of domestic violenc.e I was in a relationship for about 27 years and it turned very very ugly very suddently. Whehn I called the police I had been beaten, when I called the police the man who did it and his friend left the house. I gave th
the night before on the news I saw a report about a drive by shooting with a car like mine
I don't know, it just seems like the area I was driving through it wasn't like a school zone, it seemed like there were other things he could be doing. I was going 10 over on the freeway, it just didn't seem right. If it was a school zone I may not of q
because I don't do drugs and I've never done them
ten min befor a man in a suv thought he was going to kid nap a kid
because i'm not caucasian looking. i was driving a vehicle with a loud stereo. i was in a farm town, farm area.
saw the same kind of car drive past him but he did not stop them. There are a lot of cars with those kinds of headlights but they were not stopped. It is a form of bull shit harrassment
it was early in the morning and he was bored
First time, I felt the police officer was just looking for someone to stop & because I have a dent in my pickup. Second time, I really did turn a little wide. I apologized. I was putting in a CD.
i was following the flow of traffic and i didnt want to argue with them
the pass was safe and he didn't see it. i was speeding and he didn't have his radar on ....
Because it was just the way he treated me and the way he acted. He was a smart acted kind of guy.
Why? Because I am a black female and I was riding in a car with a black male. He was in the passenger seat. I was riding down Martin Luther King, Portland, maybe about 10pm at night. That was the reason they stopped me. They wanted to see why I was o
i did nothing wrong, their accusations were false and unfounded
because for the circumstance it was a just a short road. it was about 200 yds and the way it is set up you need to go slowly to get into lanes. you couldn't do it with fifty feet in between time
I beelieve i made a full stop. he was following me for awhile. i had something in my eye and I was looking in the rearview mirror and he thought that I was being overly paranoid and he was looking at my eyes alot
because more than once I was not doing anything wrong

Reason for feelings towards Dept of Peace
I don't, like how Bush said we are going to war, I don't think if we had a peace committee it would be telling us what to do
might help more people understant the war
they should work with what they have they don't need a new department for that
I think we neeed to be more aware of illegals in this country. I think that is part of the trouble because illegals are allowed to get driver's license with no proof of anything while americans have to have porrf
Because I think it's just another waste of government money.
I believe we spend too much time trying to gain more power and control in the world and we need to spend more time trying to help members of the same species. President Bush in particular is concerned with gaining more power and we need to help others mor
thinks it's a wast of mony for thing that seem stupd
it would be just like anything else why throw in another agency we don't need another party in there to stir up anything
Because I believe that peace is the answer for a stable society.
It seems like the U.S. is in need of help of some kind.
it is terrible people killing each other. we have one life to live and taking lives is just terrible. I think they can solve their problems by talkking
Just because I think we do enough for peace and there's already so much stuff out there, don't need to put more tax dollars out there to do something that so many people and groups are already doing.
I think we've got other agencies that can do the same thing without creating another.
i think we can't leave it up to just the president to make all those decisions
Because we don't seem to have any initiatives that seem to have that as the focus of their department.
I'd need more information about their approach.
I am not sure the United Nations is doing enough, a different slant would be taken to solve the problems or issues, there wouldn't just be diplomacy
It is just appointing another committee to do stuff, you know, more peopel, its ridiculous.
because i am for peace. i don't know much about the details so i can't really answer that
they must know what they are doing. what ever their decision is I am with them
I think that our country needs to get back to a reasonable place where people like each other. A peace program would be very nice--no more wars or ethnic problems
i think it would be a good idea that everybody get along. there is no reason to have war. they should be able to settle their differences diplomatically
It is kind of a different idea--I don't know how well it would work
Because I haven't heard of this. I think the United Staes puts our agenda on to other nations that don't want it-- whose idea is it? I have questions.
Because it would be a perfect thing if we lived in a perfect world. I was in the military, as was my father. It has gotten better, but human beings are not ready to get along. A lot of us are, but people like Saddam and Bin laden are not going to back off
Just because I think all this war and crap is nonsense
i don't think we should put anything on a ballot or put anything in our system that would put a peace deal that would restrict our elected officials from going to war or not going to war or the threat of
because i think it is another way to waste money
It is just another thing to raise taxes and get our money.
We should be in the war in the first place. We were brainwashed getting into it, we are killing off too many families and men and paralyzing and blinding a lot of them. It is all for the big boys in oil.
just the establishment of peace abroad and addition to homeland
I'm all for it but sadly I don't see much hope in resolving the situation. But anything we can try would be worth it. What I'd like to is to find out-- the teevee says 88% of the German people are opposed to what President Bush is trying to do. If that mu
i superfluous, evything we are already tying to to fo that
that's the job of our elected governemnt officials, who approints the dept of Peace, who would have a say in that
We don't need anymore bureaucracy; it's just a joke.
I think they either have to tackle problems at home, we need to tackle one thing at a time, and this is a good place to start.
I think its important, for over all safety, think it would be a good one.
I guess I just wish he would pull the people back home and that there would be peace.
because we don't any more government bureaus
it depends on how it's run what they're doing to get peace i don't know
I just think it would be another burearcracy and waste of money.
It would be something that would be really hard to implement.
we did need more gov. then we a;ready have.
Peace and diplomacy are always a better option to war.
well i just think all we can do to help our peace efforts is very important
I just think it's costly and I think the people in the State Dept & the Defense Dept are trying to create peace now.
Individuals at home and aroud the world needs peace.
we seem to be doing nothing but waging wars and we seem to have the feeling that we have to be all powerful. we come across as war mongers I think
Because I hate war, and I think we've had enough of it. Basically it's just money making, the rich people make money off of it. The rich, powerful, greedy people make money off of it. Our poor boys just die for no reason, I believe.
Ihave lots of friends and family in the war and it's not where I want the,m to be.
i think peace should be a high priority for this country
I think that there is a tendency to have too much government, it would be just another committee type thing that we'd pay for.(p)no
We've never had a department of peace. Why would I favor that? I don't know, I guess I strongly believe that there should have been a different method for settling this in Iraq. We jumped in there when we shouldn't have. We made a threat for Saddam to
I favor it because there are so many problems in the United STates, immigration and how they treat people. Everybody should be treated equal, and I think they need an organization to pull everything together and organize something to be fair to everybody
i think it is a brillant idea and it's about time. we clearly have a war department, but we should study how to bring about peace, the underlying causes of peace. If we fully understand what causes peace then we can support it and then we can promote he
Because I believe that peace is very important and we should focus on it.
sounds like a good idea. to balance out the department of defense
I feel it is their country, let them do what they want. Take care of our own country. Let them have their own religion, we need to stay home and take care of ourselves
cause i think it would be a good thing to create peace in this world instead of all the fighting
i think there should be a general opposition to the administration's attitude toward peace right now
I think it wouldl influcence people rights a little better.
that's the goal we have is peace. we shouldn't just focusing on defense but our objective which is peace
we got too big of a government now. we got to reduce the government
because I think someone else, some of the people, should have a say so about whether we have peace or not.
i think it would be just be favorable if we could live in harmony and peace and we would all be better off.
I think it would be great if we could have peace in the world. But there it so much stuff going on , I don't think they have a snowball's chance of acheiving it. There are too many nuts running around.
bc we already have organizations that should be taking care of security, fbi, for domestic, cia for global, why take more of my tax dollars for more organizations that we dont need bc the others arent being taken care of
Because we do have so many departments right now and all are there for the purpose of maintaining peace here and abroad, not sure that any more could be acccomplished.
just because we have a dept of war we need to counteract it. because war is economically beneficial we tend towards war over peace. we should make peace beneficial to the economy
It is good that we live in the US. We need to work on peace and freedom now after the September 11th, everything changed. It was people from other countries.
it would be redundent, theres already departments that should be handleing this issue
cause i dont think that we should be in war, i dont think that we should do anything, let people do theyre own thing in their own country, we shouldnt be policing others.
we have the dept of defense which is more like a negative stance and the dept of peace is a much more positive having to shape international relations
I assume it would turn into an Orwellian thing...I am proponent of peace so that is why I would favor it.
it's just a nother little department to study how many millions would they spend and they have people starving in this country and that's just to study peace and we know what peace is i mean to achieve it
because i think that we are all educated peace loving people ant that if we want peace if can make peace we can create it it begins with the individual you can't legislate peace
to create that envirnment, you have to accept that other nations are not equal to you, you think that others think the same way. liberals have a dogma, instead of seeing the way the world actually works. total insanity!
i would say because it makes sense to evaluate options that would result in peacful resolution to conflict as well as maintaining peace
i think it would be a good idea something like that
only because I don't have enough information
I don't know. I just sort of oppose. I don't want to answer that.
because i think that we definitely need peace, all around the world. I think we can see it in the situation in Iraq.
not want to have money wasted, not sure its possible to have peace, it would be great, but i dont think it would be possible
A good idea, because peace will be a good thing.
because its too much chaos and problems in the world, its time everyone quits fighting, and for president bush to make peace abound.
well, i would love to see peace come, but I don't think its going to happen, because there will always be wars, i don't see how peace will come
Because I think peace is important, we spend too much money and national energy on war.
because i think its superfluous, its unneccessary. i think we can get there without having a new department with thousands of people worjking for it.
some peoples idea of peace may not be what others think. unless I know exactly what they mean by peace. I need more detail for this idea
I don't know. It is not necessary more bueocratic nonsense.
peace is really important, if we don't have peace we don't have anything
Because having people research & advocate for peace will bring policies & attention to the attention of the public & politicians.
it depends on how it's run as long as it is attempting to achieve it's actual purpose and that purpose is really clear and it can't be imposing it's political beliefs either right wing or left wing it would have to be something basically right in the midd
we really need somebody other thatn the president, being able to say hey, we're going to war. I don't think it should be a one-man decision.
i don't really think it's our business to go over and create peace I mean if another country has a probelm that's their business I don't think we should be out there telling people how they should do things but at the same point if we choose to fight I'm
I believe that we should live in a more peaceful world & not be so judgmental of others.
its like creating a department for family harmony - it looks good on paper, but you cant make rules you cant enforce
because I think that they don't know how to use the funds to use it appropiately. another words its going to cost us money for nothing
Because I'm tired people dying in repeated battles.
Because we need peace, I don't like war. I've got a kid that's gonna turn 18
because right now war is the only game in town and I think we need to start supporting peace.
I just think we, the US helps too many people out.
Sounds cool. Um, well, seems like if there's a department of defense, there should also be a department of peace.
Sounds nice, but its never going to work
I think our international perception of what we are right now is poor
i think it would help and we would be more aware of what was happening. I think with a dedicated task force we would be more aware and more on top of things.
I think it would be a good idea overall to have another department in there.
I think we need to focus on how to get along rather than how to divide and conquer.
I am against the war and think that they neede to do something about it
iF WE ARE PUTTING SO MUCH EFFORT INTO MAKING WAR IT SEEMS THAT WE SHOULD PUT DSOME EFFORT INTO GETTING ALONG
if we had more peace in this world, it would be better
I think we need it all over, I think there's too many people who want to go to war, they think that's what's going to solve the problem. I think we need to focus more on why we do that.
Because the job belongs to our president he is our commnder in cheif my hudsbnad was in the military and those are his views and her is very adamant about that
We don't consider the issues that could encourage peace, and then you're never going to be able to come up with solutions, because they have so much to do with economics, equity, and environmental issues. You can't really adress it until you think about
We've turned on our back on God most people don't beleive anymore. Love thy neighbor is the 2nd hishest commanden no man is gonna stop this stuff. what do you think the UN is its the most corrupt, and the Catholic church is too
I just feel we need somebody working on the Peace issue because war is not getting us anywhere, war begets war, peace begets peace
I think Reasgan republican it is important athat we keep pourselves stron and initmating to those whomant to attacl us t keep the children safe, I look it as if a rapid dog is coming at your children would you shoot them, any aparent would say yes
Because it sounds almost like a republican far-right republican ideal of trying to democratize the entire world. i don't approve of that at all, I don't approve of it the way it is now
Peace, just pretty much, you know, less fighting, taking care of our people first, than going to other countries
cause i want peace, and a safer world for my children
sure our Dept of Peace is called the dept of defences and peace is obtained when victory obtained. that idea ia a waste of moeny we have the state dept that does that
It sounded good as you were saying it. Peace is good thing you may never get but good to try.
It's generally a good idea. I'd be concerned about spending money on unnecessary nicetities.
You have to make the world a peaceful place, its necessary for our survival
I favor anything that gives us peace and protects us from things like wnat happened on 9/11 our goverment failed us and alot of innocent people died. People tend to forget that over 60 years ago we were attacked by the Japanese, and now we got it going on
They don't have God in it. If they would work with God in it it would work. They don't so I don't see how it's going to work.
thinks its just a jok/ we need some one to realy do the job to many people get by.
Too many departments now. They can't manage the ones they've got. The is less money as a result.
There's so many different departments & organizations that are supporting the war. Maybe we wouldn't have to have war if people focused more on peace than fighting.
We should put at least as much effort into studying what it takes to design and maintain peace as we do with aggressive actions in the world at large
Cause I disagree the war situation currently and the way the government handles military conflict.
thinks it a good,but it sound a bit redicuolas
On the basis that it is a function that Congress & the President as Commander of Chief have a duty to do as they see fit.
I don't think enough emphasis on resolving issues in a peaceful non-violent manner.
I think anything that makes peace is a good thing.
that people of the country are normally peacee loving and that iit is inherent in all of us, the defense of out country is based on power and that is why we have the peace that we do. the middle east, we are trying to be enforcer of peace over there, we a
It would be a unique office. It's something the government has never done.
it is useless, this is something that is being addressed by other departments
we don't need more government, I'd like to get rid of a whole bunch of stuff instead of adding
I think it would be good to have peace everywhere instead of all these wars. Instead of war, finding another way to deal with it.
i think they have there hands full with what's going on now
I just don't think we need another dept. in there
There is only one way to peace and that is by dominating the enemy and bring him to the table and talk to him.
i'm all in favor with the idea of peace but sceptipal of the federal government to do it and george bush
cause were in a world of hurt right now and i think we need to do something to change it.
well I think it all goes with my whole opinion about politics in general, I think it would be a nice idea, we may adopt a program like that, but other countries may not, they have their own beliefs
i would agree with the one goal approach to that committee
I think anything that promotes peace is definite yes.
croadinating more keeping simuar in each place
oh, dear I don't think it would do any good,
because i don't know what their intentions are
Because it is a function that already exists in other capacities.
I think that the President and Admistration is so pro war that we need something to counter them - diplomacy has gone out the door
IT could get in the middel of the US departments power. the worl is bilt on conqust. We made suver mistakes in the 90,s in dealing with thugs
war is not exactly the best thing to have in our case 9/11 happened so we need to do something and if we don't do something it will keep happening.
during wars, innocent people get killed and im against that. most wars are an attempt by one group of rich people, by sending the poor to fight against people. im stronly apposed to wars.
if you got bush and his home land castopo you should have the other
it sounds like it would be something positive for the country
Because it makes sense to evaluate peace keeping, rather total focus on war
i think it's a good idea to start thinking in evolutionalry sense, rather than spilling our blood.
because i think that it is a foolish idea.
Because anything to do with studying other culture is good. We need to be more cross-cutlural--we project ourselves on to other cultures and this would help prevent the problems we have with solipsism. It should be under the Secretary of State. They need
Beacaue I don't think we need another agency created.
i don't truly see a need for it. Creating another bureaucracy to influence peace seems like a wasted effort to me.
Because that is what we have elected officials for now, we have Congress, they decide if we have peace or war. Another group operating along side would be useless and create more conflict.
to me it's just an idealistic waste of money.
Different religions and cultures, should be a mitigator to be neutral and avoid fighting
I think it should be at the top of our agenda and should be given that level of importance.
because quite frankly i think that this government will spend money, but do nothing towards peace especially this administration
Bush isn't doing in creating PEace over in Europe
because we have enough programs that don't seem to be working as it is so why do we need another one
well it seems like we are always focusing on defense and war rather than figuring out ways to avoid these things. if the peace department could do that, that would be great.
Because I think it would be another way to cover up military actions. Another way for our government to take over countries but they would say it was under the name of peace.
I think we need to keep our money at home
No matter what you do there is never goinmg to be peace, fact of life.
generally sounds like a good idea to learn more about peace.
because we already have enough government.
I wouldn't want to create more buraeucracy and spend more money
if you work toward peace you can avoid all kinds o=f nasty piolitical obstacles , hate and animostity
That's a can of worms. It would just depend on how, if I knew some of the procedures they would look at to gain peace, If I knew some of those things and the process then I could give an opinion.
already other programs that can handle it without creating a new dept.
if its something to stop war, than that's good, i don't think anybody wants war.
Because if we would spend a little more money on educating people, we would make far more friends. You don't make friends by making war or making people do something.
The idea of peace is a good thing. I am not in favor of the war, but Idon't think they need more government. Paying more people for more things, for things that should be quite obviousl.
It is a good idea-- there needs to be more peace and less war.
I favor it, but then I think that we have a Geneva conference that is ignored. It's only good if it... If they establish and adhere to it.
Highly idealistic, good intentions but I can't see that anything good would come out of it.
we have to much politics today and i feel that any other nation or country has no right to say what we are going to do to begin with.
you know how people are, the only way is to work more with the young people and we adults need to influence them. the bittness keeps going on and and on and on. And we need to break that cycle
that's something everyone should be working on, not just more bureauocracy spending tax dollars, that could be needed elsewhere.
Because what were doing now is so wrong on so many levels, what happening now isn't working
Well I'd like us to focus in that direction. I hesitate to say I want to create more departments, but we should focus on more peaceful area.s
It's obvious that there is not peace in this world, and anything we can do to promote it, it would improve on many problems.
just peace is better is than war but it all depends on who wa running it. if Bush was running it i think it would be ascam
it is beneficial for all man kind, we need it.
Well if you stop and take a look at the millions and millions spent on generating war, you could probably take some of that money to generate peace between people, family, society, and on the world stage
I have no idea what a Dept. of Peace would look like. I can't imagine it. And I am not for the U.N. I don't think they have done a good job in the past 20 years.
I think we need peace, it needs to be at the top of the agenda.
The U.S is trying to act like God and we are tying to make people belive our way which is wrong
I would need to look at the details. It is unique
Because I think our country is too fast to go beat people up before we have discussion with the rest of the wordl.
It's the first I've heard for peace as opposed stamping out injustice and evil.+
I think we have what it takes in the Federal government to strive for peace as it is. I don't think we need another department.
we got enough chaos in the world, it would be nice to have peace
If they want me to know about certain things I'd be willing to listen.
jst going to be something else to suck money, I don't see where it would change anything
I think it just creates a new bureaucracy and more taxes.
We don't seem to be getting there now. We need an organization to say that we need to think more in terms of peace.
I think we put more emphasis on war than on peace. I think we are looking at things backwards,
it would be nice to know what kind of relationships and processes would be necessary to create and maintain peace within nation itself and other countries
I think that the U.S. has a very intricable part in things that go on, not just in our Nation, but abroad. If we could establish a standard of peace, it would be good.
It would be a department that would hopefully move toward more understanding and hopefully away from war.
i think it would be a good thing to have as part of our foreign policy
Well, I think the world is shrinking daily, and I think we have to get along with all cultures.
Because we're stupid. We accomplish nothing other than to go out here and commit murder.
It would just be another gov. bureaucracy to waste tax payers money
because i dont think that theyre really gonna have that much peace. they can work at it, but theyre never gonna have peace. theres always gonna be wars
well we have we've had a war dep it's now called the dep or defencse i think there needs to be an equal amount of funding going into developing peace there needs to be an equal amount of knowledge going into peace keeping as there is into war
all the wars goingon in the whole world, why can't everybody just get along
To counterbalance any jingoism the current administration might harbor.
W have a ot of armsin the government that do a lot of function, and it seems likemit should be done by the State Departmentl not necessary to create another beruacracy.
We have to have something directed in that area
i think that everything seems to be directed towards defense and war, and i think that maybe the whole world would be better off if we spent more time or as much time trying to make peace with people.
I think any effort to create a more, passive people but to create a more peaceful people among ourselves, can not be a bad thing
I was formerly a memeber of the CIA I've worked in foreign lands.No one wants any part of warm, but you hav got to do whta is right and accept the pain . I believe the beurea oof peace caters to those who don;'t want to fight. Too educated to fight. I str
i don't believe in war, so i believe there should be an organization that has a better resolution thatn going to war
If it;s soxmething that can reduvce potentila conflicts
we should be taking care of our own grounds and our own borders, but abroad, we can't go changing the world on other people's views when they've been doing it for decades
I think we need to worry more about peace then stopping people from whatever they're doing; I think we're moving in a bad direction.
I think it ironic that it is coming up when we are at war. There is a great need in our world for peace. We have a responsibilty as a country with great resources to lead the world in creating peace.
well for the history of our country we've had war departmetns and such but we've never had peace dep knowing it would be just another beuaraucratic department that's a tough one it's not that we don't seek out pecae whether it be ambassadors and such why
well peace is good i think it doesn't hurt to look into it
Because we already have place that strongly encourage us to go to war, and I think it would be good to have something in place to counterbalance it.
because it won't work - waste money to create peace, sometimes you need to have force when you create of commmittee of people focused on peace miss out on other points, by getting people 100% for peace
well uh nobody's doing it number one and we're focusing on security which is a separate issue from peacemaking and I'd like to see everyone get on the same page
The idea is a very good idea, instead of department of war. Not sure what exactlyit would do.
department of peace the alternative is pretty bad
I think we need to do less fighting and do more getting along. It is just a big world, we can't just fight, we all need to be one in the country and the world.
Well, like I said it would depend on who...if it was President bush...
Every department costs money, as it is we got too many departments in this government as it is, we don't need another one.
i'm not familiar with it enough i would need to be more educated with it on their goals how they would accomplish those goals before I would favor it
I think that we've taken the wrong path with president choices, and we need to show some other path.
Because I don't believe, I never have, in war.
i don't know i just i somewhat i guess I somewhat want it i don't know a lot of what's going on over backeast i don't know
cause everyone needs to have peace and stop fighting
I think we need to study peace and know how to create it.
Peace would be a good idea. There would be a lot of considerations. I don't think anything is simple.
Because I don't feel that we right now, we don't need that advisory board when we have other advisors. We have ambassadors and people who go in and negotiate peace treaties, we already have that covered.
I don't think that is something that will ever come to pass... I think that is a little ridiculous. We should unconsciously be thinking of peace. I think it is ridiculous to have a dept. of peace. That may be a complete waste of money and time.
Well, it saves a lot of lives is one thing, you know, if you get people fighting among themselves the kill eachother.
I just don't think people will work together and have peace. Someday they might. there are too many personalities in the world, and peace is just not there.
Well, I think that's it's important to be in a promotional mode rather than a reactive mode, promoting peace rather than reacting negatively. Look ing at the causes of war and trying to prevent it from occurring.
Unless we start focusing on the conditions in which we can create peace, we'll be stuck in the same situations we've had all along. There is no way to create peace based on war. We have to create strategies to create peace and these are very different th
It's a good idea. But it may be another idea that will get the beaurocratic. And it's a nice idea, but I am skeptical of how beaurocracies would handle that idea.
The answer is I think that the Congress and the President already have a philosophy of peace first, where possible, so a department of peace would be unnecessary.
it sounds like a good idea, but haven't thought about it alot , so your not to sure, but sounds like a good idea
would like to study it more before decide, but sounds like a good idea
I don't know, too much control over something, I don't know
because peace is a good thing, bottomline
I think it's a waste of time; I think we've got other mechanisms to pursue peace with the government we have established now.
I just don't trust the federal government, I trust the state a lot more than I do the feds
Just sounds like something that would be helpful for Americans out there that need it, more options
Well, I don't know enough about it to really give a good opinion, but it sounds like a good idea, department of peace would be a good idea, as long as they are really about peace.
Because Peace is certainly preferable to war, that's my opinion. If we can find a peaceful resolution to world problems, that's much better in my opinion.
There needs to be a little bit of peace in this world, but you can't have peace all over the world, so there's got to be some kind of compromise
I don't feel that it's our job to impose peace on, we cannot bring peace because that is with God, not with man. Man just has to live right.
Because I think unless there are people actually striving for peace, its too easy to go for the alternative, which is of course war. And, there are many many ways that we can work towards peace while solving conflict. There are just too many people who
I would need to know more about it; but obviously I'd love to see peace in the world. But there's always a price to pay for what you get; therefore, I'd like to know more. What that price would be.
because we waste enough money on dumb crap, we can spend more money on health care, there is no way there is going to be peace, too many money hungry people
i don't think our current administration is able to bring about the kinds of changes that the dept of peace is suppose to do. I think their goals of peace should be changed.
I'm strongly in favor because we need to concentrate more on peace and not war, instead of just goin' in and taking over everything, we just need to chill out.
Well, I guess the fact that I don't think we need ANOTHER place for the bureaucrats to file money into, thats just gonna cost the taxpayers money. They can certainly find peole in the departments already to figure all that out.
well... I think I would be strongly in favor but it sounds good from the basic discription you gave.
I believe that we police the world and I just din't know how else to exzplain
both there is nothing to counter act the negative aspects, if you don't have a lot of money or not in politics you don't have a voice.
I think it would be a big help to our society, of course we'd have to budget the damn thing but I think it would be helpful
because i think peace is much better than people dying--than war.
depends on who runs it, if the democrats or republicans run it it won't work
I don't think we need to be peacekeepers of the world.
it sounds like a good idea in these times, we spend too much money on agencys right now
because we spend about 100 times more on war budget, and we spend as much on national defense as the whole does altogether.
I am a peace advocate and it goes with a lot of my beliefs
skeptical of national governments policies in general
pretty obvious reasons. we have to make some effort.
it certainly would be better than a dept. of war, it is going in a better direction
I don't think we need one, we have too many depts already
I think that there are situations in our country where there are groups of people who are undermining our country. It would depend on who's funding who they are answerable to, the extant of their power
i think people need to be more deicated to the situation meaning people need to be more awara a dept to helkp people be more aware of the issue of peace
its better to have peace I think we otta try forst for peace not war
conditions for approval: staying true to the meaning of the statement, no hidden agendas, it has to not be a front for intimidation
bc i beleive that we need peace and advocating peace rather then war
I believe that we need peace in all areas togther every county and city needs a safe place to voalize their concern for the community they need an opportunity to be able to talk about whether they want to try to make that change.
we could find a way to all get along without killing each other, it would be great. we dont pick the wars, the government does, fat chance of it(program)happening
i dont think we should be in iraq, if this would help get us out go for it, we are meddleing too much in others affairs
I prefer peace to war. When war is necessary, it's OK; but my preference is peace.
They can't even have a peaceful demonstration w/o involving the police, vandalism; so don't talk to me about peace.
we got to many ting as is and when we do get somthing good thay twist it
well I just don't think that would be appropriate
I think it's a good thing. We should have peace in our country.
I favor it as strongly as I do for the simple reason that somethign needs to be done soon. As much as possible needs to be done to work this country into some kind of peaceful arrangement. It is a necessary item right now. We're heading towards some maj
if we have a dept. of war we might as well have a dept of peace
Its always better to have peace if its possible
We have a State Department that does the basically the same thing. It would be a duplication of effort when something like that is already in place.
Well, I oppose it I think they got enough problems right here
I think the more we can do for peace the better off we are
the people to be tought in history to be abel to run it
Because I believe strongly, obviously in Peace over War. That's one thing, and if that satisfies it, that would do it. But, if it's going to pull away from other things that I think are just as important fiscally, then I would swing my vote somewhere.
It is a good issue between peace and war
that is the direction we should be heading instead of more missiles and weapons
If there's a way to do it correctly, then by all means we should be at peace
we have way too many departments and we make another one when people come up with ideas. let them do it in the department, there must be one that can do that. We don't need another one.
Well, I think what you're saying is its about negociation, from your description, it seems like focusing more on peace as opposed to war. We are very focused on war right now, not as much peace making.
I think it would be silly in the real world ther is no such thing as peace
I think that it's right, and it could actually help a lot of what's going on today.
I think we they create one thing after another and pour money into it and nothing ever comes of it
we dont need another beuarocracy to try and run things that are already in control by other departments. how much money do you want to spend?
i think peace is always the best approach.
because we have a department of defense, and their purpose is to defend the united states, and we don't need to spend anymore money. The best defense is a good offense.
We've got a president and congress who already deal with making peace, so there isn't another group to work on peace
I am a professional mediator, current admisitratrion value base is one of fear, and only if we refraim fear into opportunity we can build a collabrative world, a peace institute would have the people who could do that
it seems like if it were properly operated, it would be a positive thing
because its just one more layer that we have to support
BEcause right now we have the Dept. of Homeland Security, FBI, cops, I don't know what they're doing,
We don't need any more levels of government. We don't need any more, we've already got too many departments of this and that and everything. The less government, the better.
hoping for the best that something good would happen
well i don't particularly like war, and it seems throughout the history of mankind there has been nothing but war, and it's time we get along together.
Because if there was peace, there would't be so many problems for our country to deal with and our police to deal with and other countries to deal with. You should know since you're in the University of Oregon that in our history you have to fight for fre
I think it goes by how neighborhood get along, I know we should think more about this but I think neccesarily need a org. saying we need peace. right now in umatilla county the sheriff comes on radio and will say we have no officers in certain area, leavi
well, because i like the idea of a peaceful world, however, i don't feel something like 911 should go unpunished. i also believe that the world would be more peaceful if all of the murderers were no longer around (put to death)
Wars are so self-defeating. Everybody gets hurt. It's time we understood that we have no right to tell anyone how to live their lives. We can persue a peaceful course or a course of war. As human beings, I happen to be born a Christian, God loves everybod
I believe people would lie to justify their moment.
I think it is neccessary for the kind of world we live in, to respect ethnicity and race and to support culture, everything can't be perfect but we need to do the best we can
We teach war and its far more imortant to teach peace, we have to live with each other. (p) no
Well, I mean, you'd have to define, we live in a world, this is not a peaceful world, and that's what we have our diplomats for, and our state department. That's what these people get paid to do. It would create another government bureaucracy, and it's
Well, its like a good idea, if they can pull it off.
we give a tremendous amount of money and resources to war and death and it would be nice to see these go towards peace making and understanding and discovering why we go to war
Because Peace is a good idea, its a good thing (p)no
I don't like fighting and war and there should be more peace
Well, because I think we need peace in this world.
instead of focusing on negatives, i think a peace dept would focus more on the positives. I think it's a good idea.
be a good direction, but you have to temperate it with science
why not I think it would be interesting, I don't think this president is not a president that would favor it, I don't think its been done if someone wants to do it go for it
Because we don't need any more government
well, i think it was a stupid trick to go into Iraq. I think it was a personal deal to do it rather than for the greater interest of the country.
Well, it hasn't been tried before, and certainly something needs to be done, but nobody knows how to go about it.
it's one more intrusion by the government in our lives. I truthfully believe for the most part, people who have been involved in war will do a better job to maintain peace.
I don't know, I don't see why we would need to focus on peace at home
because I think that it would lead to understanding people and their violence better, if we understood what they are really trying to say we'd make better progress. I don't think force is the solution to these kind of problems.
I think that America needs to stay strong in its own independence, and the peace is fine, but you need to show strength in your own country.
concerned that there is no funding and it is a way of getting money from us
Naturally, it's because I believe we shouldn't be at war, and frankly, my biggest concern would be that, like most government agencies, they just become huge, and they don't spread their knowledge, they just contain themselves, and they become bigger and
i dont think they know what they are doing in the first place
it would be really nice to have a dept of peace. we already have a huge dept of war.
bc that would be like putting in a nationalized religion, the point of america is to practice what you wish, and peace is the same, it wouldnt work
i really dont understand this thing, but peace is a good thing, so i would need more information
i don't think it's necessary. another dept to fund and you can work thru the existing bureaurocracy to create the same thing.
i strongly oppose because i believe when your'e dealing with terrorism, you can't deal with terrorism in a peaceful way. You cannot negotiate with people who are set out to kill us. History shows us over the years that every war we have had has brought a
I'm in faveor of peace but I don't know it I can trush a nother groop to handel such a job
i'd rather have my money go towards peace than war. There are already a bunch of different depts of govt that start war, fund war, and go to war, but there's nothing to stop/permit war.
i think it's unneccessary more beauracracy i don't think we need i think with the balance of power in the us congress and senate we have enough balance to make sure things are done with persepctive for peace
only becous we are in USA islam want to cill us that wan't to roul the world.
i don't know it just sounds like it would be a good thing to have we have a department for everything else
I don' think that the pres is doing a good job but he thionks he is so what if this is like that
because we create what we make an effort for, if we make an effort for peace we can make peace.
I think it's more important to strive for peace than to fund war.
i think peiacful resolution is the only solution for me
no more burocracy keep you nose out of other peoples busniss
peace would be a good thing. I wouldn't know what the cost benefits would be. Not like the CIA where they pend a lot of money but don't get a lot of work done. I would favor it
because peace is good, we need to learn how to get long
well there is too much violence going on around here, I'd like to see peace going on instead
I think we would get the oficers better traning
it would be a waste of money people are animals, if we get those dinosaurs in the senate we might get something done. need new ideas not old ideas
everybody needs to be safe in their home. We do not want anyone to come and take us when we are all sleeping. That is what they are doing now
we don't need more bureauocracy, if people we have are doing their job
becasue the oustide world will really believe that we're serious it would be more a or less a smoke screen
Just leary of were it would lead to, thats just a personal thing
Because we need something that at least would be an official vehicle or avenue for creating national dialogue instead of national rherotic that is one sided.
there was a little too many things to think about, some things I could approve, some I wouldn't
because i guess i think that war is inevitable given the world we live in. Right now i don't neccessarily oppose the war in iraq but i don't really understand what a peace organization would do given our situation
i feel that our money should be going for it now. i think that's what our goal should have been to begin with
I think that the homeland security has gone way over normal boundries. It has put us in conditions of over laws or over rules
Because of the UN, that's their job, to smooth everything over
think that we should be working with UN officers to get a more global perspective, besides putting together what we think would work globally. We have a tendency to inflict what we think would work on other countries.
everybody id in favor of peace, but a department of peace will increase bureacracy
Well, I don't really think it's our responsibility to be the policemen of the world. I understand the need for world peace, but also we're cutting ourselves short here financially, take care of our own before we take care of the rest of the world.
Its just another to spend money for a bunch a people to sit around and talk about stuff
all sides need to be heard what is good for everybody involved
I think it's something that's never been tried. I think it's a great idea.
I think there are other agencies if they did their job properly would come to the same outcome
because the mind set is so fixated on war and dominance over other people so that if there was a mind set for peace it would improve our society
i think it's good to have knowlegde and to find out anout think and maybe to improve our image. we're seen here as dirty americans
think there needs to be a peace group, its a statement that needs to be heard, but with Bush in charge not likely
we have a department of war. which is blown way out of proportion. a department of peace makes a heck of a lot more sense.
Well we have a department of war, defense, we might as well have its counterpart
I would like us to be perceived better around the world trhan we are-- we don't have a lot of friends out there
I feel like there has been too much of a focus on war, and unneccesary war. That would be a good counterbalance, and possibly stop future wars.
We got to have peace or else it's just going to be chaos everywhere.
Because humans have socially evolved to the point where we can solve problems without using violence, but we rely on old habits. Everyone wants peace, but we don't seem to be able to accomplish it. A department dedicated to researching practical solutions
I think the worl dneeds more peace-- but I also think that we know what is needed but the world doesn't have it yet. I don't know what good studying it would do, but anything would help.
I think the concept is a good idea, just knowing our past history, I don't think peace is part of our make up. It would be nice.
I suppose peace is good anywhere. They can try anything if it would work.
Because anything that has to do with peace is worth while.
I am very concerned that the US be on their own and under their control.

Make, model, and year of car
i have a 2003 PT Cruiser. it's a chrysler
1995 Subaru Legacy Wagon, right-hand drive.
My brother's car, very seldom, Chevy Van 1995
we have a voyager van it's 13 years it's a 93 so it's 12 years old (p) plymouth (p) dodge Plymouth
i don't know what that thing is. it's a dodge 4 door it's about 7 years old i think.
most of my miles are put in a chevrolet lumina (p) a 99
i got a 78 Chevrolet Van, cargo van a big ugly orange box
I have a ford ranger pickup and I drive Dodge Ram gang truck for work (I: which do you drive most often?)The Dodge Ram (I:what year?)I don't know for sure, but it is newer than a 1993
We have two Hondas and each week my husband and I trade vehicles. (I: Is there one you drive more often?) No we drive each one equally since we trade each week. 1998 Honda CRV and a 2003 Honda Accord
2001 BMW 330I and 2003 BMW 530I. Drove 2001 model for six months; purchased 2003 model and have driven it for the past six months.
2002 Volkswagon Beetle and a 1997 Ford Expedition
I have two cars, I drove the Dodge Ram 1 ton 1995, 1977 3/4 Ton Pickup Ford is second car.
my work van, (p) it's a 2005 economy lane box van, a 350 box van
van (not sure any information other than that)
i got a 1986 chevrolet. it's a Celebrity
1999 Dodge 4 Wheel Drive Full Size Pickup
i've been driving a ford pickup (p) ranger a 99

Interviewer observations
The respondent doesn't drive or have a car-- is there some way the skip logic of the survey could be adjusted to reflect this.
m r said he belongs to the Assembly of God Church.
Hispanic F with child mildly whining in background cooking dinner but stayed with interview.
F said she strongly disapproved of the job George W. Bush is doing as president. In answer to the religion question, she answered Pagan, so I coded it 7 for other religion.
M got very suspicious when the political questions started. Said he thought a combination of the democratic senate and the republican house would do the best job with the budget. In answer to the health care question, M said he doesn't believe in the Or
This survey was conducted half in Spanish and English.
re: political party and liberal vs conservative R said "open mind"
In answer to Internet question, M said he is anti-technology. Didn't like Ted Kulongowski because he said he didn't do what he said he was going to do when campaigning. M is completely against everything George W. Bush is doing. In answer to the police
MR said he uses the Internet every day. In answer to re-elect Ted question, he said it depends on what happens with the school issue. In answer to the budget question, he said definitely not the Republicans. He said he's been married 60 years. His wif
In answer to the gambling question, MR said he's gambled in Washington.
FR was uncertain how to answer the disability Q, even after hearing probes. She was stuck on whether she could achieve "financial independence" (mentioned in probe) or not. She eventually decided to skip the question.
R reported that his feelings about police used to be positive, now are tending to be more negative. On religion, R reported that "I used to be Methodist, years ago", but now I don't belong to any of them.
F reported more than 100 trips to local casino, located about 6 miles from her home.
FR reported her race being "Irish, Indian and Dutch", recorded as "other"
R lives 10 miles from idaho border and does most of his business there, really has no political views for oregon bc the only time he hears about them is when its on national news.
FR reported that no one in her household would ever gamble.
On BUDGET, EDUCATE, and HEALTH R sd that all of them should work together.
MR reported that is retired because of a heart problem that caused him to be disabled.
because of his religion he wouldn't answer any of the government or political questions
tactics person, thinks that health plan should be shut down, yes 1000 miles a week average, republicans are out for blood, liberalism will soon be dead and oregon is going to fall bc of its democratic system and hence lack of economy
MR reported income is currently $0 because he is a full time student.
r took time deciding between protestant and other christian, 1st answer was evangelical christian, decided closest to protestant
On question RP1, F said that the police have always been very good to her and she thinks most of them are good people and that they get a bad reputation from the few people they hire that come up here from California and Los Angelos where they treat peopl
the man is 84 and has been driveind for 65 years and love the computer
It was difficult to keep M R on track. M R thanked me for calling.
did not like to answer any personal Q sed he has had ID theft
This R requested to make comments on these issues. He wanted his opinions to be heard. This is what he said: Im unhappy with the way the state is treating its workers. the management of the state is missing the mark in terms of managing its populace.
R spoke English, but didn't understand some of the words or concepts in the questions, so there's a good number of DON'T KNOWs.
asked a lot of Q and was vary knowleged on all the topics"seet old womon
This gentleman wanted to say that this survey was poorly written. he was very surprised at how bad the questions were He wanted to know who the sponsors are.
f r did not want to answer any political questions, so she told me to skip over all the political questions.
R said at end:If you want to know who they stop, they stop 18 year old males all the time and for no reason (my son is 18).
F doesn't follow politic much and said don't know on most political questions
On RP7, MR sd "that is hard to say now, after 9-11. I am not prejudiced, but since 9-11 I have to say that when I am around Arab people I feel nervous."
FR declined to answer age Q. FR declined to answer type of car driven until I explained reason for Q. FR declined to answer income Q.
R liked to hear anonymous in first part of intro.
R is disabled and does not drive. Her husband drives her vehicle. Questions do not allow opting out if person has drivers license, but does not own a car or does not drive
The respondent refused to procede with demographic questions, due to "it getting too personal."
F disagreed with the DOP idea because thought it would be abused by Bush.
M used don't know for many of the questions he was ill informed on. Usually he tried to get me to interpret his answers or to force a meaning on the question.
I had to rephrase some of the questions for him--at his request. In the beginning he would talk for a while but near the end he just wanted to finish the survey. I would have to listen carefully for the answer in the talking.
FR was quite elderly and was occasionally confused by the questions. She had a license but no vehicle. Specific vehicle questions were answered about the car she used to have.
On the religion question he said Presbaterian but then said he didn't know. I asked him if he would like me to put down "don't know", he said no and told me to put down none. He said he would like a Peace Dep. but isn't sure about it because he isn't su
Halfway through interview older FR said how long was this going to take, my dinner's getting cold. I offered to c/b later, she said go ahead and finish the survey.
MR said he has custom paint, special stereo system, and special tires.
On BUDGET and HEALTH R sd "All of them should work together to decide on that". R's highest level of education was recorded as "Bachelor's", however, R said that he received his college education in Europe, so not called a Bachelors, but would be it's eq
FR reported on EDUCATE and HEALTH: "They should work collaboratively."
FR had a tough time answering politcal party Q, she sd she has been registered Democrat since age 18, votes based on person not the party, but in last 5 years has voted more Republican.
F said she's been in Oregon just 3 months, didn't want to participate at first. I convinced her that newcomers' experiences were important.
FR had a little trouble staying on task, frequently asked me to repeat questions, sounds like she was distracted by a child in the background. Got suspicious when I asked about her car, wanted to know if we were going to pull her over next week (laughing
MR very suspicious about survey's purpose, read the FAQ answers about the sponsors. In answer to the police race question, he said never, it never happens to me.
R was hard of hearing, and I had to ask questions slowly, as well as repeat them.
Reluctant participant refused or said I don't know on alot of questions
RP1 and RP2, woman couldnt answer bc she doesnt have the background for the question and she thinks it would be unfair for her to answer bc she hasnt been subject to discrimination
educate- believes that the educators should be the ones who do the budget
F says she drives a minivan and she thinks that minivans are definitely overlooked by police as far as speeding and other traffic issues go.
all of the politicle questions (except for the president one) could not be answered bc the R has just moved here. also the police questions were answered just on the R's assumptions of what police officers do here
R beleives that we should be spending more money on education bc he sees middle schools w/out sports and music programs, R says that these are crutial for keeping kids out of trouble
F R didn't like the way some of the questions about police were worded.
the oldest 53 year old man I have ever talked to
M refused to answer any questions about the police/crime, politics, and how much money he made - his only reasons were that he hates police and politics and refused to do anything with them. He also refused to talk about his money either.
MR said he has tinted windows. Wanted to know why we asked about the color of his car, and I read the prompt.
R was suspicious about something she never articulated, took Bob Choquette's phone number and demanded my full name.
R told me the color of his 2004 Mercedes was grey, then corrected himself to say graphite. Laughed when I asked if he approved or disapproved of the president.
She says she plays bingo, but not at the casino's, feels if other areas can't have casino's she won't go to theirs. The govenment gives them enough money as it is. This has stopped alot of org.'s from raising money for their causes.
At end of survey, F kept me on the phone for 10 minutes asking me a bunch of questions about the survey, who I was, what the University was doing, asked for the spelling of OSRL, had a hard time understanding me.
F said she used to be a Democrat, but now she's a Republican.
18 year old didn't have a clue about state government, couldn't answer any questions.
F started answering I don't know to the political questions, and wanted to ask her husband for answers. I reminded her this was her survey. She said that she and her husband recently disconnected their television, so she felt unable to answer the questi
Older F said she is a registered Republican, and she absolutely hates George W.
she added "I think we need to get of IRAQ"
M said he commutes to Portland, that's why he drives 800 miles per week.
this is a nursing student so she really isnt up on her politics stuff, all her answers were based off of that she is a republican ( she pointed this out to me)
R had a good grasp of english but did not understand all questions, english was not her first language
F said she drove two cars equally, so I asked her which one she drove the most if only by a mile, and she said the Beetle. F said earlier in the interview that she is a Republican leaning towards being a Democrat.
Converted FR, very suspicious, lives alone in a rural area. Wanted to know why we were asking the demographic questions.
re: crimes, R said crack heads live next door and he is always on guard against them re: religion, R is christian but chose "some other" over protestant, catholic, mormon
FR stayed on interview as children hollered nonstop.
MR (white) said to me at end of the survey - When it comes to the race questions, I think you're asking the wrong question. Portland, and Beaverton, there is a serious problem. I came from Orlando in 1997. I have never witnessed people dying while bein
The respondent asked to make the following statement "First -- I'd like to say I am completely opposed to state run gambling. I had to end a relationship with someone who is addicted to gambling. We are supporting an addiction that destroys people. The sc
FR commented re opinion of Gov. that she has not lived here very long and did not really know how she felt about him yet. She did not say how long she had liven in OR.
FR sd re liberal/mod/conservative: "Well I have to say that I am moderate because I was a Democrat most of my life. But when they [the Democrats] started getting too liberal I changed. I studied and researched and now I am a Republican, but I have not bee
m r said he belong to a trade union plumbers i think
R had a coment "that we need to look at the original reason for having the casinos you cannot have a viable state if you don't have the basic infrastructure of schools, police, health care. So what are doing with that gambling money anyway."
R did not feel comfortable answering a lot of the questions
R said that she works with the police department
R said husband was oregon police officer
R sd she was white, black and indian race
R mentioned that his sister was using drugs and the answer for VICTIM 1A was 3-4 times weekly or daily, therefore the number is over 96. He also said that he is the person in the hh with a disability.
This F had very good hearing & so was easy to interview. F is 87 yrs of age.
M hesitated when I asked the racial profiling questions. I had to proceed carefully as I sensed he could have slammed. At first he didn't want to give me his exact age, I explained RDD and his anonimity, and he answered the question.
F, very paranoid, didn't want to answer car questions, made me repeat questions, acted very annoyed.
FR African American experienced racial profiling. Her car had good tags, but a cop got behind her and ran her 06 tags anyway. In the computer, the tags said 04..., which was incorrect. It was 10pm at night and an African American man was in the passeng
r thinks that there should be more police officers
F wanted to know why we asked the color of her car, I read the targeted certain cars probe.
FR, African American, said that almost every time he got in his car he was pulled over. Sometimes he would be pulled over twice in one day. Lives in Multnomah County. Lost license a year ago. He said he was a diabetic, and diabetics are an easy mark for
M wouldn't answer racial profiling questions - he said something about it being in reverse, the other way around, and that they can't do their jobs. He's over 70, and works as a teacher's aide with the "rough kids." He said that the word conservative is
R is evangelical christian and does not consider herself protestant or catholic
English accented F drilled me at start of intro about survey's purpose, the sponsors, etc. I had to explain RDD to her. She said that it was illegal for us to call her because she has an unlisted number, so I reexplained that we did not get her name fro
the religious question had no way to answer for "other CHRISTIAN" which he was. also, he was black and says he lives in fear EVERY DAY from being stopped by the police. he was a ex gang person who is also afraid of those gang members seeking he out to do
R selected some other religion after reading the question 3 times to her. She kept saying that she was christian but she chose not to select other christian or protestant even though i re-read the answers. Both were on the screen for possible answers.
for education question R went to technical school to be a hair dresser for 2 years.
R said don't know or refused on the police questions and then afterwards said he is upset with the police becuse they never stop anyone for anything where he lives near Bend/ Sunriver. He said that they need more traffic control and there are a lot of fat
R sd that she went to nursing school, and is a registered nurse. I selected the other category for highest level of education question.
The questions about politics didn't come up during this interview. What happened?
F said it is appropriate for police to stop someone based on race if they are looking for someone of that race but wouldn't pick a category
FR sd that the family had just moved to Tigard recently, did not know what county it was in. FR sd she does not really think about politics, did not have any opinion about political party or ideology.
MR asked about being licensed to drive in OR only or in other jurisdictions when asked how long he had been a licensed driver. I sd any license to drive, since the question and probes did not specify. He sd licensed for 35 years in various places. (He had
MR included in the 4 household residents a child who lives with them 1/2 of year. She lives in CA part of year and flies up to OR for visitation.
m r mentioned that he was a police officer
MR said before the survey started that he would not answer any political questions. When I asked the political party question, he said he was not political at all and wanted to skip the political questions. He also skipped the conservative/moderate/libera