Slashdot Mirror

This is correct. For example, how many Deocratic Senators voted against the PATRIOT Act? One. How many Senate Democrats voted against Scalia? Zero. How many corporations donated to both Gore and Bush in 2000? 66.

Bush and Gore both were heavily invested in oil before 2000. Now Gore supports Bush's rush to war.

The Democrats are the iron fist in the velvet glove. The Republicans are just the iron fist. If you want to make a change, join the only party that is growing in the US, the Green Party.

IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.

This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.

Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.

But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)

But no, you want to tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.

You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.


EOD

We live in a democratic system, ...

This is not Democracy .

Check out opensecrets.org for the Center for Responsive Politics' stats for contribution information and reports on key special interests.

And, of course, also go to the BillionairesForBushOrGore.com site and check out their price/performance guide's Return on Investment" section.

I created an account, but the email with my password is taking forever. :)

Check out opensecrets.org for the Center for Responsive Politics' stats for contribution information and reports on key special interests.

And, of course, also go to the BillionairesForBushOrGore.com site and check out their price/performance guide's Return on Investment" section.

I created an account, but the email with my password is taking forever. :)

While it's true that for the most part BushGore were on the side of big business, Microsoft was a fighting point. Whereas Dubya was using the phrase "we shouldn't restrict innovation" in his speeches, Gore campaigned in favor of antitrust action in the software industry while visiting Redmond. Here's a quote from the Seattle Times:

"If competition is valuable, which I think it is, then antitrust laws have a place in embodying the values of our country," Gore said. "If dominance in one area is used to prevent competition in another area, that's wrong."

Let me repeat -- Gore said this at the heart of Microsoft's campus, to their faces. He's also an old fan of Macs, and his campaign web server ran on Linux/Apache/PHP.

Sorry if this handful of talking points isn't convincing enough for you, but I am dead certain Gore wouldn't have ordered DoJ to surrender like this.

Actually, this is one of the few issues where BushGore differed by more than a hair's witdth. Whereas Dubya was using the phrase "we shouldn't restrict innovation" in his speeches, Gore campaigned in favor of antitrust action in the software industry while visiting Redmond. Here's a quote from the Seattle Times:

"If competition is valuable, which I think it is, then antitrust laws have a place in embodying the values of our country," Gore said. "If dominance in one area is used to prevent that competition in another area, that's wrong."

Let me repeat -- Gore said this at the heart of Microsoft's campus, to their faces, while asking for their votes. He may be an arrogant exaggerating tight-ass, but he's got some big brass balls.

Of course, Microsoft probably would have gotten a breakup thrown out on appeal either way, but at least the DoJ wouldn't have rolled over like this. When they appointed Charles James as head of DoJ antitrust division, Dubya's handlers knew exactly what they were doing.

"'(4) Competitor consideration prohibited: In making the determinations specified in paragraph (1) or (2), the Commission shall not consider whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity might be served by the grant of a license to a person other than the renewal applicant.'. "

I'm not surprised--they bought Bush and Gore last year. It's hard to lose when you bet on every team.

Are you saying that Democrats are almost as greedy and corrupted as Republicans? My god, what a revelation.

"Oh, and if you read your links, they gave a vast majority of it to the parties in general, not to individuals ($5k limit, it makes it hard to buy people)."

I would say that $5k is plenty, but that's irrelevant since the limit means nothing. And if the limit could work despite non-federal accounts and pseudo-independent PACs, the contributions would still be limitless because, thanks to those loveable lobbyists, contributions are .

"So, if they They bought whatever / whomever they needed, why did this not happen years earlier, ie: before the first verdict?"

Check the original links, which I'm sure you poured over, given your snide response; Microsoft has only been a corrupting force on Capitol Hill for a little less than 2 years.

I didn't appreciate the judge botching this up either, but obviously you have it all figured out. And you're not the only one who shares that opinion of slashdot. Hell, I would say at least 10% of slashdot readers think that 100% of slashdot readers are mindless anti-MS zealots. Which leads me to believe that around 10% of slashdot readers are morons who have yet to figure out that they're reading slashdot.

There is a little flamewar a few threads up where someone replying to this post says that

Did you ever think maybe the media presents a single sided view of murder? Maybe it's alright too. The meida [ sic ] means nothing in this, YOU know you're stealing and THEY know you're stealing...

There is an appropriate quote, from Wilson I think: "A journalist's job is not to tell the truth. A journalist's job is to write sensational stories that sell newspapers."

Here are a few issues that Big Media chooses to ignore in order to do their jobs:

1. The profit margin on a CD is much higher than on a cassette. Why are they gouging the consumer?
2. When the RIAA goes to court or Washington, they speak endlessly about protecting the rights of the artists. However, when a recording company signs a contract with an artist, nothing could describe the transaction better than the metaphor of anal rape (no lubrication, of course).
3. Music sales are indisputably dropping. Shouldn't that be expected in the time of increasing unemployment and collapse of the dot-bomb industry?
4. For many years there has been an increase in the number of stores selling used CDs. These are bought from individuals (hence the "used" moniker) and sold for a drastically lower price. It is possible now for the same number of CDs to be sold while the sales dollar figure plummets. This can take place in America or Canada.

To further disillusion you, I am providing this link to interesting stories that Big Media censors by under-reporting. Most of these stories are important in the grand scheme of things. Putting these stories on the front page would be detrimental to Big Media's primary goal, which of course is to maximize their shareholders' profit. Bookmark the link and come back to it next year to see what you missed in 2001.

To summarize, the recording industry is no longer needed. Because America is a banana republic, yet with a much more esoteric manner of palm-greasing than your typical banana republic known as "campaign contributions", the industry is not giving its dying breath. Instead it is struggling by any means necessary to outlast its timely demise. Judging by the support in this sid, I think their means are working.

There IS a certain day where EVERYONE is equal, and that day can easily change the power in this country. The same neo-socialists that complain about captialism are usually the same group that fails to turn out to the polls.

Yeah, I go to the polls, but mostly to vote on local bond issues and ballot questions.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

The Colonel's right. This list contains the names of companies smart enough to get their "message" out to congresspeople, and to Bush and Gore during the last election.

If you love God, burn a church!

Now America, like most of the western world has developed a _system of Democracy_ to ensure tha each person gets a say in the running of the nation.

And American democracy is not perfect. Nothing special about America there, none of the other democracies are perfect either. In Greece, someone just got imprisoned for distributing leaflets saying that minority languages exist. In Britain, the government is probably going to pass a law postponing forthcoming elections (for important reasons of course) and nobody will bat an eyelid; also many laws are being blocked which the majority of the population would like, by a few hundred unelected peers who sit in the House of Lords. All democracies are flawed.

In American democracy, one big deviation from democracy is that money can buy a lot of political power. The music cartel has been buying power for years, and weighting the system in their favour.

I humbly suggest to you that it is not morally justifiable to advovate theft when there is reasonable democratic recourse available to you.

Mmm hmm... I see.

And you believe the people selected our current president, too?

Take a look at this information and then tell me you still believe your rights to self governance haven't been diluted into nothingness by corporate money.

Actually, Microsoft gave at least $50,000 to both major parties in this election. Note that I said major.

The economic prosperity in the USA in recent years has two major drawbacks that have been pointed out elsewhere, but still I'll mention them in short:

• Investment money must come from somewhere. A significant portion of America's technology boom was and is built on debts: individual debt, public debt, all sorts of crap. This is why, during the last year, we saw the stock markets come to the brink of collapse: because the money that was invested wasn't actually there. A borrows a sum of $n from B, invests it in enterprise C, makes a profit of $k*n and gives B back his $n, keeping (k-1)*n for himself. This is how investment works. The whole thing is based on debt, however, and when C crashes in the meantime, both A and B are in trouble. We had the chance to witness that over the last months. In times of trouble, investment makes large numbers of people poor instead of making them rich. Rule #1 of investment banking.
• It is not as easy as "everybody profits from prosperity". The sentence conveys an idea of equality that is not based on facts. Fact is that some people profit greatly, while others profit not so greatly and others do not profit at all. A 50-year-old mine worker who has been replaced by a robot may actually recover from the loss of his job, but on average, most of them would have been better off without having been replaced. As far as the idea of more money in the system leading to higher taxes and better social security, this is misleading again, since in America, thanks to the election campaign funding system, richer people actually pay less tax, at least in a large number of cases. And as far as the 25 unemployed miners are concerned, well, the added profit the process owner makes is never going to generate enough tax volume to actually provide for them. This is a naive assumption that believes in the quality of a system on the basis of a theoretically nice view of the world, while ignoring some of the less shiny aspects.

Basically, this industry is doing what many others have done for many years, which is give to both parties, that way they are covered no matter who wins.


See Billionairesforbushorgore.com. They're party won this past November.

But you're right, the STATE wastes all of our money ;) What we need is reform at every level.. local, statewide, and federal.

Do your part, vote. And not for BushGore ;)

For the past week, I've been watching and reading the news with increasing trepidation as one person after another attempts to pass off their partisan opinon as the one and only correct, unbiased interpretation of the law. Campaign staffers, GOP and Dem politicians, regular voters, the digerati, and even the press. I view both the Democrats and the Republicans with equal distaste, and am equally unhappy with either candidate. I think that's about as unbiased as you're gonna get. Am I the only one in America?

Ironically, the most level-headed non-partisan statement I've heard yet has come from Al Gore. And not even that was without a slant.

And as I've been watching this whole circus, I've been hollering at the TV screen and muttering to my newspaper, "stop acting like third world politicians, pretending you aren't arguing from an extreme position!" All these people, especially James Baker and Mindy Tucker, seem to have absolutely no clue as to how biased they sound when they make their public statements. They're so blinded by their partisanship they can't see how hypocritical they look to people who are only interested in a fair outcome.

Of course, what should I expect from Florida? Chicago and Louisiana may have the reputations as corrupt, but I used to live in Florida. Based on the amount of corruption, con artisanship, and good ole boy networking I endured there, I was immediately cracking jokes about how ironic it was that the outcome of the presidential election would depend on the integrity of Florida officials. It is a banana republic folks, in a lot of ways.

There are a lot of Americans who believe that we have the most honest, ethical system of government in the world. And they have good reason to believe it - it's drummed into us from day one. And it may still be true. But always remember and never forget: that doesn't mean it's completely honest and totally ethical. To say "it can never happen here" is to leave the door wide open for corruption. And I fear that's what we have done.

Look at it this way: when money can buy policy in DC, the way it does now, just how soon will it be until money can buy an election? And has it happened already?? We need to keep asking those questions, or else it will happen right under our noses.

Heck, that's exactly why I voted for Nader. There's too much influence in Washington by special interests with lots of money. Nobody there does anything if it's not greased by megabucks. Is that ethical? Is it good government? It disturbs me that these practices are so widely accepted. I know I'm not the only one, but it seems there aren't enough of us.

And, in closing, I have to unleash my inner conspiracy theorist or he's gonna eat a hole in my spleen: it sure smells a lot to me like the Bush boys tried to buy an election, and it blew up in their faces. But we'll probably never see any evidence to support that... then again, stranger things (cough, Monica, cough) have happened!

Aaa-hAHAHahaHAhAHAHHAaaa!! (tenticals waving wildly) Always twirling, twirling, twiirrling!

The St. Louis polls are now officially closed. The reason the judge here upheld the decision to keep them open until 10, because the elections were so screwed up! There were countless people who have put in a change 6 month-6 YEARS ago, that weren't able to vote due to state screw-ups!!! And the REPUBLICAN(t's) are calling the very idea of bending the rules (because of gov't screw-up) an evil Democratic plot to try to get more votes! Boy, are they afraid of what the people think! I bet they're also really afraid of having an idea like the IRV system established... The Muppets explain IRV!

I was voting with my girlfriend at 3945 Flad in St. Louis, MO, finishing up around 5 minutes to 7 when I heard workers in the gymnasium aruguing loudly "They ain't making us stay open 'till 10!" and so forth from a few of them (but not all). Two African-American males were turned away at 6:59! They mentioned to us that Bush had better not win, and I hope they're right. On TV, I'm now watching two head Republicans (Senator & Ms. Chairman) and they are really worked up in a frenzy yelling how great it is that the 3 federal judges overturned the local (and more in tune with the cirmumstances) judge's motion to keep the faulty polls open late. I can't believe the "lady" is so arrogant to not see another side of the story - it's clear she doesn't feel sorry for the polls not operated properly, giving good reason to allow everyone to make an important choice. How many votes have been killed?

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.fair.org/
http://www.nader2000.org/

http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com/

-Peter

I am sick and tired of all the stories about "horrible" GWB and "lesser evil" Gore - because I remember Slashdotters crying about all those horrible laws that Clinton/Gore ushered in.

This is the biggest problem with the American public: 2 minute attention span and 5 minute memory. Anybody remembers CDA, son-of-CDA, DMCA, wiretapping extensions, war on drugs?!

There's a problem with voting for the "lesser evil" - Gore doesn't have to actually do anything positive, because he can always point to something that GWB or (God forbid!) Buchanan *might* have done.

In my opinion, this whole Republican/Democrat dichotomy is about Yale-Harvard Texas-South Texaco-Occidental Petroleum - it's not about any real issues.

Oh, by the way, here's a great site: Billionaires for Bush/Gore

Both of them got at least $1 million so far. It isn't known how much was soft money given to each party, but it's clear that Microsoft is the true "Billionaire for Bush or Gore" (as opposed to the the satirical one).

So instead of discussing wide-ranging issues, and actually arguing (which doesn't mean "My plan's better!" "No, my plan's better!"), they go for a few key topics that they figure will convince one-topic-voting middle of the roaders.

Do you really believe that the future of our nation and direction of the people who live here is centrally based on school vouchers, cheaper prescription drugs for seniors (hey, I buy prescription drugs, too, but ain't nobody trying to buy my vote), and social security? People gloss over things like, oh, I don't know, economics and foreign policy. Apparently, people seem okay with the fact that Dubya, the would-be representative of our country to the world, is about as conversant with world politics as a college freshman! This is bizarre!

And Gore...well, Gore's the lesser of two evils, but that still means that he's evil. The Democratic party is like methadone to liberal junkies -- it gives them enough of a social kick to stop them going out and making a real difference in the world. I think that, in terms of developing political consciousness in this country, it's a bad thing -- it keeps us sheeplike, and distracts us from the transformation of our republic into a corporate oligarchy. See http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.co m.

Plenty of folk who could do plenty good as activists and active voters and citizens are lulled by the vague social bread-and-circuses of the Dems.

So hey, yeah, I'm voting for Nader, so the Green Party can get matching funds, so that in four years when things are f-ed up even more, they can put up a real fight. Remember, corporate soft-money contributions have _doubled_ since the last election. That's not 10% growth, or 50% growth, but _doubled_. I don't want my politics to be corporate PR.

Surprise, surprise, Microsoft has given AT LEAST $50,000 to BOTH candidates George W. Gore and Al Bush. I've tried to submit a story about Who's Giving The Big Bucks To BushGore. Read 66 Smart Billionaires for the full list.

Billionaires for Bush or Gore is a site worth reading if you really think that Gore and Bush are so fucking different.

Both had daddies who were Big Men on the Mall, quintessential DC Insiders.

Both of their families made their fortunes in industries which were/are taxpayer subsidized.

Both of them are pro-death penalty and pro-WTO, an organization which has the ability to overrule a nation's laws.

Read some of my past posts and see the light.

And by the way: These "A vote for Nader is a vote for whomever" crap? Congrats, you've been brainwashed.

Last I checked, a vote for Bush is a vote for Bush. A vote for Gore is a vote for Gore. A vote for NADER is a vote for NADER.

If you want to subscribe to the switch-vote lie, then it's more like a vote for BUSH is a vote for GORE and a vote for GORE is a vote for BUSH.

And finally, voting for "the lesser of two evils" is like choosing between Pneumonia and Influenza, according to Studs Terkel. Both are nasty, and both can kill. (And the worst part about voting the lesser of two evils is that you've still got TWO EVILS.)

Microsoft, which is under indictment for anti-trust violations, has contributed one million dollars to both major parties. Microsoft is just one of a growing number of corporations that give large sums to both Republicans and Democrats. Is there anything about this that you find troubling? If the smart people at Microsoft don't care which major party wins the white house, why should we?

I ask my fellow (US) Slashdot readers to please let this continue by supporting these two fine parties in November. For more information, see Billionaires for Bush (or Gore).

This first example is becoming cliche, but stick with me a moment: In Japan, acts of violence and depravity are commonplace in anime and manga, and are accepted... yadda yadda. And their people commit one of the lowest rates of real violence in the world.

Contrast that with Germany, where entertainment that depicts violence committed by one human against another is verboten. Command and Conquer had to be retouched and its manual rewritten to depict its soldiers as robots, not people. Even then, it was sold only to adults. Forget about playing Panzer General. And God Forbid you even link to a web page that mentions Nazis in anything but a contemptful light. This is a reaction to their Fascist era, a time when elected German leaders executed 6 million minority citizens.

So yes. It is cultural. IANASociologist, so I won't get all Jungian and speculate about archetypes and cultural personality, but each society has to find what works -- and what doesn't -- for them. And in every society except stagnant, isolated ones, it's an ongoing search.

Now I'm going to use a word that will make a lot of you want to invoke Godwin's Law. But I'm not using that word in the sense in which Godwin usually encountered it. I'm going to use it in it's original sense. It's important that we, as informed citizens, be able to talk about this word, and know what it really means.

Get out your dictionary and look up the first definition of fascism - it's not about goosestepping and stiffarm saluting and gassing minorities. It's about efficiency. Fascism is the principle that any order, any rule, any law, is justified if it means the state will benefit: be more efficient, run smoother, be safer. Beginning to sound familiar? It should.

Because that's exactly what a lot of legislators have aimed for lately, without regard for individual liberty: anti-smoking laws, censorship of violence in media, drug wars, gun control, three strikes mandatory sentencing. Even worse, if it hasn't been effective at safety and efficiency, it's been successfully sold as such.

And it's not only state-oriented fascism, it's corporate-oriented fascism. Washington legislators are more than happy to exchan ge votes for the contributions of major corporations in order that they may run more efficiently. Laws are continually passed "for the good of the people" when they are really just good for business. To hell with the constitution, there's a buck to be made.

It's scary how the children of men who fought against fascism in WW2 are so willing to embrace it. It's scary how easily we've forgotten. Too many liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike are willing to sacrifice our liberties for safety and efficiency. My grandfather, a WW2 B-29 pilot, is probably pounding the walls of his coffin in frustration.

But that's the dark corners of the big picture. We still have defenders of the liberties endowed upon us by the constitution: From the EFF to the NRA. The entire state of Nevada and most of Texas. From PETA and Greenpeace to Larry Flynt. The Libertarian Party and even Nader. Anyone who argues for the rights of anything other than big business and "what's best for the country."

We aren't going to wind up like modern Germany. There's an equilibrium somewhere between libertarian anarchy and fascism, and we're seeking it. There are too many of us who paid attention in high school Civics class and know what's in the bill of rights. There are too many of us who own guns and know how to use them properly... and accurately. There are too many of us who entertain ourselves simulating small unit combat and tactics...

So you see, in the end, FPS and RTS games are one of the weapons in our arsenal against bad government. They fit right in alongside free press and the right to bear arms. No wonder they're being condemned by government. I suggest that these games -- weapon and combat simulators, really -- should be protected under the second amendment, as well as the first.

That's what I've been telling everyone this year. Gore doesn't represent liberals, and Bush doesn't represent conservatives. And as for libertarians, if they buy the Republican party's pseudo-libertarian rhetoric ("We're against Big Government, by which we mean we're against the government doing anything that big corporations don't like!") I've got some oceanfront property for sale in Kansas.
Those presidential debates mean nothing now that Nader, Browne, and Buchanan have been excluded. Do you expect to hear Gore and Bush debate the death penalty? The war on drugs? Free trade with China? Any of the scary technological issues spawned by too much corporate power we read about here every day? Nope. As Billionaires for Bush (or Gore) say, "We don't care who you vote for: We've already bought them."

Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)

Is that the sense in which you believe politics has ended? That there's no place for anything but billionaires (individual or corporate) to participate? The only other way to end politics is to have surpassed the need for coercion, and, last I checked, that hasn't happened for any but the most ignorant of the privileged.

Yep. For a nice comparison of our two candidates, visit Billionaires for Bush (or Gore).

Billionaires for Bush or Gore

AOL is one of 66 Smart corporations which donated over $50k to both the Bush and Gore campaigns. So don't expect any serious constraints on AOL/Time Warner from either of these two would-be prez's.

Please help billioniares to better rule us by voting for one of their paid candidates, if you live in the U.S. See BillionairesforBushorGore.com Or for a compact synopsis go here

Never before in American history has so much money been invested in the stock market by so many people. We own our oppressor.

We all have "stock" in the federal government, too; but does that mean that it doesn't oppress some American citizens? Hardly.

Before you tell me that, tell me how much your vote will mean in the next election. Tell me if your vote is wasted.

So will my vote for Nader be wasted? Pretty much. It's symbolic action, rejecting both mainstream choices; it might have some small indirect effect if enough people do the same, but no matter which way I - or anyone who reads this - votes, we're going to get a rich, big-business-friendly, born-again-Christian, white guy in the White House.

I mostly go to the polls to vote on bond issues, for schools and parks and against new jails (stop locking up drug users and you'll have plenty of room) and "senior citizens" centers (the elderly are the richest demographic and they already get a nice chunck out of my paycheck to subsidize their retirement), and occasionally an interesting local race.

If you go to the so-called parody site, and look at the bottom of it, you will note actual footnotes. Common Cause, "Why Senior Citizens Should Care about Campaign Finance Reform," November 22, 1999: http://www.commoncause.org/publications/nov99/seni or.html; "Big Money, Big Benefits," Baltimore Sun, July 19, 1998: http://www.commoncause.org/publications/072498.htm ; "Pocketbook Politics: How Special-Interest Money Hurts the American Consumer," February 24, 1998: http://www.commoncause.org/publications/pocketbook 1.htm; "Return on Investment: The Hidden Story of Soft Money, Corporate Welfare and the 1997 Budget & Tax Deal," November 12, 1997: http://www.commoncause.org/publications/return.htm . Sometimes the truth is scarier than fiction.

Um, what wonderful place do you live in? Here in the US, voting does not make you politically relevant. Campaign contributions make you political ly relevant.

Um, what wonderful place do you live in? Here in the US, voting does not make you politically relevant. Campaign contributions make you political ly relevant.

the difference is that companies have competition.

You're forgetting that communist regimes have competition too. Competition with capitalism is what the Bolsheviks (and more importantly, later, the Stalinists) used to justify their attrocities.

Corporations are creating this strange new form of nationalism. And same thing we saw with the Communist and Capitalist countries who were all too willing to work together to increase their mutual power over citizens, we're seeing competing corporations who will work together in order to increase their control over consumers.

Strange days, no?

All of this serves to maintain a stable system, a corporate ecology. Birth, life and death are all factored in so that the system may perpetuate itself. There were no such measures taken for communism.

Maybe Adam Smith's version of capitalism, yes. But remember that theory and practice are very different beasts. Marx's communism had people in control of the government. Has that ever happened? No.

Witness the amount of control corporations have over each of the candidates. Would Adam Smith or any of the "fathers of capitalism" have condoned corporate control of electoral democracy?

btw, spilkas, how'd you acquire such a low UID?

I've been on Slashdot since about 1997 or so.

Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net

Find out which of the two-sided liars will do the least damage to our freedoms and vote for that person.

I would certainly agree that neither candidate is ideal, but almost certainly one of the candidates is closer to your idea of perfection than the other.

Let me point out that link again: Billionaires For Bush (or Gore)'s Candidate Comparison Chart.

If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you'll always have two evils to choose from.

Special interest groups get what they want out of the system because they take the time to vote. It's quite simple really.

They will give up their scruffy clothes, and their organized acts of violence in the name of "protest" and they will instead simply walk down tho the local elementary school and cast their vote.

What was it Bill Hicks said about Americian politics? "I think the puppet on the left represents my views. No, I think the puppet on the right it more to my liking." Meanwhile it's the same guy with his hand up both puppet's asses.

(See also Bill's version of the new president's first day in office, as rendered by Garth Ennis.)

This is different, VoteAuction isn't asking you to send them a blank ballot, they're simply going to make a suggestion of who you vote for and then will send money to anyone who can demonstrate that they have voted for them. They're not buying a vote, just offering a reward.

Analogies:

• eBay: A guys about to enter the voting station so I walk up and tell him I'll give him a dollar if he votes for BushGore.
• VoteAuction: I stand outside the voting station with a sign that says "if you're voting for BushGore, I'll give you $1".

The trick is, in order to make this look better, VoteAuction has to offer the same reward to voters who weren't previously registered with them.

A friend of mine was talking about something like this about three years ago... think of it as "Capitalism meets politics." We (USA) live in a democratic society which promotes a capitalistic economy (or so they would have us believe). Most people feel as if their vote doesn't count or their choices are the same. So why not be able to do the capitalistic thing and sell your vote?

Well, if you're not going to vote in an election, you might as well sell it... Sell it to the highest bidder, the special intrest group which you most agree with, whatever it doesn't really matter - you proffit.

Consider the market, most Americans are apathetic about politics but very interested in the economy. This puts more money in the American workers hand (from selling their vote) and creates an entire new line of work - vote-brokering. Entire blocks of disenchanted voters can be bought out (at a fair price) and sold by these vote-brokers to the highest bidding candidate (well you sold it to them, they can do with it as they please). The neatest thing though? The price of your vote becomes more and more valuable as the election draws closer - and both candidates (or sides to a referendum/whatnot) want your vote more and more as they approach the 51% mark. After that, your vote is 100% worthless.

You wouldn't have to sell your vote, you could still vote normally - but you would have the option of making some money off your vote if you wanted to.

So what happens if someone bad gets elected? Obviously they get into office, screw up and piss off the people, and then the people decide to either vote themselves or make sure they sell their vote to any opposing candidate next time...

Why do I call it Tommunisim? My friend's name is Tommy... and he's grown bizarely adamant about such things...

If we switch to online voting, it is almost inevitable that there will be a hacking attack on the site, thereby making all the votes from that site unusable.

If online voting gains enough popularity, the goverment might consider closing the physical voting booths so those who don't or can't afford to have a computer cannot vote. Which means they won't elect a candidate that represents them, and the issues they care about, thus turning the online voting booth into Billionaresforbushorgore.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

Especially Telling is the return on investment big companies get from buying politicians, which makes 50-100% returns from the stock market look pathetic. Also check out the list of companies who have bought BOTH Bush and Gore

Joor candidate for prez. is owned

Especially Telling is the return on investment big companies get from buying politicians, which makes 50-100% returns from the stock market look pathetic. Also check out the list of companies who have bought BOTH Bush and Gore

Joor candidate for prez. is owned

Especially Telling is the return on investment big companies get from buying politicians, which makes 50-100% returns from the stock market look pathetic. Also check out the list of companies who have bought BOTH Bush and Gore

Joor candidate for prez. is owned