Slashdot Mirror

If that's the fringe, then so are these.

... but are there really places that want to make sure you're a registered member of the KKK before they hire you?

Have you tried the RNC? I hear they're in a "Rush" to find someone like that ...

I don't love the waterboarding, but I don't think, it is a big deal. Spying, taking prisoners, and occasionally even lying is what all administrations do... Profiteering? What profiteering? According to the definition [wikipedia.org]:

I'm George W. Bush, and I approve of this message.

(This message has been paid for and sponsored by the Republican National Committee)

If every user expected every /. article to contain hyperlinks to define every little word larger than two syllables, the it would indeed be a pile of shit.

The Challenge:

Root this Al-Qaeda Headquarters

The Prize:

One year subscription to We're Only After Your Money.

Cheers,
K. Trout

Achtung.

then investigate AND jail these Blackhats.

I hope this helps the criminal investigation of the military-industrial-CONGRESSIONAL complex

If Clinton were still president I have a feeling this issue would not even be here.

The 13 stray democrats who voted for the bill did so because the republicans would make them look unpatrotic. Infact a well known congressmen from Georgia who lost both his arms in Vietnam lost his election in 2004 because he was viewed as unpatriotic due to his opposition to the Iraq war.

This is really getting insane.

Why are the republicans doing this? Elections are near and the democrats might take back one or perhaps both houses! So what do they do? Make all the headlines about national security to make the republican party in the mind of voters and to change the issue away from Iraq. Lets hope the strategy is not successfull as we don't have these morons in office for another term.

Vote democratic if you want change? Democrats are nothing are not anything by a long shot like the republicans. The democrats own website even has negative press about the bill yet the republican's is all hype and manipulative garbage. Where are you getting this idea that the democrats are jsut as extreme to the right as the republicans?

Democrats might not be perfect but are at least sane and would stop changing issues to cover terrorism and worshipping Bush when it suits the president best and might do something like plan timetables to leave Iraq and ballance the budget and save us from HMO's and high medical insurance premiums.

THe dems are people on my side while the republicans stand for the big aristocracy of the wealthy and corrupt. Dont vote for a third party that will ensure another republican victory. Yes things were much better in the Clinton years.

The terrorists' goal is to spread fear to help them get to their political goals. They are going to be very happy everytime this alert system is used...

And that's exactly why they are going to use it.

Actually, that sounds an awful lot like Fascism, to me.

Why would the DHS want to help terrorists?

The Internet is also a better source of what I call controlled bias, where the bias is strong and clear enough that you can easily take it into account by reading something clearly biased the other way. For example, reading both rnc.org and dnc.org will provide a better picture than a news anchor who is trying (but invariably failing) to be neutral.

The closer to the horse's mouth, the better. english.aljazeera.net is great for an Arabic perspective. I get sports news directly from my teams' web sites. I get entertainment news directly from local venues' mailing lists. I read and sometimes watch the video of the white house press briefings.

It sounds like a lot of effort, but it isn't. In the half hour I would have wasted waiting for the one story in the newscast that interests me, I can use my laptop to google the subject from the teaser commercials and get to the other news I want more quickly, while I am watching a show I like.

I also can't imagine that any of the clicks the advertisers get are legit. It's probably mostly accidental clicks as people are navigating around.

Of course, the best thing would be to encourage people to make their sites a little more user-friendly with more than a few words of text on each page. But barring that, some form of ad blocker that finds and kills these things would be a good idea. Maybe someone can write one for Firefox and Internet Explorer?

That seems to be an invalid link.

This one works just fine: http://www.rnc.org/

Colaborative effort to spread misinformation and confuse lies? I thought that had already been done: http://www.rnc.org/ ?

Like a proper little Darwin

Like a proper little Darwin

[joke] I wonder why nothing comes up when I search for that in Google? [/joke]

Wait--real life is more humorous--the GOP is the first listing!

that when I clicked on the link to the article, I was honestly expecting this

A few more:
- Garbage (the band)
- The Zucker Brothers (and Jim Abrahams)
- Cray Compter
- The Dells
- The Marquette Golden Eagles... Uh... Gold... Uh... Warriors? Hilltopers? Uh... Dwyane Wade went to school here!
- Fighting Bob La Follette
- Sewer Socialists
- Harley-Davidson
- They brought Arnold Schwarzenegger to America
- Douglas MacArthur
- Bratwurst
- Numbered Highways
- Birthplace of The Republican Party
- Svetlana Alliluyeva (Stalin's Daughter)
- Frank Lloyd Wright
- Heather Graham

Now we could pick on FauxNews for is sources or on the Washington Times for its inspiration.

Victorian Americans

fp.

Was that falling for a troll, or a counter-troll? Perhaps you might have noticed that this was titled "The Libertarian Response"? Libertarians are neither Republicans nor Democrats. They're a different political party entirely, generally agreeing with liberals on issues pertaining to the individual (such as drugs, abortion, and so on), and agreeing with the conservatives on economic issues (such as fiscal responsibility (Bush aside), corporate regulation, and the minimum wage).

Commonly, libertarians make a distinction between the personal and economic aspects of liberal thought; the popular Nolan Chart makes the political spectrum a plane, rather than a line.

Or, as I usually put it: in legislative sessions, the Conservatives sit to the right, the Liberals sit on the left, and the Libertarians are the baboons swinging from the chandeliers. (And it's suprising how many Libertarians will cheerfully agree with that description when asked....)

The libertarian position stated was a trifle extreme... but does thus highlight the problems with the libertarian's more extreme free-market faction.

A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press".

The goverment controls Air America? That would be news to these guys and these guys as well.

Easily done. Get your net worth to above $10,000,000 and get a lobotomy. At this point, you should be able to go to the PNAC site and find that everything you see there makes perfect sense. At that point, you'll be a true neocon. Go to the Republican National Committee website and donate them most of your money.

Glad I could help.

I thought it was "A fool and his money are some party."

And Big Pharma can reap the rewards from their privately funded embryonic stem cell research that isn't in the public trust.

Correlate private US concerns doing embryonic stem cell research with GOP donations. Note the RNC here states as much, "[Bush] placed no limits on private funding..."

The GOP is gladhanding the religious right while simultaneously doling out handjobs to corporations who stand to profit immeasurably from their orwellian policies.

Wake up and smell the stale coffee. The real axis of evil is Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Big Pharma and Big Oil. Supported by their obedient cast of Republican fluffers, they're the ones doing the fucking, and pious Christian middle america is the one getting fucked.

That will never happen, because you're mistaking RIAA with the movie industry. Yes, most of the time the two group's interests are aligned. However, in the case of piracy, this isn't always true.

The movie industry can add more features to DVDs, but the RIAA CAN'T. If piracy was all but quashed by the addition of super-awesome features (i.e. petrified Natalie Portman covered in hot grits), the RIAA would get a lot LESS funding from its members, since it won't have to play the anti-piracy enforcement role anymore. Therefore, the RIAA must convice its members that pirates are lurking in every shadow - so that it can get more funding and grow even larger.

I guess they must have stole a page from the "War on Terror". (tm)[1]

[1] "War on Terror" is a trademark of Bush & co. Patent pending; please contact the http://www.rnc.org/ for licensing.

Ever notice how certain groups love to take the NYT as the gospel? Ever think that they sometimes don't have it quite right?

What about this one, where the NYT got hosed like everyone else?

Let us not forget that the NYT sometimes plays dirty games.

And this.

And this.

And this.

Also do not forget the "journalists" that actually fabricate stories.

The fallout.

Supporting my argument

Yes, well it has been proven that Saddam was a terrorist threat... though his support of Al Quaida and the like. Just because he did not direcly plan 9/11 does not mean he did not indirectly fund it. The only county with a more solid link to terror is IRAN. It is sad that the Democrats would have us WAIT while Saddam continued to defy the weak UN and further fill mass graves with those who dare speak up. Just remember that the person who spoke the loudest of the threat of Iraq and stated the need for the removal of Saddam was KERRY. http://www.rnc.org/

100 Gig of FREE PORN!

-

facing global competition much like agricultural

You want to know a little known secret about ag competition? The destruction of the family farmer has to do with Federal social policy, not agriculture competitiveness.

We farm east of Corning Iowa, which was the one-time home of an emerging national farmers union (before the government got it stopped). (see the USDA website for a timeline of some farmers movements). The problem the government's always had with farmers is that they're darn near impossible to control. Look at the John Birch society's prevelance, as well as election returns from "Red" (which should be Blue, FYI) states vs. "Blue" more liberal areas.

Why are farmers so difficult to control?

o They're independent workers and are raised to be independent. Their whole ethic system, though processes, motivation, etc. is intrinsically defined (meaning THEY are the law that gets their butts out of bed at 5AM, not some external authority).

o They deal with reality first-hand, every day, and subsequently grow up being the most aware of the truth of Reason. Sluff off and plant the crop two months late? You have no crop. Skip maintenance on the tractor? It breaks. Get sloppy on fence mending, your cattle disappears. Do this a few too many times? You die. (You haven't seen work ethic until you've met a modern farmer) Live in a city for a big company, you get further and further separated from first-hand consequence of reason. Sluff off on that report due? Oh well, do it tomorrow. Boss won't yell till next week. Implement a less safe or innovative product? Market won't notice for maybe a year. Give crappy service at the DMV counter? What are they gonna do? Fire you? Action and consequence are distanced. Belief in Reason leads to very strong and dangerous thinking - dangerous if you're a government parasite.

o Bottom of the model independence. How do you control someone who doesn't need you every day, and you can't starve them? You screw with the government in the city and they'll have you screaming uncle soon enough (whether it's from a cell or not is your choice). But there's little you can do to that family farmer, and did you notice, if you have to go get him, you're on HIS turf, not yours? Might get shot.

o The worst thing, is if you piss off the farmer, YOU starve. He'll just let his crop rot. He's got enough for his family to eat. This isn't a good thing for government bureaucrats.

So the government, starting with FDR and significantly extended under Johnson, Nixon and Carter, introduced massive controls of production, regulation, consolidation/centralization of purchasing, application of all sorts of environmental regulatoins, etc. By adding substantial costs (ala barriers to entry) to the process, it forced farmers to grow to several thousand acre farms to be able to bear these costs (while the market price was capped through centralization of purchasing). Not only was this effective, but the government was right in line to "help you buy those few more thousand acres", created programs that get you hooked, and once you're in, you'll never get out.

Now they've got a foot on the farmer's neck. So no, per the previous poster, this isn't a function of global competition decimating the farm as it is the intentional restructuring of an American class by bureaucrats who felt they were getting too big for their britches.

But then again, how is the outsourcing issue any different? Didn't you all get too big for your britches, buying all those stupid dot-com stocks, fleeing to the burbs (leaving the government to clean up the mess), putting your kids in private schools, and buying all those damn SUVs?

Don't worry. Both the marxists and the country club elite will set things straight, just like they both did for the farmers.

Perhaps a more appropriate term of Howard's cozying up to Dubya would be 'elephant-licker' (G.O.P. == elephant). Here Stateside, 'ass'--politically--could be a derogatory word for a Democrat or the common reference for someone doing a stupid thing (hence 'ass'), etc. I could see why Latham would make such a reference to begin with because many may hold this perception of Howard's relations with Bush.
</offtopic>

Or, depending on your point of view one of these may be the most dangerous convention ever.

Yikes! That republican page you linked has an animation that says "help president Bush keep america moving in the right direction"...that's scary!

So, was it computer-Risk that pushed Bush to start invading foreign nations? Its clear that it wasn't from playing chess at least...

> E3 is not the most potentially dangerous convention ever.

No, perhaps THIS is the most dangerous convention ever.

Or, depending on your point of view one of these may be the most dangerous convention ever.

There's no proof, of course.

Neither was there proof in the recent "Tony Blair's administration cooked the books on Iraqi intelligence" BBC creative writing assignment. The fallout over the BBC's fictional journalism led to several top BBC officials resigning (one before he was canned).

The BBC, NPR in the US, NYTimes and many other forth estate entities have long given up on objective journalism, instead being acquired by leftist politicians (just as numerous political offices such as this one, this one and that one are nothing more than hired hands for wealthy elites).

Progressive/left-leaning slashdotters are going to have to open their eyes a bit on the back-stabbing of their peers in the media. It's ok when they're stabbing other victims, but when they're selling the Linux world out through their relativist journalism, it gets personal.

Opposed to intellectual property theft? Don't support the Trial Attorney Racket Protection Association of America
Disagree with patent giveways? Don't support the Country Club Empowerment Association of America
Support your own liberty!

The story has been around for a while and I first read it here. on Dec 29, 03.

I like the way in which the Right can create all the huff, puff, & smoke, but then ridicule it when the same is done to them. And people complaining about this "loss of civil liberties" are going to called by the right as being hysterical and they will get away with it. But why ? Why this inequality ?

• A case in point is the Bush in 30 seconds Videoes at MoveOn.org. Maybe a couple of videos out of 1500 submitted ones had Hitler/Bushe theme. I could see myself doing one like that too. But, then the story got picked up by Fox & Drudge Report and not to mention the RNC And ah, the Wall Street Journal has indignation at the Hitler/Holocaust comparison.
• Fair Enough.
• But on the Other hand "the extremely influential GOP activist and White House insider Grover Norquist" referred to the supposedly specious argument that the estate tax was worth keeping because it really affected only "2 percent of Americans." He went on: "I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust. 'Well, it's only a small percentage,' you know. I mean, it's not you. It's somebody else." From the transcript, it seems that Gross couldn't believe her ears. "Excuse me," she (the interviewer) interjected. "Excuse me one second. Did you just . . . compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?" ... It's hard to overstate Norquist's importance in contemporary Washington. He is head of Americans for Tax Reform, is an intimate of Karl Rove, the president's chief political aide, and has easy access to the White House. He presides over a weekly meeting of important Republican activists and lobbyists where the agenda -- at least Norquist's -- is to ensure that taxes are reduced to a bare minimum, the government is starved and everyone, the rich and the poor, is taxed the same, which is to say almost not at all.

So, there you go. A President whose actions might have killed thousands (15-20 thousand at least) cannot be compared to Hitler. But the Right can compare impostion of the Estate Tax on the richest 2 % to Hitler and his activities.

Look, at me here while I am talking. Is this fair?

"Yes, but all those countries governments have changed over time."

Oh, I didn't realize the last name of the president was Washington. Silly me thinking it was Bush. Ok it isn't fair to take your words out of context.

But seriously, even in terms of political parties, the US government did change too. For example, the democratic party was founded in 1972, and the history of the republican party doesn't go back before 1854. And the birth of those parties constituted quite a large change in the US government, wouldn't you say? Btw, what happened to the Whigs?

While I could be convinced that the US is the oldest democracy, it does go a bit far to claim that the US government is the oldest unchanged government. And that's a good thing too, because times change and societies change, hence governments must change with society. That is the whole point of democracy, that the government is a reflection of the people that vote.

(which is why I am happy (but sceptic) about the new campaign contribution limits, but that is a different subject)

As we swing into the thick of the 2004 electoral playoffs, it's interesting to see what kinds of platforms are running under the candidates' official campaign Web sites. Netcraft has a handy feature called "What's that site running?" that lets us see combinations of Web servers and OS platforms. So here's a quick rundown, in alphabetical order:

• George W. Bush: Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000

• Wesley Clark: Apache on Linux

• Howard Dean: Apache on FreeBSD

• John Edwards: Microsoft IIS "behind a computer running NetWare"

• Richard Gephardt: Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000

• John Kerry: Apache on Linux

• Dennis Kucinich Apache on Linux

• Carol Mosely-Braun: Apache on FreeBSD

• Al Sharpton: Apache on Solaris 8

• Joe Lieberman: Apache on FreeBSD

For what it's worth, the Republican National Committee is running Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000, while the Democratic National Committee is running Apache on Linux.

As of this writing, November 5, 2003, the RNC has an uptime of 4.26 days (maximum of 39.04) and a 90-day moving average of 16.91. The DNC has an uptime of 445.02 days (also the maximum) and a 90-day moving average of 395.38 days.

Draw your own conclusions.

Doc Searls is Senior Editor of Linux Journal.

It seems to me that it's irrelevent whether the machines run operating systems by Microsoft, IBM, or Uncle Tom Cobley.

It seems to me that it's irrelevent that the software has security flaws.

These issues are distractions. There's a very good probability on the evidence that I can see that these issues just divert your attention from the probability that the systems are working as their makers intend - to deliver election results in favour of the party they, the makers, support.

I mean, let's face it, if you were going to set out to rig election in this electronic age, how would you do it? You'd take control of the vote collecting and counting process. That's what Diebold have effectively done. This is an issue at the very heart of democracy itself: quis custodiet ipsos voting machines?

you forgot Drill in the ANWR Party

You clearly haven't tried reading one of the platforms chosen by the Democrats, the Republicans, the Reform Party, the Greens, the Libertarians, or any of the dozen other groups that run national candidates.

These are not trivial documents, and they're chosen at the same time as the party's official candidate (at the national convention). The candidates themselves also publish volumes of press releases and opinion papers. These papers might not be quite as pleasant the DPL platforms, but they cover more material on more difficult issues, and they're influenced by many more people. But then, given the development model of any national organization, could you really expect them to be as nice?

Everyone copy and paste this letter and send it to the Republican National Committee

Dear Republican National Committee,

I am opposed to your use of form letters in your activists efforts. I think people should express their own opinions in their own words.

Sincerely,
(insert your name here)

The .vbs viruses... they seem to have come from Columbia. A look at the source of one of them reveals
rem "Plan Colombia" virus v1.0

As a Columbia student, Columbia resident, Columbia wearer, Columbia listener, Columbia purchaser, and Colombia consumer -- and as an American, patriot, and staunch promoter of all that is good and right in this world -- I beg you to kindly note the small, but significant, difference between Columbia and Colombia.

Think of the children! Otherwise, the terrorists have already won.

Thank you.

It IS NOT, repeat IS NOT governments job to force the economy into any position what so ever.

...this strikingly conservative bill...

It may sound pedantic, but a real Republican who sticks to his/her fundamental principles of Constitutionally limited government and free markets would never consider voting for this piece of garbage. That someone who calls himself a Republican (Ted Stevens [Alaska]) is part of the group who introduced it demonstrates just how intellectually corrupt things have become. This bill is against countless sections of their party platform. It disgusts me to even be considered on the same "aisle" as this bastard.

It is the nature of those in authority to seek out greater power and methods of expanding their empire ... While these incentives exist in forproffit businesses at risk of bankrupcy if they fail to operate efficiently, ICAN doesn't have this threat handing over their collective head.

For more examples see here and here and here and here.

just take a look at who relies on character assassination in the pursuit of political goals, and who doesn't

So, you're saying that the Clinton impeachment circus wasn't a GOP attempt at character assasination? Gimme a break - neither major party plays nice. If the GOP hadn't blown that issue WAY out of proportion, we wouldn't have spent the last 94 days finding out how much more conservative Dubya is than his handlers led us to believe last year.

Republicans decide to make the net safe for children by appointing an 'Internet Czar' (see To Renew America by Newt Gingrich) and decide that people can, in fact, be liable for "criminal" speech on the Internet. Congress accepts this comprimise to total Federal control of the Internet.

Democrats, in order to appeal to their large amount of ethnic minority voters, pushes Congress for Federal 'hate crime' legislation. Now, it is a crime to think, or feel, hate. Orwell called these "thought-crimes". Republicans in congress who do not want to get "Ashcrofted" when they are appointed to their future cabinet position, make sure to go on record as voting for this legislation.

These are not scenarios... these are agendas.

So now, when some nutcase posts on slashdot that he's going to kill a bunch of /blacks/whites/women/frogs/FBI Agents, Commander Taco and friends get to go to Federal Prison for running a "Hate Speech Forum" when the Ministry of Love comes down on them.

Maybe 5 years is too far into the future. These proposals are in the works now. Welcome to the fold.

Vote Libertarian

G.O.P = "Grand Old Party." Apparently, it's the official nickname. The Republican National Commitee explains it here.

What's wrong with this country is not "Liberal" or "Conservative" philosophy, but entrenched power locked in place for our representatives by multinational corporate power through media management and campaign contributions. The whole system is completely corrupt.

The entrenched two-party system that offers false alternatives between "liberal" and "conservative" is what's hurting this country. The republicrats rig the elections to shut out any other voices. They raise the requirements of ballot access when the Libertarians or Greens get on it; they shut non-Republicrats out of debates big and small.

What is "conservative?" By definition, and practice, it's the liberalism of the past. Or as Bob Dole said, "we have to stop this system where the democrats propose a bill, we vote it down and then phase it in over three years." The real choice is between freedom and non-freedom (slavery; corporate control; collectivism; big brother -- call it what you like). The problem with the two main parties as they they are always for non-freedom. Whatever they do tends to increase the power of government over our lives. Or it deputizes coporations to take on government duties (like tax collection). Vote for a party that things less government means more freedom, not one that thinks more government control is more freedom.

It's not the economy, stupid; it's not for the children; it's freedom! Vote for freedom!

________________________________________

Our mass media make it harder by basically ignoring the third party candidates.

The voters make it impossible by not voting for them (possibly because they listen to the mass media rants about how it's impossible to win).

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: If everybody who didn't vote in the last few elections came out and voted for a "third-party, can't win" candidate, The republicans and democrats would be out of power!

The Republican Party started out as a third party that people said couldn't possibly win. As their history document points out:

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President [....]. Even though they were considered a "third party" because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

While the stories posted to Slashdot are at the discretion of CmdrTaco, Hemos, et al, I would hope they'd use more discretion in the future. I don't go to the Republican or Democrats for Linux news, and so I don't wanna come to Slashdot for a politcal opinion...especially one not even closely related to Linux or Opensource.

End Rant.