Slashdot Mirror
Candidates on Net Issues
Robert Wilde writes "Slashdotters have shown great interest in knowing where the US Presidential candidates stand on the 'geek issues.' Now Microsoft's Slate has some answers."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Is, will they create a law forcing all mortals
to bow down to their geek superiors?
Well, that and keeping internet taxes at bay
so i don't have to pay tax for buying all those
great oreilly books.
"And how can this be? For he is the
Even setting aside Gore's "I invented the internet" and "Alt-Control-Delete Button" gaffes, he still has no clue. Bradley is the superior candidate on virtually every level.
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
slashdotted already.
I assume Al Gore is claiming in addition to singlehandedly creating the internet, he now is claiming to have written UNIX back in his berkeley days.
hmm.
'Mullethead. A hairstyle that's a way of life'
Lemme know how their past record! (Especially Gore and Bush, who are currently in office.)
BTW: Anyone who compares me to a soccer mom is gonna lose my vote. (That means you, Ron Nehring. Don't be running for office any time soon!)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I look at it this way. If they are able to get elected to office, it automatically disqualifies them from being worthy of the office.
I honestly don't care where candidates say they stand on net issues.
It is not because I don't think that they could have an impact on us as a community. It is not because I don't care whether the net is regulated or not. That is important. But it is because I don't trust politicians. And I especially don't trust politicians that have opinions on issues they do not understand. Which is almost all politicians these days.
So I consider backing or voting for any candidate on this issue to be ultimately a waste of time. Politicians don't get it, don't care about it, and can't be trusted to keep their word anyway even if they do (a) understand the issues and (b) say they're taking a stand for the Right Thing. Politicians are too easily bought and think nothing of lying to us.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Sorry, but as must as they talk about geeks being the "soccer moms of the 2000 election", none of these gents seems to be a good match for my tastes.
George W: No moratorium on net taxes. Too close to the fundies.
McCain: Apparently isn't troubled too much by the CDA and its ilk
Bauer, Keyes, Hatch, etc: Oh yeah. They fit in with my libertarian views perfectly. Please note the dripping sarcasm.
Gore: Invented the Internet? Oh dear Bob.
Bradley: Maybe. Maybe maybe.
The choices in a Presidential election are never very good. But I can tell you this: my vote ain't goin to a 'Publican. I'm tired of all those Christian fucks pushing their totalitarian moral agendas and the Republican party has too many of 'em on board.
They didn't ask what Harry Browne thinks, but I bet I can guess. How are most slashdot readers planing to vote? Almost every geek I know is a libertarian, though many don't realize it..
Libertarian.org
Harry Browne for President!
Here is a good link to Slate.
-----
Here are some solutions to some of the "issues" they say that the polliticians may be addressing Under Age Porn Vewers - Get a retinal scan for every resident and mark their birthdate. Then instal a retinal scanner on every moniter so that the moniter can hookup to a huge dbase to the age of people Internet Tax - Make a WORLD WIDE tax of like 5% that goes to paying for things like Pipeline upgrades and free domain registrations and take away any of the federal and state taxes off of internet purchase for the purchaser. Because people can defend that their business is really anywhere isn't it? where is the server where is the actual store(if any) where does the mail go, where is the bank and so on.... Kids with XXX pix on net - Get Celine Deons husband a cable modem and tell him to look for girlfriends and any time he finds get them id'd to see if they are of age Encryption - Let people encrypt anything anyway they want. Why can't the governement stay out of personal affairs??? any other solutions out their?
IT HAS YOU....
All candidates say
Stop porn, terrorists, crypto.
Ignorant morons.
Al Gore invented
the Internet. He is such
an 3133t h4x0r.
His "Open Source" web site
runs on NT/IIS
not Linux/Apache
GWB
begs Bill Gates for donations.
Protection money?
Are we citizens?
Or netizens? Elections
just encourage them.
---
120
chars is barely sufficient
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
Here are some solutions to some of the "issues" they say that the polliticians may be addressing Under Age Porn Vewers - Get a retinal scan for every resident and mark their birthdate. Then install a retinal scanner on every monitor so that the monitor can hookup to a huge dbase to the age of people Internet Tax - Make a WORLD WIDE Tax of like 5% that goes to paying for things like Pipeline upgrades and free domain registrations and take away any of the federal and state taxes off of internet purchase for the purchaser. Because people can defend that their business is really anywhere isn't it? where is the server where is the actual store(if any) where does the mail go, where is the bank and so on.... Kids with XXX pix on net - Get Celine Deons husband a cable modem and tell him to look for girlfriends and any time he finds get them id'd to see if they are of age Encryption - Let people encrypt anything anyway they want. Why can't the governement stay out of personal crimez(i mean affairs)??? any other solutions out their?
IT HAS YOU....
I think this article misses the same point lots of techies miss. In spite of the fact that these are significant issues which will have a major impact on the way people live their lives in the upcoming network-centred era, most people neither understand nor care about things like encryption, taxation, the patent threat, or stupid ideas like deep-link banning. They just don't WANT to understand high tech or the complexities thereof.
We'll know for sure when the masses hit the polls, but I'll bet that technology issues will remain unimportant until the wars have been fought and there are no big decisions left to make. Then, once the issues are simplified past the point of meaningfulness, we'll see them used prominently in political campaigns.
-Mars
In Why Government Doesn't Work (which was written before his 1996 presidential bid), he gave detailed information on what he would do if elected president. This book is worth reading. Your local library probably has a copy.
because he fhlew Plaiyns, but a Basque-T-Ball player (W. Bradley) is great too!!! Here at the ACM Retirement home in Guelph, Ontario, we are following the Murican Presidential Champagne with Great Interest!! Of course, being citizens of O-Canada(tm), we are plied with subsidies of Free Or Low-Cost Popsicles to those who qualify!!!! That is exciting!! The States should pick that up. Also, Bradley's wife's name is SChlant, which is very close to my name! She is a PhD in Comparative Litter8Ure, which is too bad because People will think she is an Oeuf-Tête (as we say)!
I'm looking forward to the day when George W. calls for laws making profiled personal information the property of the individual, not the person gathering it.
_________________________
Of course, Salon makes no mention of it. Both Bradley and Gore are in favor of it, McCain is, don't know where Bush stands.
And you thought the internet would make for more speech. Wrong. Course, the major networks wouldn't be covered by this, how convenient.
So, which candidate would win in a Quake III tournament? *That's* the real question that would influence the vote of many /.'ers.
In a way it bothers me, but I feel that it is my duty to throw my vote away (meaning that I will probably vote Libertarian).
The mainstream candidates just do not represent me. These guys are clueless morons that pander to the lowest common denominator (aka the clueless American public). According to Slate, only four guys are running for president...
I don't care which candidate is the most technologically savvy -- I just want a candidate that respects the Constitution and will deal responsibly with the law (as opposed to maintaining the status quo). Is that so much to ask for?
Oh wow. How enlightening.
The Dems want more taxes. The Republicans want less.
The Republicans want to control your private life (in the name of "protectng" you, of course). The Dems only want to do it if it helps a minority.
Same bullshit as everywhere else. Where was the coverage of people who offer an alternative? Where was the mention of those who will oppose new taxes AND restrictions on freedom?
Two party politics is so 20th century.
Now, onto the second point...
I don't want a candidate.com because they want to www.regulate.it.to.us. I just want to recompile politician with -DNOREGULATE -O-12 (make system grossly unoptimized). Why? Because an efficient system is a tyranny. 'nuff said. *stepping down off the soap box*
Internet taxes are not an issue for just the 'geeks'. It's an issue for all Americans, like any tax. What will taxes do for us? They'll give us more money for things like road improvements, educational purchases (computers anyone?), and law enforcement support. What will they do against us? They'll slow down this explosive economy that has really carried this country to the front of the world's pack. When Asia's economy fell apart, it was America's economy that survived relatively unscathed.
So what are geek issues? Computers in the schools for one. We talk a lot about kids need to be educated in the ways of the binary. Clinton made a pretty good announcement today, but let's go back a big further and get kids started with computers now so that maybe that won't need to take CS to really get to know the most important tool of the next millenium. Also, how about things real OSHA telecommuter guidelines that are fair to both businesses and employees? How about government seriously considering open-source software? How about patent reform so that people who come up with genuinely real ideas get some control over them and people who don't don't? How about some sort of final word on whether consumers will ever quit getting raped for advanced services like DSL?
I like privacy and Internet taxes and all, but those aren't geek issues, those are real American issues. Politicians are once again just paying lip service to a group of people who they think they need rather than taking a look at their real issues and addressing them. They did it with the 'soccer moms' in 1996 and they're doing it with us now.
I don't expect anything more out of this election than I've received out of any of the past: a bunch of lies and a lame-duck President.
112 PEOPLE OFFICIALLY MURDERED by W. during his tenure as governor. Some of them citizens of other nations.
What does *that* say about W.'s support of basic human rights? I think the sanctity of your driver's license photo and credit card statement kind of pale in comparison.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
I don't want a checklist of where the candidates stand on various issues. Because there will inevitably be unaddressed issues.
What I want instead is a clear and concise understanding of the candidate's philosophy. When does he or she feel government intervention into the private sector is necessary? Instead of a checklist of policies regarding relations with each and every nation, I want an overall guideline on foreign policy.
I want to know how the candidate will react when confronted with some vital issue that did *NOT* come up during the campaign.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Taxes on Internet purchases are simply wrong. I certainly hope that whatever candidate is elected realizes this and places a premenant ban on them. It's great that we're helping children in schools, but the fact of the matter is that the federal government shouldn't be regulating public schools. Ammendment 10 of the US Constitution gives all rights which are not explicitly given to the federal government to the states. That means the states regulate public schools. The federal government shouldn't. History has proven that less taxes improve the economy. If and when the US economy does start to slump, a tax free Internet may just help out.
On the issue of protecting children from the Internet, I'm not too familiar with the Child Online Protection Act, but I would like to know how it will be enforced. I guess a strategy like the ones the states used against big tobbacco could an option.
This whole idea scares me though. I may not like pornography on the Internet, but no extent of government regulation is going to stop children from seeing it. Parental control and family values are the only sure answer.
As much as I don't want to say this, maybe we should elect a candidate who can be an example of moral living, of those family values. Maybe issues aren't of the utmost importance.
Josh
These are all issues that affect EVERYONE, not just Internet users. And they're not even the biggest issues -- are you going to vote for a candidate based on his ideas about exporting technology, or about his ideas for education and health care reform? Besides, most candidates' opinions on these "geek issues" follow with their stands on the role of the government in other areas of society.
Internet users may be the key electorate this year, but that may have more to do with Internet users being middle-class, well-educated, and having a LOT of access to information -- the sort of information about a candidate that could perhaps make or break an election (or at least help an individual make a decision). Just remember to vote, people, otherwise you have no right to complain. ;)
I'm discouraged not so much by the candidates but by the cynicism displayed here. This is a sample of "intelligent, aware, voters?" I thought that there'd be at least an attempt to be involved by people in this group. This is, after all, the first time a massive number of high-tech and internet using voters has ever existed - twice the numbers that existed in 96. The numbers are finally large enough to make a difference, and people are encouraging others here to not vote. Give me a break.
Ya get what ya want by doing the homework and thinking about it and making an intellegent choice.
Or you get the leaders you deserve.
J.
You don't have to vote for one of the Big Two. You can literally vote for ANYBODY. Sure, a "fringe" or write-in candidate may seem like you are throwing your vote away, but you were going to do that anyway, right? So write in "Steven Wozniak" (or whoever you DO like). If enough people do this every election someone is likely to get the point--at least more so than your not voting at all.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Forbes, above all the other candidates, looks like he has a clue. Though I don't think he has a chance at winning, he is the only one actually presenting some interesting ideas. Skimming his site here: http://www.forbes2000.com, these are his main points concerning technology:
1) Steve has pressed Washington to ban taxes on Internet commerce; repeal the "Gore Tax" on long-distance phone service
This is not too insightful, Gore is so stupid it makes me laugh.
2) Pass tort reform laws to stop trial lawyers trying to destroy the technology industry
Uh oh, Microsoft and RIAA, among others, won't like this one bit
3) Eliminate capital gains taxes to create more high-tech small businesses and generate more high-paying American jobs
Stick it to The Man!
Ok I know I shouldn't trust politicians, no one here does, but I consider Forbes to be a "cleaner" candidate because he does have his own money, and is not afraid to take a position, rather than just saying "let the market work itself out."
McCain is bought and paid for by Microsoft. Monopoly wants cheap labor for their industry only. To hell with that hypocrite McCain. The Cong tortured him a little to long.
Bill Bradley: Inclusionary - "In this time of unprecedented prosperity, we need to establish a consitutional right to ADSL."
George W. Bush: Proud - "I'm the only candidate here featured as the executive on a government website..."
John McCain: The Open Architecture candidate - wants to get rid of proprietary access to government (special interest lobbies).
Steve Forbes: Rich & Clueless - Doesn't quite understand the Internet, but is willing to pay somebody millions to tell him about it.
Orrin Hatch: The Content Provider - The Internet is a great place to disseminate porn, like the Starr report.
Gary Bauer: The Right-to-Lifer - Only interested in protecting unsaved emails.
Alan Keyes: Moralizing - Would ban the Internet. "What we need to do is get back to the ways of our forefathers, who blah blah blah..."
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Personally I think George Bush is the Man. Ever since the Clinton scandal, I have revised my opinion of this noble man. His deeds and actions speak for themselves and stand in sharp contrast with Bill Clinton's. I truly hope George Bush will be back someday and we will be relieved of President Clinton.
WE ALL WANT TO SEE YOU NAKED AND PETRIFIED AND IN THE LIGHTS OF 48 DIESEL SEMIS ROARING DOWN ON YOU AS YOU F8@#$^#@^@#@@#! NATALIE PORTMAN WHO IS ALSO NAKED AND PETRIFIED.
happy?
it's called a "Death Penalty". You get it when you break laws. You don't break a law, you don't become eligible for death penalties. It's that simple. GWB didn't pull one switch, or inject one prisoner. He is responsible for the excution of laws, and one of them is this death penalty thing.
He's not a murderer. Those are the ones getting those lethal injections. It's a simple difference, you know.
I'm even more afraid of the totalitarian moral agendas of those 'Crats who worship the Greater Good and the diety called Godverment.
Those "christians" who want a totalitarian moral regime are not fooling themselves. I doubt most of them are even real Christians, and just mere church-goers. They do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love thy neighbor as thyself".
I am a Christian. But I am also a libertarian in every sense of the word. I am a libertarian precisely because I am a Christian. Christ came to offer people a choice, not to make the choice for them.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"The vice president supports finding a solution to these issues that allows the Internet and e-commerce to flourish without stripping states and localities of their ability to educate children and fight crime,"
:)
Now there is a trade off. Do we allow e-commerce? Or do we allow state to educate kids and fight crime. Choose carefully, we can only pick one
I'm normally opposite Gore on his views, but I almost want to see him win just for four more years of intelligent comments like this one. I'm so disgusted with US politics, I just try to get entertainment out if it anymore.
Where is is written that to be a vice president, you have to be a complete moron? Beteen Gore and Danny boy, we have had 12 years of some of the most off the wall comments come from that department.
Finkployd
I'm from South Carolina, where McCain is on his anti-porn mission.
First of all, I don't believe that there are miracle cures for computer porn. If you're a parent, the only way to keep your children from downloading porn is to keep a close eye on them while they're surfing. But that means parents have to actually be responisble for a change. Oh horror!!
However, most South Carolinians don't see it that way. They want a miracle cure, and if you can promise one, you'd probably get the Conservative Southern Baptist vote.
At issue right now is whether schools and public libraries should provide Internet access. If a library offers a public terminal to the web, then little Johnny can go download porn, and Mommy doesn't like that. Since there is no way to provide porn-free Internet access, the solution is to remove Internet terminals from libraries. Personally, I think that sucks worse than filtered Internet content. If you don't have a computer for whatever reason you should be able to go to the library to check your hotmail account and read CNN.com.
The privacy Chernobyl that the Slate article mentions has sort of happened in SC. Our Department of Motor Vehicles sold every drivers license photo in the state to some company for a whopping total of $5000. They're going to build a huge database of names and photos and sell it. I sent in a form barring them from using my picture, but most people don't know how to do that.
The interesting thing is that politicians here don't give a rat's ass about privacy. There was a federal law barring the sale of DL photos, but South Carolina took it to the Supreme Court, arguing that Americans have no constitutional right to privacy, and the law should be shot down. The court agreed, and a little bit later the DMV sold our pictures. Smells pretty crooked to me.
Take care,
Steve
So you can't have tyranny since it infringes on basic liberties, and you can't have democracy because the majority will usually be wrong. What's left? How about governing yourself and leaving others alone. There's no government like no government.
You imply that the US is a democracy, which is incorrect. The US is a democratic republic, a compromise between "democracy by idiots" and "tyranny by tyrants". In the US, we get a selection of tyrants from which to choose. >;-)
cpeterso
Very well put!
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I'll definitely not be voting republican. I can't stand the way they like to legislate morality. McCain is especially bad about this, but Bush isn't much better. Then there's Forbes saying that the DOJ shouldn't go after Microsoft. No chance of him getting my vote.
Gore isn't a total loss. He seems to be on the right side of some issues, but I think he's a bit too censorship-friendly for my taste, and then there's his wife. Damn. Maybe I'd vote for him if he got a divorce.
Aside from the hardcore libertarians (while I like some of their ideas, they'd probably just make a mess of things if they got into the white house. Nothing would get done.), that leaves Bradley. I don't agree with him on everything, and I don't even know his position on some things, but he's my first choice right now. Seems like he's taking a wait-and-see approach to a lot of things. I would hope that he's at least making an attempt to educate himself on these issues. They're just going to get more complex and more visible than they are now. All the candidates better prepare themselves.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Alan Keyes for Prez?
Insufficient charisma!
Sounds like Elmer Fudd.
-----
".sig,
It's about masses of people; the proverbial People. The People have the right to govern themselves, not the individuals.
Someone's been confusing the map with the territory. The people is an abstraction. There is no 'the people'.
I have rights. Your have rights. Even CmdrTaco has rights. 'The people' has no rights. Justifying a government as being of 'the people' makes about as much sense as attempting to save the environment by by scrubbing a world map.
--Shoeboy
Yeah politicians are for the most part clueless. but let me explain why they may be forced to "get it."
The center of the technological world is, of course, Silicon Valley. But unfortunately for politicians, Silicon Valley is located in California - one of, if not the most influential state regarding presidential elections. Myself being an optimist, am hoping this won't always mean s/he with the largest amount of money can buy the most air time, but will have to contend more and more with technology related issues.
Almost every geek I know is a libertarian, though many don't realize it.
:-)
Is this statement based on that inane Libertarianism test wallet card?
If so, I suggest take that card to any Statistics professor and ask him/her if the questions are objective. Personally, I can't believe anyone falls for that - the questions are practically a parody of unbiased sampling.
(If not, ignore me. I'm not trying to insult you, I just despise that card. My own experience is that geeks are paradoxically a pretty even mix of right-wing libertarian types and left-wing liberals, with perhaps a leaning toward the latter, though that's probably just my personal preference clouding my judgement
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
People rightly feel overly taxed. Their knee-jerk reaction to net taxes has been to "just say no!" States and local governments, however, fear this popular anti-net tax bias as it could seriously erode the funds on which state and local governments run as internet commerce becomes more central to the way in which we do business.
As a result, a blanket "no new net taxes statement" ala the thing some of the candidates are signing, could prove dangerous absent of some alternative ways to help fund state and local governments. Instead of making such irrational blanket statements, people should be pushing for greater tax reform that assures that all levels of government are adequately funded without over taxing the people. Such a tax reform might involve no internet taxes, or it might (IMHO better) involve internet taxes combined with a reducation or end to income taxes. Whatever it is, I just wish to caution anyone against mindlessly chanting "No net taxes".
McCain needs SC
But how to beat George Dubya?
Citadel alums!
-----
".sig,
The reason they are all saying the same thing is that they don't understand the tech. They have advisors to tell them what the popular stance is for the majority of the people that care about those issues and they adopt that viewpoint into their platform. BFD.
What most voters in the USA don't realize is that the popular vote counts for DIDDLY. The electoral collage puts who they want into the office. The idea that the populace votes in the president is a popular myth but no more true than the Good Times Virus.
So arguing the point may be fun but we might as well be saying yadda yadda yadda. It accomplishes the same thing.
yuck, that was bitter, wasn't it? had to be said.
moo
-chaosgrrl
When you can't find your jello don't come screaming at me to remove the weasle from your headgear.
This article is just a rehash of available information. I read it hoping that the candidates had actually all been asked the same questions. Alas, no. A very good portion of the issues have responses from only a few of the candidates. It looks like the result of about 20 minutes of keyword searching through press materials.
It would have been so much more helpful if the author had actually gathered and presented the opinions of all candidates on each issue. As it is is just seems incomplete.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
And imagine where those geeks in China and India would be now if the first time they had seen and used a computer was at age 5 rather than at age 15 or 20 or whenever they first had it? I imagine that they'd be sitting in their offices all along this hallway, just like they are now. I'm not willing to accept the theory that the Indian and Chinese programmers have any form of racial superiority in the geek world, yet they're definitely kicking ass computerwise all over the guys I went to school with - most of whom had computers in their houses. So how do I explain it?
--Shoeboy
Although his candidacy has not been officially announced as far as I know, I plan on voting for Ralph Nader of the Green Party. He has written a number of anti-M$ pieces, including this one, co-authored with a known Linux advocate.
Most important to my decision is the knowledge that his stand on these issues isn't manufactured just for the sake of a campaign, but rooted in personal convictions.
-- First post (by a female living in a state that begins with M and does not end in a vowel with a birthday that falls
Ok, so where can I get the source code?
Moo
-chaosgrrl
When you can't find your jello don't come screaming at me to remove the weasle from your headgear.
TUPAC IS CAPUT
Hey great, we just elected ourselves an "Internet Savvy" President, or is "President in the pockets of large tech corporations" a better description?
The article didn't say where they stood on dramatically increasing foreign work visas, which McCain supports. Which I think is a bigger "geek issue" than taxing Internet commerce.
Corporations don't want to pay high salaries for their tech people, they only do because there's such a demand. If they can get the restriction on visas lifted, the market gets flooded, and salaries and quality drops.
The IEEE has done a pretty good job at fighting this, it should be an issue for anyone working in technology.
Really, voting for a third party is not throwing away your vote. Look at it this way:
Most people only think of the two major parties. If they don't like either cantidate, they will generally pick the lesser of the two evils. So both cantidates get a lot of "gotta-vote-for-somebody" votes, running up their tally. This is why the two big parties don't want other parties to get on the ballot as easily, and have enacted legislation to that effect.
Now, throw your mostly-undecided vote to a third party that you agree with more (I'll probably do Reform (but not Buchanan) or Libertarian). Instead of running up the tallies for the big two, you throw your vote away. Or so it appears.
When the votes are counted, yours probably won't decide the election. Now the losing party is going to look around and say, "If we could have pulled in some of those $numberofvotes from the third parties, we might have won." So they start trying to see which parts of that platform they can incorporate into their own, to maybe get your vote next time. Even when we lose, we win, at least a little bit. I will not vote for Gore or Bush. But in 4 years, I might vote Republican or Democrat if one of them wakes up to issues I care about. Unlikely, I admit.
Communication is only possible between equals
Who ever your choice is, thank you for promising to vote 'Pub.
_________________________
The difference between these two is minimal. They will both raise taxes. They will both further try to control your life via new laws and government programs designed "for your own good."
I'm not saying a Republican would be any better. They'll do the same thing only they'll take your freedoms from you in a different order.
The ONLY presidential candidate that will cut taxes and stay out of your life (including the Internet) is Harry Browne, Libertarian. http://www.harrybrowne2000.com/
Almost every geek I know is a libertarian, though many don't realize it..
I don't agree with this, but I think it would make a good poll question.
The Good Reverend
This is getting offtopic, but it annoys me when Christians say things like, "X is not a real Christian". I'm sure some members of the religious right would say that you are not a real Christian because you don't support posting the Ten Commandments in schools (or whatever). You and the religious right would tell me contradictory things about what defines a true Christian, and I have no reason to trust your definition over Gary Bauer's, or vice versa. There are lots of interpretations of the teachings of Jesus, and consequently lots of people making their own definitions of "Christian" that exclude people who disagree with them. Because of this I question the validity of your assertion that certain people are not "real Christians". It is only valid in the context of your personal religious views and has no strength for the rest of us.
To seek, to strive, to find, and not to yield.
From the ACLU, on privacy issues:
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
You are ignorant.
You have issues you want dealt with. It is not because I don't care whether the net is regulated or not. That is important. Your words, not mine. Who do you thinks makes these determinations? Do you think it's you, sitting at your computer, saying, "I don't care," watching the world work around you, thinking you are separate from it.
If you really think the issues are important, perhaps you'll do a little research and find someone who is not a politician and vote for them. Maybe you'll encourage other people to vote for them. That's affecting change. By not voting, you are allowing the very things you hate to persist.
A man robs a criminal. You can help the victim. You can help the robber. Or you can do nothing. By helping the victim, you help. Pick either of the others, and you have just done harm. That's what you do by not voting. You do harm. You allow a system that is harmful to persist. All these people that say, "Well, if enough people don't vote, maybe they'll get the message," that says nothing. That says, "I'm apathetic." The man who says, "I want this person to lead me," that man says, "I want this, and you don't have it."
The fact that your post was moderated up as 'Insightful' makes me wonder what truly is insightful on Slashdot. Maybe if Americans would quit whining about how bad the system is and start making it a better one, we could have a government that we trust.
Or do you not care about that, either?
..I still can't figure out the Bday tho. ;)
_________________________
Your analogy between a choice between helping a victim and a criminal is not idea. The better analogy - and not as much as anology as one might think, is a choice between helping two criminals or walking away.
I am not ignorant. It is, in fact, my appalling lack of ignorance that could even make me think of such a politically incorrect course of action. To be quite honest, I think those who blindly vote for the choices placed before them, no matter how unsavory or downright criminal, are the ones that show ignorance.
I'm not going to make any secret of one thing: I think our system of who gets on the ballot is flawed and needs to be modified. Until either a candidate that I trust who wants to change things too comes along (not likely) or things change for the better, my point of view is not going to change. Although my methods might. I did find the notion of going to the polls and declining to vote somewhat appealing.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
They need to be told that the internet, like most the rest of the world, is a place for ADULTS. It includes its equivalent of bars, bedrooms, and X-rated bookstores and theatres.
The solution to the perceived problem of kids viewing internet porn is not for government to censor the entire virtual world down to a level suitable for children. The solution is instead for childrens parents, guardians, and other supervisors to watch the kids and make sure they don't frequent the virtual bars, bedrooms, and X-rated theatres. They should not be running about unsupervised on the internet until they're competent to make their own decisions on such matters.
(Wiring the schools for internet is not a wonderful thing. It's actually the government making an excuse to censor internet content.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Justice, however, goes much deeper, its boundries are ill-defined. As the saying goes, what's legal, is not always just. The reverse is also true. It is legal for a good lawyer to charge exhorbitant prices for his services, but it is not just. Why is it not just ? Simply because as only the rich (i.e., capitalist pigs), can afford expensive high-flying lawyers, and the outcome of a court-case, is greatly influenced by the skills of one's lawyer, it is quite clear that so called justice system does not serve everybody equally, rather, rich people get more justice than poor.
The rich-poor disparity is much much higher in US than in many social democracies. The rich man in US has a more fun than a rich man in, say, UK of Finland. But the poor man in a social democracy is assured of his food, of his health and well-being, his child's education. I doubt the same could be said about an economically underclass woman in USA.
My view is that we are not mature as a species yet to live in an anarchic state. We still need governments to wet-nurse us, like a child needs his parents. However, once the human race matures, and we all realise that power should not be one's goal in life, and that greed is character strait unworthy of a human being, then we can begin dismantling governments.
Till then, we have to put up with this necessary evil.
Your analogy between a choice between helping a victim and a criminal is not idea. The better analogy - and not as much as anology as one might think, is a choice between helping two criminals or walking away.
Fine, you have two criminals. I don't care how many criminals you have. The fact is that you don't do anything to help the situation. By not voting, you are doing just as much harm as if you did vote. JUST AS MUCH!
An enlightened individual would realize that he can have an effect on the system. Anyone who is a part of the system can. Yes, those who vote for one or the other are ignorant as well, but you are just as ignorant for not helping. Rather than sit on your ass, you can take an active part in change. It's not going to happen on its own, and it sure as hell isn't going to happen at the hands of the current politicians.
Until either a candidate that I trust who wants to change things too comes along (not likely) or things change for the better, my point of view is not going to change.
If the issues are important to you (and in my previous post, I quoted you as saying that they are), go out and find a person that wants to change things. Do some research. There are politicians in this election, right now, who want to do the very things that you want to do.
Or are you just too enlightened to realize this?
SLATE, originally organized by turbo-liberal Michael Kinsley (of CNN CrossFire fame). This is definitely not an unbiased source of information. They may say otherwise to get your vote in the short term, but remember, in the long term liberal democrats ALWAYS are in favor of more government involvement and control of EVERYTHING. This means Internet taxes, regulation of content, etc etc. Don't be fooled, vote GOP.
>Really, voting for a third party is not throwing away your vote.
You brought ballot access - keep in mind that in most places parties get ballot access based on how many votes they got in the last election. If everyone who leaned towards a third party voted that way, the party would have a guaranteed place on the next ballot. Adding additional voices to the political process is ultimately healthy, if somewhat messier.
How would anyone distinguish between official and non, anyway?
The vast majority of Christians are very opposed to Government control of the internet. They also realize the same freedoms that allow Pornography on the Internet, allows them to share their faith and beliefs without fear of persecution.
Most of the people claiming to represent the "fundamentalist christians" don't. Most people who are called "Fundamentalist" aren't. But the media can't deal with that, it requires too much effort.
What are the alternatives?
Liberals think the government should limit your financial freedom more than your personal behavioral freedom; therefore, they would tax your internet use.
Conservatives think the government should limit your personal behavioral freedom more than your financial freedom; therefore, they would limit what you can see on the internet.
Authoritarians think that the government should control just about everything.
Centrists are those who think the government should control everything in moderation.
To find out where you are on the politicial map, you can spend one minute and take the "world's smallest political quiz" at http://www.self-gov.org.
----
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" still constitutes my endorsement of someone I don't trust or believe in.
----
True, and a decent philosophy.
Now, who the hell said there were only *2* people running? Take a look around. Inform yourself, pick a best match to yourself if you feel comfortable doing that.
I did an on-line survey and based on various platforms, I came up with Ralph Nader. Only a 68% compatibility and he was my best choice based on that survey. The scary part was one of my friends had a 96 or 98% matchup with Gary Bauer.
(No disrespect to my friend but just imagining loss of freedom we'd all have to give up under his administration is frightening.)
If you don't vote (for whatever reason/protest) you still get classified as one of the "they don't seem to care" crowd.
If you want to protest, take a little time to get your point across. Even writing in "Mr. None-Of-The-Above" sends the message (albeit very small, like any individual vote) that you are unsatisfied with the choices.
If you don't explain why you are doing something, you are giving room for someone else to come up with a reason, whether they have permission or not. I'd make some Katzian allusions to help along this argument but I'm not very flame retardant at the moment. >;)
-Vel
Okay, I deserved that one. Saying that most church-goers are not real Christians is just as bad as saying all Christians want a totalitarian moral regime.
It is probably accurate to say that most Christians are against pornography. But to assert as the previous poster implied that all Christians want to ban it, is wrong. True, some do. Others desire non-governmental means to reduce it. Others say it is none of their business as long as they themselves don't use it. Still others have no clue so they ignore the issue.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
So, this leaves all the different interpretations of the teachings. To each his own. However, the golden rule clearly suggests compassion for all. And time after time, I hear 'publicans proposing policies that only benefit the aristocracy.
By definition, the 'crats policies of attempting to raise the standard of living for my crack smoking neighbor while taking a little extra from me by considering the potential need for internet tax after the infrastucture has matured is a truly Christian idea.
Is this REALLY all there is?
This is why I stay politically neutral.
Anyway, there were a few things about the article that I found interesting. One, it never tackled the encryption issue. It mentioned it once in passing, but never said anything about it.
Two, check the bit about the MS case. There's a decidedly pro-MS slant. Then again, that's probably why the site's called that.
Three, the filtering problem. The issue is thorny; kids really shouldn't be accessing all the pr0n that's out there. But the government has no place in this, and no right to take the role of guardian. That's the job of parents and educators. There's also the problem that most filtering software blocks harmless sites (the most often-cited example is that medical sites get blocked).
Apple's KidSafe filtering software is actually intriguing for that reason. Instead of blacklisting the "bad" sites, it whitelists "good" ones, as approved by a panel of teachers and librarians. This one, much as I hate to support filtering, might actually have something of a place in the school system. School-owned computers shouldn't be used for stuff other than schoolwork anyway. As long as they don't try to force it onto personal and home machines, there's something of an appeal to those.
The argument can also be made that the government owns the computers placed in public schools and libraries, and therefore has the right to do what it wants with its property.
Note that I don't support mandatory filtering at all. I would still much rather see any "protection" acts shot down. But I get the feeling that eventually our twisted right-fringe zealot friends in the government are going to get what they want, so it might as well be channeled to where it can do the least destruction possible.
chaosgrrrl, you're just a big old dyke. moo yourself.
They mentioned Hatch and Bauer even though they trail behind Keyes in the polls. Considering the issue is the internet, it should be noted that in every internet poll I have seen, Keyes comes out ahead of all other Republican candidates. Check www.vote.com if you don't believe me.
From the recent CNN online chat with Keyes:
Or the other possibility is that over time, and several elections, the third party manages to beat out its next competetor and then the race is _really_ on. Look what happened to the Whigs in the mid 1800's, they got replaced pretty quickly by a small third party called the Republicans.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
Vote for the green party, our stance on the environment is the only thing that's really going to matter 100 years from now anyway. You can place or get rid of taxes on the Internet as easily as you want, you can't bring back 300 year old tree's by passing a bill in congress. Even though the green candidate probably wont win, if he gets a lot of votes the other 2 parties are going to start paying a lot more attention to the things the green party supports.
BUT CHARITY IS THE CHURCHES RESPONCIBILITY NOT NOT THE GOVERMENT. LET YOUR CRACK SMOKING NEIGHBOR DIE. HE MADE THE CHOICE TO SUCK A PIPE IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE "SOCIAL CHANGES" THAT THE CRATS WANT ARE JUST TO EXPAND THEIR VOTER BASE. "IF YOU VOTE FOR ME I'LL GIVE YOU MORE WELFARE. THERE NO NEED FOR YOU TO TAKE ANY PERSONAL RESPONCIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS." THE HELL WITH THAT. SPEND MY TAXES ON SCHOOLS AND MILITARY NOT CRACK HEADS AND HOARS!
yeah, the constitution says all rights not given to the fed. gov. go to states. but the constitution was made to be a document which can evolve. people always use some logic like "the founding fathers intended/didn't intend" this or that. well the founding fathers intended the ability for us to not be restricted by the exact way they laid things out. that's why use of the 2nd amendment to protect owning every gun available is bullshit. besides the fact that that would be an outdated thought, the constitution says "well-regulated malitia." Billy Jim Bob with his ak-47 and white hood is not a well regulate malitia. people twist the constitution for their own ends, interpreting what the founding fathers wanted. well, what they wanted is a flexible document that can evolve to fit changing needs. if that wasn't the intent, there would be no first 10 amendments anyway. there would still be laws allowing slavery. the fact is, public schools need some sort of standard. it's not fair that kids born into the inner city have less of a chance to do well than suburbian kids. what's that, you pay taxes to build your community not someone elses? well guess what, the whole principle of tax is redistribution of wealth. unless your gate community becomes it's own city state, the country as a whole is still in some way your community. we don't live in a feudal/noble system. you shouldn't be starting kids out way behind, then complaining that it's their own fault they get nowhere.
Lyndon LaRouche is the only canadiate that actually knows anything about the economy. He's the only chance we have to save our dying economy. check him out and read some of his stuff, you'll like him, he's been doing this stuff for about 50 years. www.larouchecampaign.com
You can stop shouting anytime now...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
SO THE CAPS LOCK IS BROKE OFF.
You asked the exact question I entered the comments area to post.
_ _____________
I've always leaned towards a libertarian ideal, but have never voted for the party in the past. This year I am changing that, and registering as a member of the party to boot. If the party can do this right, they should be able to grab a large portion of the tech crowd, because I believe our ideals are very similar to those of the party.
One thing that makes the Libertarian party stand out is their party stance. If you vote for a libertarian, you are voting for the Libertarian party, and what it stands for. That's something you can't say with the Republican and Democrat candidates.
Here's an idea..
What are the chances of getting a Slashdot interview with Harry Browne? I'll bet that he would be one of the most accessible of the candidates, and would be a good foil to the information provided in the above article about the Rep/Dem internet opinions..
Anyone else interested in seeing this?
_______________________________________________
--
driph
McCain opposes busting the MS monopoly.
Could someone please explain to us non-Americans what 'soccer moms' are, and what was their importance in the '96 elections? They were mentioned in some comments, but I still don't get it.
There is exactly zero difference between ordering online and ordering by phone. It's all mail order. It's nothing new. The solution for all mail is simply to change tax in the state where the mail order firm is located. There. No difference between ordering online then if I drove myself across the state line to buy it in person. Which is the way it should be.
If they can get the restriction on visas lifted, the market gets flooded, and salaries and quality drops.
Damn straight! Everybody knows them immigants can't write good code like Honest God-Fearing Americans! Why, the next thing you know there'll be a horde of swarthy green card holders here working on their cheap Leenooks and slandering the quality of the US and our Windows software!
They probably program in their strange furriner tongues, too! Imagine!
para(índice=0;índice<10;índice++)
{
impresarf("Soy un imigrante malvado!");
}
Now, how is a humble young American boy supposed to debug that?
The IEEE has done a pretty good job at fighting this, it should be an issue for anyone working in technology.
That warms my heart. Only when we get back to the kind of economic isolationism and protectionism we enjoyed in the 1930s will America truly prosper. Why, if we're enjoying the longest economic boom in decades after NAFTA, just think of how great the American economy would be if we stopped letting furriners steal our jobs!
Am I the only one that finds the increasing MSN media empire has uncomfortable undertones of Big Brother? Now when you get your new internet ready Win98-bodge-2 PeeCee it will bring up a web page (IIS powered, of course) telling you how to vote with a single click. The scriptwriters of Tomorrow Never Dies may have thought they were lampooning Robert Murdoch, but it seems we're soon to find Mr Gates in the featured role.
That's because they have generic objections to the government; they think of the government as a bad thing in general, and something which should be resisted. So having the government lose revenue and cut back services is something that could be deliberate, not accidental.
If you think the government is good (and has a right to collect taxes), "lost" taxes for on-line transactions look like a problem. If you think the government is bad (or has no right to collect taxes), those "lost" taxes are a benefit (though obviously government services will be reduced as a consequence).
Join it.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Hey driggers,
Eroding the funds on which state and local governments are run would be a good thing. The government already has way too many incompetent people. It's a welfare system in and of itself. Go to any big city and spend some time talking to some of the people employed by the city. It's an effing disgrace. Eroding their funds and firing their asses would be a dream.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Holiday shopping cyberboom proves:
Politicians shouldn't tax the Internet
WASHINGTON, DC -- Americans placed 36 million gift orders at
online shopping sites this holiday season, which is a compelling
argument why the Internet should remain tax-free -- not just this
Christmas but forever, the Libertarian Party said today.
"Politicians shouldn't tax the goose that is laying the golden
egg for the American economy," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national
director. "E-commerce is creating jobs, growing the next generation of
American business success stories, and generating profits for millions
of American shareholders.
"To keep this boom going, politicians should keep their greedy
hands -- and their destructive taxes -- off the Internet."
According to BizRate.com, e-commerce generated $3.35 billion in
revenue this holiday season, a four-fold increase over last year. And
experts say online sales could reach $100 billion by 2003.
In response, politicians -- including the National Governors'
Association -- have demanded that e-commerce be taxed, arguing that
state governments are "losing" sales tax money when people shop online.
A federal Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce is now
studying the issue, and will present a recommendation to Congress by
April 21, 2000. Options include extending the current three-year
moratorium on Internet taxes; creating a new national sales tax; or
forcing cyberbusinesses to collect local and state sales taxes from
every online shopper.
For Libertarians, the answer is obvious, said Dasbach: Give the
Internet a permanent tax exemption.
"The Internet's current tax-free status makes it a nationwide
Enterprise Zone that benefits everyone -- as demonstrated by the
skyrocketing sales figures this Christmas season," he said. "Instead of
figuring out how to exploit the Internet for the benefit of
politicians, we should consider how to protect it for the benefit of
all Americans."
And even if you're not an online shopper, said Dasbach, there
are many good reasons to oppose an Internet tax:
* State governments don't need the money. The 50 states ended
1998 with $11 billion in surpluses. And state revenues as a percentage
of GDP have soared from just 6% in 1960 to 12.8% in 1998 -- and are
still growing at a rate twice as fast as the rate of inflation.
* It could harm the growth of e-commerce. In an online poll of
shoppers, 60% said they would buy less if forced to pay taxes. And a
study by Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago Business School
found that the e-commerce market could shrink by 24% if businesses were
forced to collect online taxes.
* Americans don't want it. As of November, 21,000 Americans had
written to the Commission opposing online taxes -- while only 1,300
supported the idea. That's a ratio of 17-1 against Internet taxation.
* It would be a logistical nightmare. There are between 6,000
and 7,500 unique sales taxes levied by different cities, states, and
counties nationwide. To force every e-businesse to track and collect
such a bewildering array of taxes would be unfair.
* It's unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress
the sole power to regulate interstate commerce -- which means that
state governments have no authority to collect taxes beyond their
borders. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed this principle at least
twice, when it struck down laws forcing out-of-state businesses to
collect sales taxes.
For all those reasons, the Advisory Commission on Electronic
Commerce should reject any proposal to tax the Internet, said Dasbach.
"The only good Net tax is no Net tax," he said. "As an
investment in America's prosperity, the Internet should be protected as
a tax-free zone forever."
# # #
Want to sign an online petition opposing any taxation of the
Internet?
Visit http://www.WorldNetDaily.com.
Click here to read too much about my personal life
2) Stop lawyers from attacking the technology industry and make sure special interests like Microsoft can do absolutely anything they want without fear of legal hassle
Gee, sounds like Microsoft might like that a lot, actually!
3)Eliminate capital gains taxes to make sure the existing rich special interests can be even more rich and even more capable of starving out and crushing any high-tech small business dumb enough to try and apply late-80s rules to 2000 and beyond- or, failing that, just buy anything that looks threatening and divvy up the developers and skilled people among random corporate projects to keep them out of circulation.
Ooo, stick it to the man ;P
I don't trust this guy as far as I could throw him on _Jupiter_. Yeesh. How many slashdotters really buy into this sort of thing? It's amazing how people can see total pandering to trusts as 'woo hoo, freedom'. I don't have an answer- I'd go with Bradley, not real enthusiastically- but I'd like to think I at least have a clue. American Politics is the _dumbest_ place I can think of to worship the wealthy in the belief that they will be above influence. o_O
I might also add that Bradley would be well suited to playing team Quake because he always played team basketball very well, working with teammates rather than being a ballhog, and I have to emphasise the situational awareness- Bradley was known for startling quick passes to teammates that he wasn't even _looking_ at, sensing where they'd moved to and winging the ball to where they must be without looking. This tended to leave crowds cheering like maniacs as it seemed superhuman.
With all this going for him, how could Bradley _not_ totally wipe the floor with anybody in American politics, playing Quake III? The ability to keep track of where individuals are going in a busy melee would have him owning all of them, by a huge margin. Anyone know if he plays the game? I'm serious- there's every reason to believe Bradley would just humiliate all the other politicians. How could he not?
Simple answers make complicated messes. I'd rather see complicated answers to hopefully make simpler messes. To me, _both_ "Jail 'em all!" and "Let 'em all go!" are dangerously simple answers. The reality is a lot trickier than that, believe me.
Here in Germany youths (age
So acceptable filtering for me means that you can access the filter list and check for yourself if it isn't filtering the wrong things, like websites about filtering software going mad.
As far as I know none of the anti-porn software has released their filtering list
Another approach: I would suggest that the local adminstrator at the libary is responsible for the filter list. Sounds like a lot of work? Not if you have a proxy. At my school every night the proxy-cache of that day is searched for xxx, sex... so we have employed the best people for finding porn we could find. The list gets automatically mailed to our admin, so he can look at the sites, and which of them should be blocked. If I think one site has been blocked without reason, I can complain to our admin.
The best think is that if you are smart enough to find new porn sites every day, you can access them.
Daniel
Centrists are those who just vote for whatever their first instinct is, for what sounds "fair" or "compassionate", rather than a thought-out scheme of designated and denied powers and duties of government.
OVER 8,500,000 PEOPLE OFFICIALLY MURDERED during Bill Clinton's tenure as president, funded by your taxes without your consent. (abortion)
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS MURDERED by official, senseless military strikes in Kosovo (mainly), Sudan (official reason: anti-terrorist strike; reality: we bombed an aspirin factory), and Afghanistan during Clinton's presidency.
~90 SUSPICIOUS DEATHS/"SUICIDES"/MURDERS of people associated with Clinton (partial list and info) during his political life.
Note: Generally, people who get the Death Penalty CHOSE to break a law that put them in that situation; they are GUILTY! In contrast, unborn people and civilians minding their own business are INNOCENT! My views are not hypocritical.
No canidate I have seen directly addresses the real issues. I see half-addressed issues, like the internet tax issue. If they did the tax thing, all I'd have to do is move my sales office to Bermuda, and then I fall into a loophole in the tax laws. I say stop any thought of having an Internet Sales Tax. You know why? Because it'll end up like long distance phone, a hopeless mess. The McCain tax is just as bad, move itonto ISP's and the like.
The Internet should remain a seperate entity from the US govt'. Make itgovernable by the UN. (Hell, they can'tdecide anything anyways, we'd remain tax free for centuries)
What they should be dealing with isn't money, it's FREEDOM!
The net has given an overwhelming array of freedom to people. Freedom to read. Freedom to discuss. I've learned more about the world on the internet than I ever did on the nightly news. We should be encouraging new ideas, new philosophies arising on here. Sure, you'll get jerks spreading naked pics of Pam and Tommy (who here has NOT seen these pics/videos yet?) but we have the freedom to delete message. It is OUR responsibility, not the government, to regulate our internet viewing. This issue about kids and porn is another non-issue IMHO. If the parents were there with the children, exploring the net with them, answering their numerous questions as they arose, there would be no problem. My uncle lived with my family when I was a kid, and always took time out to do his homework from HS while I was watching TV, and he'd always take time out totalk to me about it. When we got out Commodore 64 w/ modem and got into BBS's, he'd surf with me there too. My Uncle showed me what was right and wrong, by explaining and letting me decide. Sure, one time I sat up watching an R-rated movie, but he sat there and explained it to me, and I went "Oh, ok" and eventually grew bored and changed the channel.
If parents were like my uncle, open to questions and listening to their children, there would be a lot less problems and minimal need for these kind of legislations.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Few people understand what you just wrote. The present system is really just well-attired anarchy. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, or 'justice' (whatever the hell that is). Those with the strongest weapons, etc., boss around and manipulate others. People write rules (laws) to enforce their values and deny others. The mob crushes the individual (aka democracy).
Trying to achieve anarchy is pointless. You already have it.
Of course there is value in letting go of systems which have grown weak and rotten, rather than clinging to them and propping them up out of fear of change. I think that is what anarchists really want to emphasize.
I'm a Taoist, btw, so I just nibble on a carrot and grin for no particular reason.
Anything a Christian posts can never be considered "insightful". Any idiot that believes that world was created in 7 days can not have any credibility.
You are naive. You've been reading the US gov press releases, instead of looking at reality.
If you think you really have civil rights in practice, you are for the most part deceived. You've never been there. I laugh at people (not you necessarily) who sit and talk about civil rights in the US but who have never dealt with the police, never been arrested or jailed. Reality is a little different, so be careful about what you think you know. You're on a pretty short leash. Just take a few steps and you'll see I'm right.
Talk is cheap.
I agree with your view. Voting is a waste of time. The rich and influential decide who gets on the ballot, because they choose who gets the money, access to media, etc. When was the last time you saw a prez who wasn't a demo or a repub?
What's left for the voters in the decision making process (even primaries) is trivial, and the system is designed that way. Give the people illusion of choice.
Nor does the prez do much, nor does congress. The intelligence community and military run the country. Believe what you want. Lawmakers and the prez don't even have security clearence for most of the real stuff, so how can they possibly be in control?
I also don't believe in the basic foundation of democracy - that numbers make right. Often the majority of people are dead wrong. It is the few who are truthful, and who perceive clearly.
I think non-participation in a mock choice system is the best vote one can make. Ignore the govt. Do what you think is right. Deal with the consequences.
These people only have power if you empower them with your participation and fear.
Jesus never said "Do unto others as would have them do unto you."
The golden rule is not of biblical origin.
Of course the concept is one Jesus appreciates, no doubt.
Everone should pay there share of taxes, people should consider themselves lucky if they pay more tax than someone else, because on average that means they have more money. I dont understand why Americans have this big hangup about taxes, when its actually the lowest taxed country in the OECD. Yet Taxation is the cost of being in a civilised society - look at the state of public health, public education & public transport in the US. However all a internet sales tax would do, would be to drive the e-commerce sites out to the Bahamas, the Caymans, Poerto Rico etc Actually some are now already operating out of the US Marianas/Carolines/Marshalls where they pay no taxes of any sort what so ever, plus they are then closer to their Asian suppliers, plus they get workers out from China on special bonded visas, which mean they only have to pay 'em a dollar a day or whatever. Actually you might as well tax the shit out of these companies anyway, they'll all go off-shore eventually, whether you do or not.
I vote for Bush simply because there is no better options to choose from
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
"Get your domain for only $55"
I said crack because high-powered cocaine (and, obviously, opiates) are without question the most likely 'victimless' drugs to actually cause victims- either in the form of physical addiction that some people never escape, or in the form of criminal acts performed to get the money for more crack or opiates. _You_ know that's true, better than most. Many of the criminals you deal with are also abusing substances, and a lot of the really familiar faces are strung out on heavy drugs and simply desperate to get a fix. Suburban potheads might not want to believe this is a reality, but yes there are drugs that tend to produce conditions like that.
You also know that serious drug supply is not a charity or public service- it's a bigtime capitalist enterprise more vicious than most, and it's heavily geared towards extracting as much money as possible from consumers who are often poor and not in a position to pay for what they need. Again, it's the potheads that present a less vicious picture, a more peaceful front. Start looking at other drugs and you get sellers who will not do payment plans or 'help out a friend who's hurtin' and it's cash on the barrelhead or nothing, and they don't care where you get it. And again, welcome to robbery, fraud, mugging, the gamut of victim crimes, for the purpose of getting money. Few things are more motivating than a severe physical addiction like opiates, or a magic Superman pill like highpowered cocaine, particularly when they can erase your concern about what acts you may have just committed to get the money for your drugs.
So, I wasn't saying there was _no_ way in which drugs could be decriminalised sanely- it seems to me serious regulation and taxation would help. But just flinging the doors open and kicking the underground, criminal (in various senses of the word) economy into high gear without trying to change it? You'd be overloaded again, this time with victim crimes. Sale of crack is a canonical example of a 'victimless act' that has a really high probability of rapidly eating through the buyer's money, no matter how much that is. It's not like pot- you can burn through _large_ amounts of money consuming cocaine. And when the money is gone, then what? GET MORE, what else? Naturally, some people are going to take more direct approaches to this problem, and that becomes your problem as a cop.
If you want a lower caseload in the long run, work for decriminalisation that results in practically a government subsidy on drugs. Get the government set up as your friendly dope dealer. Otherwise, the underground economy already in place will burgeon and swamp you with other crime as the dealers and distribution chain fight over booming business and the new buyers produce a steady percentage of new muggers, robbers and con artists.
check out http://www.congress.org/election.html
Microsoft has used evil monopolistic tactics in the past -- but they haven't succeeded. If Win98 were the only competitive PC OS allowed on the market, a breakup would certainly be warranted. However, Linux is getting more press than ever, MacOS X promises to rejuvinate the PowerPC processor, and we have yet to see the release of Netscape 5.0.
A company isn't a monopoly simply because it dominates a market. If it were, our economy would break down because companies would fear success. If Windows 2000 is a fine product, more power to Bill; if it isn't, I think you'll see more people than ever shift to alternatives like Linux.
I do think that Microsoft should be punished for their practices -- but not distroyed. John McCain obviously understands the necessity for relatively unimpeded commerce (as demonstrated by his proposed tax moratorium), and the breakup of Microsoft would definitely contradict his position.
Now CDA is a whole other issue...
He has a history of public service (and no not the kind that gets you out of going to the front lines of a war). On the issues that i have heard him speak about, his is the voice that i most trust and side with. The career politicians cannot be believed. Forbes, haha he's no more qualified than Perot was.. Seriously folks, drop all the apathy and disassociation and investigate this guy! Even if the nay-sayers are correct and he has absolutely no chance to be elected, at least the green party could acheive a huge milestone: getting the official recognition needed to qualify for government fund matching! try this link! http://www.ralphnader.org -this has some excellent "windows" into his philosophy!! heh Nader is a true public servant, not a politician!! He is not afraid to get tough with big business! He is the most well known and respected consumer advocate in America! Look and learn for yourself!! LOL I AM ACTUALLY GOING TO VOTE THIS TIME AROUND!! AND IM EXCITED ABOUT IT DAMN IT!! -bitchazz
In particular, there's a question I want to ask him, where his answer can be seen by many.
I am a small-l libertarian, i.e. I never joined the Party (due to a minor issue with the wording of the pledge). I characterize my political leanings as "law 'n order anarchist" (or sometimes "... minarchist").
By that, I mean that we should repeal all (or most) of the laws. But it is important that certain of them be repealed in the right ORDER. Most big-L Libertarians seem willing to repeal them in any order, taking every target of opportunity.
A case in point: The wealth-redistribution entitlements (welfare, child support, medical assistance, etc.) must go (or be significantly limited or modified) before the immigration restrictions can be releaxed.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Rather ask some statistics professor, why not view the original and ask yourself whether or not it is objective.
While I have heard many people call the WSPQ biased, I have yet to have anyone point out any better test. Until then, it is still less biased than no test at all.
Devout follower of The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
Ah, I'm sorry Messieur Joke Connoisseur. Like I said, most jokes deal with stereotypes, so if you don't have the capacity to look past stereotypes, and find all such creatures to be horribly repugnant to you, I suggest that you go somewhere where there is no humor being practiced. Like I said in my first post, humor-impaired need not reply. You are obviously humor-impaired, since you bow up at the mere thought of something you believe in being poked fun of. It was not done seriously, and therefore should not be taken seriously. I believe that surgury may be necessary to remove whatever it is you have stuck up your nether regions. Believe me, it will feel much better when it's removed. You might actually be able to look at something in parody of something you like or take seriously and be able to chuckle. *gasp* Yes, even you!
But no, you'll probably take this post way too seriously, think I'm mocking you terribly, bow up, and write something about me that would seek to discredit anything and everything I've said, and justify your position. That's your problem, not mine. I was just pointing out that since you obviously found the humor to be terribly wrong, you shouldn't read it. Anyway, tell me, if all humor dealing with stereotypes is weak, what do you find humorous? Certainly not anything dealing in any way with people, because that all deals with stereotypes (or generalizations on human behaviour, which have much basic foundation in truth, but are often exaggerated.)