Slashdot Mirror

That should be http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/ .

www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om

I vote Republican for one big reason - Democrats are big cry babies.

So, let me get this straight. You vote Republican because when Democrats see something seriously wrong, they challenge it? It's better than sitting idly while your freedoms, liberties, and livelihood is challenged.

They proved that with the 2000 election.

Gore won that election, even in Florida. I was a Republican, but crossed over to the Democratic party after watching the Republican party steal the presidency. Bush is president only by title. Even this election, several republicans funded by the GOP have been caught disposing of tens of thousands of valid democrat voter registrations in swing states, and rarely vice versa, probably a fraction of the total fraud going on.

Don't hate me because I think John Kerry is a douche bag

But I'm voting for him anyway

I figured it was either that or because of a certain website hosted on campus.

He does, but he's got that republican majority to deal with. Plus you've gotta think about the greater and lesser evils.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com/

First let me say: John Kerry Is A Douche Bag But I'm Voting For Him Anyway.

That being said, I have 0 spyware on my (Windows) system because I never use Internet Explorer. Plain and simple. Firefox protects me pretty good.

(btw) Windows Update no longer requires you to use Internet Explorer - just check the option to download but not install automatic updates.

I'm a Republican too, but I despise Bush. He claims to be conservative but is wholesaling America to the highest bidder.

I really wish I could take back my vote in 2000 and give it to Gore.

Bush is great if you're rich, own a major oil or logging company, like to breathe CO2, or look forward to the 23 rise on sea level.

If you're the average Joe in the U.S. that doesn't buy into the whole Saddam = Terrorism garbage, then Bush eats it. I'm sick to death of his cheesy grin and empty rhetoric.

Anyone But Bush

John Kerry is a Douche Bag But I'm Voting For Him Anyway

Much easier said than done. It'll take a constitutional amendment to the electoral system or a majority vote for a third party. The former requires that we already have fixed the problem and the latter requires a billionaire's riches and a face that TV viewers of all ages can fall in love with and trust with their social security.

But for now the vote is consistently down the middle because the parties gradually adjust their platforms to gain support. There's no future in the "first we oust the republicans, then we can start voting green" strategy. Skimming through 200 years, the industry party is now the religious industry party and the pro-slavery party is now the pro-freedom party? Every election we reach down to scrape the bottom of the barrel, and argue over which side. Sure, they differ on many important issues, but the biggest issues, they won't even acknowledge because they're already in agreement, the lobbies make sure.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com/

If it takes video game characters to get people to vote, obviously they don't need to be voting.

It's not like Mario came out and endorsed a candidate... it would be cool if he did, but it hasn't happened... yet.

An informed public is far better than one that just votes to vote

What?!!?!?!

What do you say to those people out there that vote on one issue like abortion, gay marriage or flag burning... seems to me that no matter where you stand on these issues you must first get a Constitutional amendment or change the makeup of the federal court system to really make an impact. 99,999 times out of 100,000 you are throwing your vote away anyways.

Personally I think someone that says "Bush is a douche bag, but he's against abortion so I'm voting for him" shouldn't have the right to vote. Neither does someone who says "Kerry is a douche bag, but he's for middle-class tax cuts so I'm voting for him"

All of the voters, in a perfect world, should make a decision based on all of the issues at hand. Sometimes it is hard to make a choice, but zeroing in on one thing and sticking to that is wrong. Likely you'll get a candidate who just panders to those types of voters and actually does nothing about it.

BTW, Kerry is a douche bag. (Funny)

Here's one person's take on why this is a time to vote for the lesser of two evils:
johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com I haven't read the site, but the URL says it all.

I feel sick saying it, but I may have to vote for him. I just wish someone else had actually seriously campaigned for president. I've just got to keep pushing for IRV or one of it's better alternatives.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com/

# Begin soapbox

The "lesser of the two evils" arguement and the anti-"lesser of the two evils" arguement are both holding less and less value.

Though "W" and Kerry may seem pretty much the same, it's the administrations that need changing more than anything else.

We've all seen what the current regime is capable of. They are pure evil. I do not think George W. Bush is pure evil. I don't think he's smart enough for that. But when you have advisors who lead you into evil, then the fun starts. It is worsened by the fact that Bush won't listen to anyone else. Not the "American People" (buzzword!), not the government, and certainly not the rest of the world.

This is where the difference between the two lie. I think Kerry would be more open to suggestion from watchdog groups like Moveon.org, as well as our allies.

Those that hate Bush but say they're going to vote for him because he's the lesser of two evils are either retarted or insane. One definition for insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result. I am a Green, and this year, Nader is not getting my vote. Nor will the Green Party candidate. Nor will Michael Badnarik. John Kerry is a douchebag but I'm voting for him anyway.

# End of soapbox

you're right, there are many other options then kerry or bush, but none of them have a chance in hell and we definitely need to displace bush no matter what. the only way I could and will support endorsing third party candidates is if you're in one of the 30 or so states that are solid red or blue.

http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanywa y.com/

Really good point.

China is taking another "great leap forward". The first attempt was something of a disaster, but you've got to admit their track record has improved a lot.

Capitalism is definitely not the same as a free market.

China's (new) model is very capitalistic, just with all the capital owned by the state or members of the well-connected business class. Thus reducing the potential for increased wealth to lead to increased demands for increased political freedom.

Which is scarily like the crony-capitalism model the United States is moving towards.

It's sad that the post-industrial economy is leading to the loss of political rights in the West, rather than as once was hoped, an increase in freedom in places like China and Russia (where the state is also reasserting its power).

by the way http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com/

"Right now, we've got a nice clean split. One candidate receives very nearly half of the vote, and this means a good portion of the country is represented."

More like, right now half the country is voting for a candidate that they don't truly admire just to keep the other scumbag out of office.

e.g.
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com/

Fuck, I don't like John Kerry as a person, but I'm going to vote for him anyway (see this guy's excellent site for somebody with a similar opinion). Sometimes your vote functions more as a referendum on the current state of affairs than anything else.

There is a legitimate source for frustration caused by our electoral college system in the national presidential election. My presidential vote, as a Massachusetts resident, basically doesn't count for shit since the state votes overwhelmingly Democrat in national elections. I'll still vote anyway, however, because I want to make sure that even if Bush wins the electoral college again, it's DAMNED clear that he doesn't have a mandate from the majority of this country for what he's doing.

Maybe someday we'll get an instant runoff system and the two party system power structure will be toppled. I think the fear of the change this would bring prevents people from embracing the idea too strongly. And the fear that the system would be too complicated for the average, poorly educated American citizen, leading to it somehow being gamed by people taking advantage of the dumb masses. Anyway, until we're able to make this happen, we have to work within the system as it exists.

Also, they identified three big gainers out of their pool of 50 leading outsourcers, and those three account for a big chunk of the increase (including Oracle CEO Ellison whose "compensation" went up 103,000 percent from roughly zero to about $40 million; I'm sure basically all of it was due to stock market changes).

FYI, I'm voting for Kerry.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com

Someone's mention of Ashcroft brought up an interesting question in my mind. Is there any chance that this holy quest to bring down all filesharing activity would be any different if Kerry were elected? Personally, I wish there was a viable third party candidate, but since it's not going to happen in this election, I'm considering voting for Kerry solely on the fact that it will get Bush out of office. This website kind of sums up my thoughts on the election.

To that end...

Check out johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

Asia gets blocked by some providers not because of the amount of spam, it's because of the proportion of spam to useful mail. I don't know anyone in Asia, so unfortunalty it makes sense for me to use a provider that blocks them.

The other problem is that we don't really have laws that give the government the power to just shut off the top spammers, and I don't know if I want them to have that power--Their list is too likely to include sites like http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com/ , based on the same investigative techniques that gave us the compelling evedence of Iraqi WMD.

"Did John Kerry really vote against Kevlar jackets for our soldiers? Could a person be such a ruthless monster? Technically yes, but in reality, no, not really. All of the issues listed in the advertisement were part of an 87 billion dollar proposition for money to be set aside for the war in Iraq . Kerry supported these provisions that in turn supported our soldiers; what he didn't support, however, was the method of paying for all of these provisions. In its final inception, which Kerry did indeed vote against, all of the funding would come directly from the pockets of taxpayers. There was, however, a previous version of this bill that drew some funding from oil revenues in Iraq , which just so happens to be the nation we're pouring our money and lives into rebuilding. This is the version that Kerry supported, and rightfully so."

From JohnKerryIsA...

I like this endorsement better.

Travelling off-topic, but this year's election IS nothing more than Bush/Not Bush.

I'd have to agree, and this site sums this up quite nicely...

...how the hell do we fight this?

May I suggest this solution?

I was talking about this to some people today, actually. Recently, there was a poll where voters preferred the idea of having Bush flipping burgers at their barbecue, and having Kerry teach their children. Which is microcosmic of what the differences between Bush and Kerry are in fact. Bush seems like he would be a funny guy to have over for lunch, despite the fact that he could be an asshole at times and generally was close-minded, uneducated, loud and obnoxious. Kerry, on the other hand, would be a stuck-up prick of a guest, with his nose high in the air, subtly critcizing your choice in wine. There is no doubt about it, Kerry is a jerk-off (which is of course why websites like this were made).

But as far as job qualification goes, he's got it in spades over Bush. And what is ultimately more important (seeing on how our presidents of the last few decades have been nothing more than symbols, like the Queen of England), the people Kerry would surround himself with and would be making the policies would be infinitely better than Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice and the bunch.

John Kerry is a douchebag, but I'm voting for him anyway.

If the spammers are linking text like " " or "." to hide their activities, google will easily be able to identify those and block those sites but then spammers will start linking words.

How about we relink any spam we find from http://www.spamsite.com/ To: http://www.searchenginespammers.net/bb-spammer.cgi /http://wwww.spamsite.com/ After linking, 1) click the link (or better have a program visit it with the correct referrrer string or report the link via a web form on the cgi) and 2) move the link to your search engine accessible spam page. Actually, reporting via a web form is better than clicking the link if you are doing it manually because you don't increment the sites hit counters and you don't expose your computer to malware.

Of course, someone would need to register searchenginespammers.net and install a cgi there that would basically display a page describing the criminal practice of bulletin board/wiki spamming, and then lists all the referrer strings that have brought it to this particular page.

This will help search engines like google identify the wiki spammers and purge their sites from their search results. In the short term, searches for the keywords they tried to drive to their site would now take them to searchenginespammers.net and once the folks at google take action they can use it to activiate a filter mechanism. Other sites besides google can use the information. Someone could start a PICS or DNS based blacklist based on listings at searchenginespammers.net that people could use to prevent patronizing such sites. Email filters could use the list to help identify spam.

Like any site that lists spam URLs, there is the possibility that people will spam other peoples URLs to discredit them, so that needs to be taken into account.

Also, this thread is a reminder that when mentioning a company we dislike ( SCO, MPAA, RIAA , Macrovision , Microsoft, George W Bush, etc. should either not link their name or link their name to a site that describes their misconduct; we don't want to help them get better search engine rankings.

Don't blame Microsoft, blame the courts.

I say, "Don't blame the courts, blame the people who keep voting for the two parties!"

Having said that, I am for the first time in about twenty years in November going to vote for president someone in the two parties. http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com/

Wrong! Belive it or not, people are going out of their way to inform the public about Kerry. This guy thinks that John Kerry is a Douche Bag, but he's going to vote for him anyway (as are most people that I've talked to): http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com/

In a world where EVIL is actually hurting everyday citizens (and the global ecosystem), the lesser of 2 evils actually becomes quite relevant.

Our civil rights and our VERY democracy are on the line in 5 months people.

"No one died when Clinton lied".
-unknown

"Let's re-UNelect Bush in 2004!"
-unknown

johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com. :)

So as an appeal to Americans, please vote out this monkey of a president, and make sure you pressure the other guy and make sure he's more bothered about local jobs than foreign leaders.

Here.

--Ryv

here's one take on the presidential race.

~Will