Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot, The Elections, and Space Exploration
We've been putting off coverage of the US elections for a long time now, but with the election only weeks away, we figure its time to let
loose. The stories about the election will be posted under the United States topic, and will stop with the announcement of the winner. Stories that are selected will be very few, so expect to be have submissions rejected. Submissions must have some sort of angle for them to be considered for Slashdot, and we will be brutal: we're not CNN here.
And if you don't care about the election, login and disable the United States topic and you'll be free from this. We're starting this
off with a link from
TOTKChief where you can read NASA Watch's of journal of space-related election news, which is just the first of many issues we think is
relevant in this upcoming election. Read it, make up your own mind, and vote goddammit.
There's a fundamental difference.
Your election in Minnesota was not an electoral college voting system. This is why a third party candidate has no chance of winning.
BilldaCat
Perhaps some other people are voting to counteract your vote and they would otherwise cast 3rd party votes. If you stop first, they will stop too. But you never give them the chance.
it's in my head
This analysis is a variant on Bastiat's Fallacy of the Broken Window.
To extend Bastiat's argument, if a city were so riddled with vandals that everyone had their windows broken every few days, then window repair would be part of the "cost of living" which is "automagically accounted for in salaries and pricing". Your argument implies that if the vandalism were stopped, then prices and wages would fall in such a way that the net standard of living would not increase -- which is absurd, since it is obvious on its face that people who are constantly beset by vandals have a lower standard of living than people who are not.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Wow - that is one blinding display of ignorance and addle-minded drivel. This is not a flame, but commentary on how/why religion and government MUST remain separate. Moderators, please read on.
Well if you think that wasn't a flame then please think again, as your first sentance was nothing more than yet another ad hominem attack of the kind that is so popular on /.
For some reason, in this age of scientific enlightenment and reason it is truly sad to see someone hold such deep piety. I have little doubt you are likely an intelligent person - with some emotional problems. You are obviously 'not very well adjusted'.
That's a bit of a blanket statement isn't it? Do you also believe that everyone of the hundreds of million Christians out there are also "not very well adjusted"? Or maybe you believe that in accepting the Truth of our Creator we do not necessarily divulge ourselves of all intelligence or scientific understanding.
As for not very well adjusted, well I'm sure my wife and kids would be amused by that statement.
Have you ever considered that maybe your wrong? Not being able to fully understand the universe and our existence does not require a "God" in order to rationalize and provide comfort.
Current scientific thinking on the causes of the Big Bang are hazy and rely on a lot of metaphysical baggage which the Creation hypothesis avoids. Why invoke the existance of an eternal chain of universes evolving through a cosmic analogue of natural selection or the background space of "chaotic inflation" when by Occam's razor the existance of a Creator is a far more elegent theory?
If there is NO God what does that mean for Jon E. Erikson? I guess allot of responsibility. For your actions, desires, thoughts, future and opinions. If you didnt have God deciding what is right and wrong you might (gasp) have to THINK FOR YOURSELF. Let go of the fantasy, wake up to reality... you can do it.
Sorry, but the Lord gave us free will to make our own decisions, good or bad! This is why there is evil in the world, and why I see it as my choice to spread the word of the Lord and try to be a good person. Note the word choice in that last sentance!
It seems to me as though you also have some issues with the entire concept of religion rather than it's particular forms. Surely as a "rational human being" (to the extent that such exist) you can see that people have the right to hold their beliefs, no matter how much you may disagree with them?
Anyway, my views aren't changed by your attempts to make me "wake the fuck up" as you so eloquently put it. At the end of the day, when I'm in Heaven, you're the one who will be burning in the lake of fire.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Yes, I agree. I think Nader does have strong convictions and the good of the country in mind. However, I think he's also a thinly veiled socialist who would destroy my way of life, my freedom, and my prosperity. His ideas for the good of the country will have the same effect they have had everywhere else: death, poverty, and slavery. It's good to be principled. It's more important to be right. That's why I'm voting for Browne. He's both.
If voting could change anything, it would be illegal
I'm in the courtesy of using this statement very often. Politics in Europe aren't much better than in the states, even though we didn't sell the Bank of Europe to some corporate.
In my humble opinion, there's only one thing which could change a lot, and that's education, not only general education, self education as well. I'm a concious cable-TV-not-customer. Any information penetrating my home is deliberatly chosen. Any information educating I should wear Nikes, drink Coca, like Bush or Gore, like Britney Spears, should follow some soap show, should appreciate Jerry Springer, or anything which makes me depend on an unknown third-party greedbag - any information like this does not enter my home. Self education can be self-censorship.
All manufactured information is considered before it enters my home (I do watch video, but I get to choose the movie).
I tell my friends that this attitude liberates me from all kinds of different I-Want emotions.
When the amount of I-Don't-Want-screamers grows drastically, change will be inevidable. Why? Because artificial people like President candidates may have charismatics, but it won't have any impact: I don't care what you have to say mr candidate president, even though you've got blue eyes.
If you want to change anything, you should use the internet (or should I say 'Peer-to-Peer networking? - even better), don't vote, don't watch TV, choose your own entertainment, choose your own information.
Bizar technology?
Um...no. The point of the fallacy of the broken window is that society has lost the value of the broken window. It is gone, an amount of money that is essentially disappeared forever, because the labor and materials for the window that is broken no longer benefit anyone.
When you pay taxes, you don't "lose the window". The taxes go to pay for things that have naterial value that society benefits from (the degree and type of benefit is usually what people argue about).
It's the same as people who claim that space research is a waste of money because we don't see the benefits on earth. The money we spend on space exploration isn't sent to the sun to be burned up, it's spent right here on salaries for researchers and materials to build equipment. No money is "lost" into space, and no window is broken. Society is no poorer for having spent the money on space (though you can certainly argue the opportunity cost of not spending it elsewhere).
And, to counter your "extension" of Bastiat's argument (which really wasn't Bastiat's argument at all, he was talking about the lost value of the window and the fallacy that replacing it was good for the economy): If an entire city were constantly breaking windows, YES, IT WOULD be accounted for in the price of goods and labor. It would be a predictable cost that people and businesses would have to account for. In modern America, insurance is certainly a cost of living that poeple pay attention to, and it varies from place to place for exactly the reasn you state -- if you live in a place with high vandalism rates, your cost of insurance will go up. If your salary cannot pay the insurance rate, you may well move to somewhere else or find a different job. Many people avoid buying sports cars because the insurance is too high. It's a cost that is taken into account by most people when they buy cars -- how expensive are the repairs, the insurance?
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Last I checked, there might be one or two Libertarians in Congress, and a few Libertarian "appointees" to other positions, but nothing overly major or exciting.
What the hell? I tried to mod this down, but the damn thing modded it +1. Now I have to post to reverse it. Shit. BTW, go troll where somebody will listen, asshole.
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
"I'm not buying into this whole 'voting for them gives them more power' thing"
What don't you understand about this concept?
To become a politician you must receive the most votes. All politicians need votes to get elected and they will pay attention to any large group of votes (i.e. labor unions, minority groups, the elderly) and they will try and win their vote. Is this not obvious from the treatment of Social Security (seniors are very likely to vote and social security is their biggest issue in general) in this election.
So how would you react as a politcian trying to win an election if you saw that in the past election (or better yet, in the past 2 or 3 elections) that a lot of votes went to a 3rd party? You would investigate why the votes went there and try to win them yourself, right? You might mention the third party candidates name in a speech and talk about how you agree with their position on X because it might win over some of those votes.
In my mind, it is a straight forward conclusion that voting for a third party candidate will have two effects: either it will increase the stature of that third party candidate, or it will help push the main party candidates towards the positions on issues you care about.
Now, lets look at what not voting for a third party candidate will do. The winner of the election and the loser will not see any opposition that applies to both of them and the next election will likely become even more partisan. Finally, the third party candidates because they received fewer votes become discouraged, those viewpoints are weakened and evetually they start to disappear .
Vote third part in this election (I suggest Brown, but any 3rd party vote is better than a vote for Gore or Bush).
Please read the parent comment.
Ok, I read the comment a little hasty. What about Abe & Teddie?
science is a religion
Have you ever had the opportunity to hear Dan Goldin speak in person? I have, and he does have a wonderful vision for the space program and eventual technology transfer. The Mars missions failed more due to inexperience than anything else, and how do people gain experience but by making mistakes. This is new territory for everyone, and so mistakes will be made. As long as people (the engineers in this case) learn from their mistakes, it was NOT a waste of time. I never once heard Mr. Goldin expound a "faster, cheaper, better" ideal. Yes, I agree that NASA is underfunded, but let's keep Dan Goldin in charge. He is defnitely the right man for the job.
"You will only be remembered for two things: the problems you solve or the ones you create." Mike Murdock
Vote for YOURSELF this election - plug in, log on, and drop out.
Shrug.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
...and dont forget Tipper's involvement with the PMRC. Although I think it was completely misguided when it made the big headlines in the mid 80's, it certainly puts another nail in the coffin of this Bush boy's typical argument. Im just surprised he didnt use the word "liberal" once in his post.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
People don't want to pick the lesser of two evils, so they're choosing not to vote. This is not the best response.
No, it's only one part of the best response. The government is a cadre of thugs who believe for some abstruse reason that they have the right take other people's property and force them to live by their standards. If I took a fourth of your property, told you what you could and could not watch on TV, claimed it was all for your own good, backed up that claim with complicated philosophy written before the invention of electricity and lies about impending doom, and then ordered you to vote for me (or thugs like me) to continue, would you cast that vote? Voting is mandatory in some states. Freedom is absent in all of them.
I will not take part in the election of a new ruler (call it what you will - some will always be more equal than others) because I do not want to be ruled. Do you want a ruler? Do you need one? Do I?
Um... $20k?
I'd be surprised if that would pay for a single 30-second spot in the NYC area, let alone, oh, two weeks' worth of travel for a candidate, his spouse, and a few handlers.
Unless you want candidates to only campaign via e-mail spam and by inviting reporters over for tea, you'd better add some more zeroes.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
That would be Harry Browne, a noninterventionist. Tired of the US antagonizing other nations? Vote Browne.
What the hell is this supposed to mean then? The second amendment is probably the most clearly written.
Most gun laws are bullshit. The only people we have to worry about with guns are criminals. Criminals do not legally buy and register guns. It would be dumb (from a criminal standpoint) if they did. Hence, gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens.
What is the consequence of this? Maybe the losing party will look at the results sand say "Well, gee, if we had Nader's vote, we would have won."
So what do they do the next election? They take on a platform that will hopefully woo the Nader (or Brown, or Perot) voters.
This is precisely how Populist and Socialist positions were incorporated into the Democratic Party, how Dixiecrat positions were incorporated into the Republican Party, and how deficit reduction became a major issue for both parties after Perot's performance in 1992.
A third party doesn't have to win; it just has to do well enough to scare the Establishment.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
This wouldn't work very well for some obscure story that actually is better then a "more visible" one. Often the stories on some back-website are more informitive then one on a major one and those would never be shown here.
Grades, Social Life, Sleep....Pick Two.
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
Umm the moving out of the country thing was a little thing called sarcasm. I'm just pointing out that America isn't doing so bad, relatively speaking. In comparison to Utopia we may be a bit lacking, but compared to 99% of other nations we seem to be doing alright. So it seems like we must be doing something right despite these horribly oppressive income taxes that the evil government uses to fund services for citizens even as far as feeding and sheltering some people. Even though I don't use those particular services I am glad that they exist and that there aren't 1 million starving homeless people wandering the streets mad and desparate breaking into my house to steal food. Other countries don't have such luxuries.
In the late 1980s he promoted the commercialization of the InterNet which then was mostly a military and academic set of networks. He borrowed the metaphor of his father's Interstate highway system legislation. Poor Al took some flak with silly name back then. And now he takes flak for this claiming to invent the InterNet.
I agree. If everyone voted for who they REALLY want to be president, this two party crap might go out the window.
My general opinion is that if you vote for either of the two whatsisnames that get all the publicity, you probably are brainwashed and you probably made your decision by watching television.
Ask yourself one question:
If I could vote for anyone I want, who would I vote for?
Well, you CAN vote for anyone you want. So quit being so brainwashed.
Just my opinion.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
I would hate to see this country torn apart by having the option to vote for a candidate who is not a corporate shill.
I really would have expected better from NASA.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
A third party doesn't have to win; it just has to do well enough to scare the Establishment.
All this talk about third party candidates and how they don't need to win, just get enough votes to scare the establishments has me wondering:
How many of you have ever called your representative in congress and talked to them about the issues that are important to you??
Things aren't going to change because a third-party candidate gets a lot of votes for president. Ross Perot got a lot of votes and things haven't gotten any better for the third-party candidates. To really affect any changes in the current establishment, we need to elect third-party candidates to offices in congress and in our state legislatures. And if there are important issues being voted on, we need to call our representatives in congress, because who knows, they just might listen.
Gore 2000 - because I am scared of a country run by George W.
Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
Sorry my mistake, I should know all the minutae of your (quasi)democratic system. I suppose I could point out that the world is having to deal with him now because of what could happen, but that would be churlish at best :)
Anyone have anything to say about my initial post though?
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
Well, first of all, about half of the population doesn't even vote. So I'd hardly call the other have a "mass majority".
Also, ask people walking down the street why they are voting for who they are voting for and you'll probably get all sorts of stupid reasons. Like those brain-dead survey groups: "Oh, he seemed nicer" "I like the environment n stuff" "He is for guns and I like guns" "He's 'tough on crime'"
Seems to me the "mass majority" of people have bought into the millions of dollars of marketing and hype and have no friggen idea why they're voting! Why do people buy the shoes or clothes they do? Image, that's why.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
That is blatently untrue. Do you understand anything about corporate accounting? Typically what a business pays you is ~2X what you actually receive in take home pay before your personal taxes. In that other half that you never see, the business pays for your benefits (under LP this would stay the same), unemployment insurance, matching social security (I think, I am not an accountant) along with other government taxes. If the income tax and other government taxes (that the business is already paying dropped), the actual take home pay that a business could afford to give you for the same previous cost to them would be the same. So two potential situations and the possibilities between them arise:
1) prices drop and your salary stays the same or drops
2) prices stay the same and your salary increases
In the end, the final result (most likely) is that you will have a larger amount of relative spending power. But you will lose out on some of the "services" the government provides you. You may have to use some of that spending power to purchase the same sort of services elsewhere. But these should be cheaper cause you don't have the loss of the inefficieny of government.
Therefore, you are likely to come out slightly ahead. And instead of having the government decide what is fair and equitable and deciding who gets what benefit, individuals will take care of themselves.
With the effect that the Democratic Party is now a populist, socialist party? Similarly, I believe that racial segregation has been dropped by the Republicans this year, so the Dixiecrats got the short end too.
As far as I can see, your examples point up the impossibility and futility of third party candidates. And as I say, I don't want to support Nader or Buchanan's platforms, in any case.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
It exists in France too, but only do good to both parties.
The blank votes are counted in the partiticipation, but not in the percentage distribution.
This give politicians a greater legitimity but don't change the outcome. If everyone in the country but one voted blank, the winner would be elected with 100% of the expressed votes and a 100% participation. Disgusting.
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Let's just pretend that Minnesota did have an electoral college system. Perhaps each county could have a certain amount of electoral votes won in a winner take all fashion similar to how each state has a certain amount of votes won in a winner take all.
How would that have changed the Minnesota election? What is it about the electoral college voting system that fundamentally prevents a popular third party candidate from wining an election?
Sig goes here
The constitution is written in such a way as to be able to bend to the winds of time. .44 to protect his apartment.
The original intent of the right to bear arms was to protect ourselves against hostile goverments, whether they be foreign or internal.
Times change. theres no reason why that Amendment can't be used so a 90 pound grandma can defend herself against a 300 pound maniac.
many things in the constitution have changed:
men no longer means just men.
it applies to all races, not just white land owners
What we need is laws insuring firearm responsability.
accidently discharge a firearm? $1000.00 fine. do it more then 3 times a years, loose the weapon.
accident discharge a firearm and hurt some one? you pay all medical, and lost wages restitution to the victim, loos the firearm.
accidently discharge a firearm and kill someone. 3 years community service. do it twice, 2 years jail.
a minor in your houshold kills someone accidently with a fire arm, and you didnot take resonable care to prevent the minor from accessing the weapon,You spend 3 years in jail.
Kill someone intruding in your home, no penalty.
fire at an intruder, kill an innocent victim 1 year probation, and 6 months community service.(this will, hopefully, make people buy a reasonable weapon for home protection). There is nothing like a guy with a
personaley, I don't own a firearm, but thats my decision to make, not a goverments.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well I usually mute the commercials...can't stand them. Unfortunately my girlfriend gets the jingles stuck in her head the the meme spreads. It's awful. It's like they own a portion of you're head. You can't even hum a friggen Beatles tune these days without being reminded of some damn computer or electronics company or car.
Check out: www.adbusters.org
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
First of all I'd just like to thank you for the intelligent reply.
"Voting for someone you're pretty sure won't win isn't "throwing your vote away." A poster on Slashdot long ago said "It's not a horse race." You're choosing who you think is the best person for the job, not "the lesser of two evils.""
In my opinion (and I'm sure many disagree), Browne is the best person for the job, and Bush is the lesser of the two evils (strangely enough, I've seen many say the same for Nader/Gore). But, can you explain why it isn't throwing my vote away? Or why we shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils?
"You, and the rest of the country, have more than two choices for President, Governor, House and Senate members, etc. It's just the largest two parties have done a good enough job of skewing the electoral system in their favour that other voices almost never get a chance to be heard"
Yes, I'm very aware of this.. and it disgusts me.
"I suppose that Jesse Ventura guy in Minnesota doesn't exist - after all, he's not a Republican or Democrat, so Minnesota voters must have thrown their votes away. "
As it happens, I'm a Minnesota resident. Minnesota is generally known to be a liberal state, so my vote for Bush may be as equally futile as it is for Browne (I sound like I'm on your side now, heh).
"Even if your favoured candidate loses, your vote shows there are some people who believe a candidate is right. The more people who vote their conscience rather than just stay home because "it doesn't matter," the more it proves to others that non-Republicrats might be worth listening to"
If my favored candidate loses (i.e, Gore wins), I'm doomed to further expansion of the government, more programs, more taxes, etc. This seems to be an issue of principal versus practical effects. I'm still finding it difficult to see positive practical effects of voting 3rd party.
However, I'm only 19.. and though I thought I was final in my decision to vote for Bush, your post has forced me to re-consider [again - I already went through this Browne vs. Bush thing in my head before]..
So one of the things Gore blew tons of money on while he was in the Senate turned out to be good thing? Good for him. Getting money for something does not mean creating it, anymore than we would say Roosevelt created the H-Bomb or Agrippa built the Pantheon.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
voting for Browne makes every kind of sense if thats who you believe will do the best job.
the point of a democracy is that you have a selection of candidates who all have (maybe) slightly differing views. then the electorate gets to choose the candidate that they would like to see elected. its a free choice.
irrespective of whether you like the particular system, first past the post, proportional representation etc. you have to work within the system and maybe vote for someone who will try to change that system.
not voting for Browne because 'he has no chance' is the worst thing to do. its self defeating, and its allowing all the major, apparently undesirable candidates an easier ride into government. and changes nothing.
vote for who you want to see elected. its as simple as that. if everyone did that, rather than over analysing and deciding to 'strategic' vote, maybe you'd see some changes.
Imagine the implications this has on the colonization of Mars!
Human extinction is on the way.
Same thing just happened in Belgium.
/., and I know that I for one am nowhere near pretty enough or sufficiently silvery tongued to pull it off.
...and it did happen in Austria some weeks ago, with the result being that the extreme right won the election.
IIRC (and please correct me if I'm wrong since I'm just a provincial USAian and not a European) the extreme right in Belgium is championing primarily the separation of Belgium into Waloon and Flemish states. I find it curious that federalization of European countries seems to be in vogue even as the continent takes steps toward unification.
Has anybody on this site ever considered going into politics themselves to actually change something?
Most wouldn't qualify. "IANAL" is the most common abbreviation here on
Vote Nader! The only presidential candidate who I've heard speak out on having television stations pay rent for using our airwaves. The presidential candidate responsible for the clean air and water acts, the EPA, airbags, the pinto recall, PIRGs, the public citizen(.org), and in general giving a damn about the long distance, not just the current economy.
But really, JUST VOTE!
"Any information penetrating my home is deliberatly chosen."
It's easy to take this too far, though. Sure, you don't want commercials blaring at you from every surface--but neither do you want to be unaware of options OR lose your critical thinking skills.
When my wife and I watch TV together we generally leave the commercials unmuted--so we can mock them. We don't just say things like "nice hair, stupid" (although we say that, too)--we also point out the logical contradictions or hidden assumptions (it sounds boring when put like that, but really the race to be the first one with a snappy-but-accurate one-liner is fun).
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
They were probably doomed before Buchanan saw an opportunity.
Between the Perotistas and the Ventura partisans, there was plenty enough bickering... if Hagelin -- a fellow who seems to view TM as a viable solution to many, many problems -- is the best they can come up with, *Mondale* might have crushed him in a landslide.
More important than the fairly paltry amount of money would probably have been a) participation in the debates, and b) more media coverage, which the former would certainly have forced. Right now, a reporter can get away with ignoring Nader and Buchanan, because for all practical purposes they do not matter. If, for instance, they bothered to shine a light on all the ideas espoused by the Association of State Green Parties[*], or those by the Buchanan Brigades, things might get a bit more interesting and images may change.
[*] Like immediate disarmament of all nuclear weapons, school choice (which I happen to agree with, but is a tough sell...), universal health care (perhaps the largest of all possible Federal programs...), a more socialistic tax system... and so forth, well beyond the consumer and environmental issues normally associated with Nader. It's a pretty extreme platform.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Actually, in the US you CAN register a "no vote". I'm surprised more people aren't talking about it as an option. What you do is you go to the polls, enter, then vote for any local officials you want to, but do not choose a presidential candidate. It is recorded that you voted, and did not choose ANY candidate for President.
Not as omnipotent as advertised, I guess.
.50 cal.
Not even as omnipotent as me with a Hummer and a postmount
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
-- Judges 1:19
I think we've moved on past needing HIS help...
Surely "crime prevention" is doublespeak for "contracting private corporations to build and manage prisons"?
Honestly, why should I bother to vote?
:p
I am in a midwest state that has voted Republican in every election for over 30 years. I don't like either Bore or Gush. And this state does not allow write-in votes, so I couldn't vote for Nader/Buchanan/Bugs Bunny even if I wanted to.
There's a larger problem in that I don't agree with *any* of the parties. From what I can see, republicans are evil, democrats are stupid, Nader is a fruit loop, Libertarians are scary-stupid, and Buchanan is dangerously insane. I have to go to really obscure people (the Natural Law party) before I find anyone whose policies I can agree with.
I don't feel any incentive to vote this election. Furthermore, I don't want to take part of the blame for putting either of the two frontrunning bozos into office.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
This is for the following reasons (in no particular order):
Please, let's stand in solidarity and keep U.S. poilitics out of /. (as much as we can anyway...)
Out...
If the candidates can find all this time to stop and campaign at elementary schools, surely it's worth a try to get them to answer some of our questions. Many of us can actually vote AND read above the third grade level.
And just who would enforce this law? Would the gun police show up one day knocking on your door asking to see the illegal guns? Thats like telling me I can't leave the toaster plugged in while I'm away.
Have you ever talked with someone from a country with strict gun control like england? Sure the murder rate is lower, but other crimes are MUCH higher. You can't even keep a nice stereo in your car because of how quickly it will get stolen. That same problem goes for canada, I know people who went to canada to see a concert and their cars were robbed. If england is so safe, why do they have cameras on every street corner and highway constantly looking for criminals?
Have you check crime statistics on australia? Home invasions are up 40%, yes thats right 40%. The criminals know you don't have a gun so they can break in and use their illegal gun to rob/kill/rape or whatever they feel like.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Briefly I think of Charlton Heston and consider which kind of assault rifle Thomas Jefferson meant.
Throw it away and get back to slacking, which in it's own way is:
Exercising my right not to bear arms.
Play video games, bearing virtual arms, and leaving them when I turn off the monitor.
Thanks for the enlightenment, but I can think for myself.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
IIRC (and please correct me if I'm wrong since I'm just a provincial USAian and not a European) the extreme right in Belgium is championing primarily the separation of Belgium into Waloon and Flemish states. I find it curious that federalization of European countries seems to be in vogue even as the continent takes steps toward unification.
Yes, you're completely right, and it even lead to us Europeans boycotting a democratically voted government. About the same thing happened here in the Netherlands where extreme-right became scaringly famous as well. Fortunately they only got about 3 or 4% of total votes, so nothing like what's happening in Belgium.
As for the Waloon and Flemish states, it's really a language war. I unfortunately do tech support for both languages and nobody's more pissed than someone from Belgium if I happen to pick up the phone in the wrong language...As far as I'm concerned, this calls for a deal between Paris and the Hague. Two large lines of tanks driving north from France and south from the Netherlands and we'll split up the country where we meet. After that we tell all the people to people to go live in the country where "their" language is spoken and put a really big wall inbetween. Oh wait, that's been done and it didn't work.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I had no idea that Marilyn Manson was so powerful.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Why, thank you for such a well thought out response..
Um, it may not really be my team.. but it's the team that matches MUCH MUCH more closely with mine.
Really I am quite interested in it. Persoanally I can find some dirt if I dig enough off the top of my head:
1. England: Well when you have instability in the country you remove your leader. That has been a fundamental constant throughout parlimentary British history and is really something I find scary. If someone pulls a hitler you have a good chance of seeing him in the prime minister's position. Quite bad.
2. Mexico:
PRI controlls the country pretty much but other contenders are there as well. Massive corruption and maffia control over highest offices of the government but drug cartels and the like. This formula usually goes for most of the region to the south although this may varry with intensity and force.
3. Canada: Massive problems with trying to fund various programs that are for the social welfare. Their health care system can only now offer modicum levels of care to almost anyone and that's usually after a good wait. Also containing a very discontented group of ex-French could really cost their country if they ever got independence and cost the all of Canada in the form of trade losses and unemployment which is also high in certain regions.
I could go on but those are the most obvious ones.
Respond to s
And I cannot believe how many people are running for President....
Listed as running:
Harry Browne - Libertarian
Pat Buchanan - Reform
George Bush - Republican
Al Gore - Democrat
John Hagelin - Natural Law
James Harris - Socialist Workers
Denny Lane - Vermont Grassroots
David McReynolds - Liberty Union
Ralph Nader - Progressive/Green
Howard Philips - Constitution
It's too bad that most of these people haven't gotten any press, I would be interested in knowing what other than Bush, Gore, Nader, Browne and Buchanan think. Does anyone know what the others stand for?
It's just too bad that no one other than the 2 major parties have a chance in winning, their ideas are so stale...
Bzzt. Go open your ears, and try again.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The Shuttle's turn around time was to be 15 days. Now we are launching them every month. NASA doesn't have the funding...it's all about dollars and NASA doesn't get them. Why is the Shuttle what it is today...with the External fuel tanks that burn up and the SRBs that get detached? Because of budget cuts in the early 70s.
"Defund NASA if you want space exploration" - will private companies fund space telescopes that don't make them any money? Will they fund new deep space engines in tests? Will they spend money to send probes to the outer planets or comets?
No to all three - because a private company needs to spend money to make money. Exploration has never been funded from the private sector. NASA does explore space...as well as it can with it's budget.
Wow - that is one blinding display of ignorance and addle-minded drivel. This is not a flame, but commentary on how/why religion and government MUST remain separate. Moderators, please read on.
Attention Jon E. Erikson: There is no God. No Jesus.
For some reason, in this age of scientific enlightenment and reason it is truly sad to see someone hold such deep piety. I have little doubt you are likely an intelligent person - with some emotional problems. You are obviously 'not very well adjusted'. Have you ever considered that maybe your wrong? Not being able to fully understand the universe and our existence does not require a "God" in order to rationalize and provide comfort. I also believe the majority of religions teach very valuable lessons: Don't lie, don't kill ECT ECT... all 'moral' and 'just' opinions. Your morals/opinions are very welcome in a public forum, but your attachment of those morals to god worship displays your inability to participate by your 'faith' (or lack of logic and impartial objective perspective).
If there is NO God what does that mean for Jon E. Erikson? I guess allot of responsibility. For your actions, desires, thoughts, future and opinions. If you didnt have God deciding what is right and wrong you might (gasp) have to THINK FOR YOURSELF. Let go of the fantasy, wake up to reality... you can do it.
Dont let it scare you; let it free you.
Im becoming increasingly angry that people involve their Cult-fantasy lives in public debate. Where the hell can we possibly be going if people still believe in Gods and Monsters? My faith in humanity is inversely proportionate to my perceived acceptance of "Religion" in the population at large... Jesus F'ing Christ people: Wake the fuck up! Your dragging us all down! Can we please move on from the fear of demons under our beds, how are we supposed to grow as a planet with people this God-Damned diluted??
A poor choice in current context, but it is hard to anticipate language drift. A more accurate reading of 'well regulated' at the time would be well trained, equipped, effective.
Billy the Kid's gang was called 'The Regulators', and there's at least one cowboy-action shooting club that uses the name also in historical context.
--- Mercutio was right.
Abe Lincoln was the first Republican to get in office. His party WAS for something a lot of people believed in - outlawing slavery. It went down the tubes from there.
Teddie Rosevelt got in on the Bull Moose party. He started a lot of the momentum forming national parks such as Yellowstone. Who wants to bet that some company would have exclusive rights to Old Faithful if it wasn't made a park by someone who cared about the future?
Both major candidates seem to be out of touch with the population. One has problems answering questions from prepared crowds. The other has problems telling the truth. Both are into big oil. Neither one really seems to be that different about most issues (except abortion and tax cuts). Both are just as responsible for my prosperity today (i.e. neither one had very much to do with it).
The only alternative I see is to vote for something different. It worked before. It will work again. I will vote this fall. It won't be for one of them.
science is a religion
ooooh, i'm not sure about that. it sounds to me too much like asking geeks and nerds to go out and do something, rather than letting then stare at their monitors mindlessly waffling on and complaining.
The assumption is that private organizations would operate more efficiently than the government, and thus we would obtain more value per dollar spent on space exploration.
Actually due to something called The Electoral College your vote does not matter. You do not elect the president.
From the FAQ "Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes. It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely."
I want someone to give me a good reason why I should vote for the president. As long as we have The Electoral College I will not vote for president.
That proves nothing but apathy. Apathy does not cause change but promotes the status quo. If you want to enact change you must do something.
No. An election boycott does not entail political apathy. If coupled with grassroots political organization, it means a rejection of the corporate-dominated politics in favor of true democracy.
You can also check out a refutation of the claim at www.snopes.com. It's a pretty good refutation... Snopes is always good at debunking myths, although the political myths that have been debunked have all been anti-democrat this year...
Have you ever talked with someone from a country with strict gun control like england? Sure the murder rate is lower, but other crimes are MUCH higher. You can't even keep a nice stereo in your car because of how
quickly it will get stolen. That same problem goes for canada, I know people who went to canada to see a concert and their cars were robbed. If england is so safe, why do they have cameras on every street corner and
highway constantly looking for criminals?
Wow that sure sucks. Maybe you could rig a little canister of hyrodgen cyanide gas to open if anyone tryed to remove your stero from your car. Or even better install a GPS beacon in the device and then get the police to converge on the house of the person who had the stolen object?
Respond to s
It was at some dinner function, a bunch of people where vying for his attantion, and he was being bombarded with questions. Al Gore said the he "invented the internet". I think is was in the 'look what we have done' context. This was a mis-speak, of course, but everybody jumped on it to poke fun at him, and how clueless he is. I will say that:
a: if the internet didn't have the boom that it had over the last 2 years, nobody would of thught twice about it.
b: he laughed at his own mistake at an interview later on.
c: for GWBush to use that against Bush is pretty funny. considering some of the blunders he has said.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I wouldn't have any problem letting both sides go at it full force, if that's what they want to do. -BUT- unfortunately we've already gotten our damn paws in there and stirred everyone up, sold or given weapons to only one side, etc. We need to get the hell out of there, both in terms of weapons sales, intelligence support, and "peacekeeping" forces, as well as in terms of diplomacy. Why is Clinton there, for example? The only part the US has played in the whole mess is making it worse. Clinton and the US aren't involved in the fighting, and we shouldn't be involved at all. Come home, Billy - you won't get your legacy from this.
They [Arabs] contribute nothing to the world except oil.
What you contribute shouldn't affect your right to live in a military sense. If I said that [US] Americans don't contribute much besides strife, I wouldn't be far off. Does that mean we should all be killed by the Chinese? Of course not. Nobody should be killing anyone else. But if others want to kill each other - and it certainly looks like the Israelis and Arabs are itchin to have a go at it - then the US should stand aside and let it play out. We should not take sides, nor should we try to moderate discussions unless asked to do so by both sides.
That aside, I would suggest that if, for some insane reason, we feel compelled to take sides, we should support whoever ships us more oil. Let's be a little more pragmatic here; that oil is damned important. Why is it exactly that we support Israel anyway? What have they ever done for us? Where are the benefits of supporting Israel?
1) If they get a certain percentage of the vote this election, they get more official money and recognition in the next election and more power between times
I'd like to point out the Harry Browne and the Libertarians refused "official money" because they felt Americans shouldn't be forced to subsidize their campaign involuntarily.
I'm voting for Nader because I'd rather be right than win.
Don't worry, with Nader you'll never do either one!
2001: Disgrace Odyssey
Al Gore's campaign song
You can do this in Nevada as well. Unfortunately it doesn't have the real effect it does in Sweden, but I would say that none of the above winning 50% of the vote would be a serious issue of interest to many. What I would really like is for none of the above winning to mean that the office goes unfilled. That is, if the voters didn't find any of the candidates acceptable, that none of them would get the job. The thing is, though, it's very likely that one of the 7 candidates on the ballot (in the case of the presidential election) is close to your views. So there's seldom a reason to vote none of the above if you've researched the candidates beforehand. This doesn't necessarily apply to local offices, though; often candidates run unopposed, and that's where none of the above really comes into play. Unfortunately most states don't have that option.
You said it, sister! The best way to protest the system is to drop out completely, therefore giving them TOTAL control over you (because you no longer have a say). Of course, you still have to live in their society under their laws...you just won't have a vote in the matter.
Good thinking.
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
Want to eliminate corporate financing of campaigns? Make airtime free. Think the media corporations won't go for that? That's too bad. We own the airwaves, not the corporations. We can take them back if we want.
pooptruck
George Bush (the old one) had two terms in control behind senile old fart Reagan, one term in power as himself, and could end up being the first President to have four terms in control of the USA behind his idiot son.
From where I'm standing it's all highly entertaining, but then again our political parties aren't much better.
What happened to politicians with charisma and values?
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
"Information wants to be paid"
Don't you think that there might be people who think it is important to keep Gore out of office? That they too might want to vote 3rd party. Why not vote for what you think is right and encourage others to do the same? Do you want to vote against particular candidates for the rest of your life?
This is a dangerous idea that I often see expounded. I can agree with the idea in some emotional terms, but the economic terms are harsh:
The Constitution states that the government should promote "useful arts and sciences". Few things are more useful in terms of science than space exploration. The project I work on promises to make unbelievable advances in fiber optics and human prosthetics--and yet we're underfunded and threatening to slip our schedule far out into the ISS service life. It's great to be commercial, but it would be nice to have government funding on this as well.
Let's just get rid of Dan Goldin.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
Don't vote for the lesser evil. Find a candidate you do believe in and vote for that one.
That's what they said 8 years ago w/ Ross Perot. Well, you know what good my voting for him did? It gave Bill Clinton the advantage that he needed to get into office. Now I might have preferred Clinton at the time, or not, I can't remember, but voting my conscience, along with a rather large percentage of the rest of the US population gave us Slick Willy.
Back to your point - where did it get us, who are interested in a third party? This election probably has the most coverage of the various third party candidates, including surprising coverage of Browne. However neither of them has a snowballs chance...
Anyway, I think it'll likely be *forever* before a third party candidate gets into office unless the two existing parties screw up royally and some amazingly good centrist third party candidate suddenly comes on the scene.
That said, go vote!
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
As with the discovery of the New World, it's not so much those who discover (or "invent") nor see the potential, it's those who take advantage of and make something of. Would anyone rather we celebrated Jeff Bezos over Al Gore? ;-)
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It isn't possible to get such a system while the existing parties hold power. The only way to get from here to there is to get a third party into power by voting for them.
Pretty dismal.
I have an idea, but it's so wacky that I don't think it'll take off. The third parties are wildly different from one another, but this is one thing they can probably all agree on: election reform to make it possible for third parties to get representation. So... if all those parties (with wildly different idealogies) could somehow get a primary and put forth a single candidate and get their power bases to support and vote for that candidate (even though many of hem might hate that candidate (e.g. I'm a libertarian and I hate Nader)) then perhaps that candidate would have a chance of getting elected. Then, there would at least be some real power which could be used for election reform.
I'm just dreamin', aren't I?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my father yesterday. He asked me who I was voting for and I said, "Nader!"
He looked at me and said, "You can't do that, you have to pick either Gore or Bush." And then I realized he heard me said 'Neither' not 'Nader'.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Zaphod Beeblebrox !!!!!!
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
When Ralph Nader spoke at my university a couple of weeks ago, he brought Michael Moore with him, and Moore warmed up the audience before Nader stepped onstage. The thing I remember most was when he told us to ask people these two questions:
"When you elect a representative or a senator or a president and you send him to Washington, do you expect him to vote what he believes?"
Most people will say something along the lines of "Of course!
"So why don't you?"
And that is why I will not vote for Gore or Bush, and have to figure out who I really support. I don't agree with a lot of what Nader says, but damn, I can actually believe in the guy instead of wondering what he's really thinking behind that mask.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
One major concern I've seen among potential protest voters is that they'd like to support an Nth party candidate instead of "the usual guy", but don't want to risk "the other guy" becoming president because of their lack of support. The main example I've heard is "I like Nader, but a vote for him is a vote for Bush, and I'd feel awful if that happened".
My friend Justin Boyan sent me the answer. http://hotlinescoop.com/ . If your state favors either Bush or Gore by at least 10 percentage points, then feel free to vote however you want. Statitically, your one vote is not going to change the outcome.
The only places that can affect the final tally now are the "swing states", with a 5% margin or less. Your chances of moving the electoral count are well above epsilon, although still less likely than winning Ben Stein's money.
Some states will decide what happens the next four years. Other states can decide what happens after that. Vote! (but not for Bush).
Bush has trouble with the kinds of questions you'd see on SAT tests. He'd probably fail the 4th grade TASC test he requires all Texas students to pass. However, other presidents may have done worse, such as Reagan. But there are other kinds of intelligence such a people skills. Reagan was good at speeches. Clinton and Johnston were good at politicking legislation. Brainy SAT-types like PhD Wilson or engineer Carter did not do as great overall. You have to judge the whole package.
> that there aren't 1 million starving homeless people
Are you kidding ?
Estimations are:
* 500,000-600,000 homeless people found in shelters, eating at soup kitchens, or congregating on the street during one week in 1988 (Burt and Cohen, 1989).
* up to 2 million people who experience homelessness during one year (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 1999).
* The Clinton Administration's Priority Home! The Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessness [...] estimate that between 4.95 million to 9.32 million people (with a mid-point of 7 million) experienced homelessness in the latter half of the 1980s.
> but compared to 99% of other nations we seem to be doing alright.
*seem* is the keyword here. By standards of the *developed* world, US are doing real bad.
In a previous post:
> non-most-powerful, non-strongest economy, non-strongest military nation where they don't charge taxes
Homeless are probably very happy to live in the 'most-powerful, strongest economy strongest military nation'
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
-----
"Did it ever occur to you that the ideas of the third parties are simply rejected by the mass majority of people? I love it; if no one like your candidate, then it must be the system's fault."
Of course it occured to me, but it became immediately obvious that it is indeed the system at fault here.
might as well have said Neither ;)
- Bill
If you don't live in the US why do you have the US topic enabled?
Simple. The US is a pretty big dog, and has a track record of using underhanded pressure to get their way globally. If we do something totally whacked, (or rather, our leaders do) you better bet they're going to lean on everyone else to follow suit.
.sig: Now legally binding!
how ironic.
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39295-3
First of all I'd just like to thank you for the intelligent reply.
Yer welcome - I've done my good deed for the day, back to Mozilla shilling now:)
In my opinion (and I'm sure many disagree), Browne is the best person for the job, and Bush is the lesser of the two evils (strangely enough, I've seen many say the same for Nader/Gore).
Probably because Nader, Browne and Buchanan all have something called an "opinion", which I think candidates for the Big Two aren't allowed to have anymore. Pretty sad, really; I tend to respect a candidate more if s/he takes a position and maybe even proposes actual solutions, even if I think the opinions and solutions are just plain bad (*coughBUCHANANcough*).
But, can you explain why it isn't throwing my vote away? Or why we shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils?
A vote is as real as a slap in the face. There's no such voting category as "protest voting" or "voting against". When you put that mark down (or pull that lever, whatever), it's taken to mean you choose that candidate to do the best job possible. If you vote for someone because they're the lesser of two evils, not because you think they're the right person for the job, you're lying to yourself and your country.
Even if Nader/Browne/Buchanan get 5 votes total, those 5 votes still show support. Vote Browne if you think he's the right man for the job - even if it's a losing cause now, losing causes need support before they become winning ones, and voting is the best show of support you can make - because in the end, it's the votes that decide who is president. Not how much money was spent, or who had the flashier commercials. It's that vote tally at the end. I bet if all the people who voted for one of the Big Two out of resignation voted their conscience instead, I wouldn't have to make these kind of posts.
Voting for a dork just because they're a Republicrat with a chance of winning now just gives them more support and weakens the cause of third parties in the future - like I said, there is no such voting category as "protest voting" or "voting against" on the ballot, just "voting for".
If my favored candidate loses (i.e, Gore wins), I'm doomed to further expansion of the government, more programs, more taxes, etc.
Yeah, but are you going to vote for someone who you still disagree with just because they're not the other guy? Put it this way - it looks like things aren't going to go your way immediately this election (never does - change takes time and work), so you might as well vote for who you feel is right and prove to others trapped in the two-party lie that there are alternatives to vote for.
This seems to be an issue of principal versus practical effects.
Yeah, and practically, things still aren't going to go the way you want for a while yet. Best to at least start the work toward the future you want, rather than truly waste your vote by picking someone you don't support and take support away from those you think deserve it.
I'm still finding it difficult to see positive practical effects of voting 3rd party.
Adding support to a 3rd party gives them backing for the next election it can build on. There are legitimate financial benefits related to party support that someone else (I think in this thread) mentioned. Practical effects != immediate satisfaction. I know we all want change now, but short of an armed revolution and coup d'etat it just doesn't happen that way, and the violent solution usually wrecks things for a long time afterward in ways the revolutionaries never intended. Hey, that's life, do what you can.
However, I'm only 19.. and though I thought I was final in my decision to vote for Bush, your post has forced me to re-consider
I'm 20. I've voted once before in a local byelection, but this is the first time I'll be able to vote in a federal election (oh, I should mention - there's a very good chance Canada will have an election called in the next week - might even have been called as I type this - which means we'll vote very soon after you do - this will be rather interesting).
Glad to hear something I said has had (what I think is) a positive result. Hope you come to a conclusion you're comfortable with, whatever the consequences.
-------------
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
If the government wanted to control people all they have to do is get a well publicized attempt at striking down a group of "dissidents" and it works like a charm. Maybe get a bunch of napalm and douse a small city or the like and most people will fall into line.
About the gun issue. Suppose a I close all the gun shops and have to go elsewhere to get guns. Now suppose I make sure that I close my borders to all trade and make sure that said trade is strictly monitored if I indeed want something to get into the country. Now unless you are very cleaver and can manage to sneak guns from China into a black maket and then find a person who can sell them to you (usually at a high markup) then you won't be able to get a gun.
Respond to s
estimate a 22-25% tax bracket
15.3% "social security"
7% sales tax
?? % gasoline tax
?? % property taxes
etc
And how much is any of this going to change depending on whether Al or George get elected? And do you think that "Read my lips: no new taxes" Bush is going to actually get anything done, after his tax-cut plan is watered down and pork-barreled out?
Or am I the only non-college student on here?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
History also tells us that many religions existed before Christianity, ancient civilizations had religion, native North Americans, Australian First-Peoples all had religion. What makes you so positive your Bible provides the roadmap to the one true religion? Or another religion is 'the one true religion'. Have you ever played a game of 'telephone' in grade school? Notice how the true meaning of something is vastly altered. Consider that what was surely begun as an oral-history (religions in general) has morphed into 'a bible, a jesus, a virgin mary, a lake of fire' ect. Are you honestly trying to say that your 'bible' is a document of fact?
Yes. For those of you lucky enough to feel the Truth, then there can be no doubt about the validity of Christianity. It's only those that have no guiding morals that seem to feel that there is a lack of proof - just look out the window for all the proof you could ever need!
Christian religion is not a scientific 'theory' because 'theories' require objective and nonpartisan analysis. Not piety. Theories require proof. Not belief. Theories require repeatable, quantifiable Evidence. Not promises of truth from a questionable source of history (itself). In that light Christianity is not 'simple'. Thus Occam's Razor actually will disprove (most of*) Christianity quite handily.
Hmm, and all other "scientific" (in your views) theories such as selection of fundamental constants through wormholes (see Smolin), chaotic inflation (see Linde), and, oh, superstrings as well. And these explainations are a lot more complex than God - have you ever seen the equations for a relativistic superstring in the light cone gauge, and that's one of the simplest ones!
So, no, Occam's razor comes down in favour of a Creator.
I agree - but mostly Religion is used as a hammer to justify irrational and unproven pretense. "Abortion violates the word of the Lord!" - "Premarital Sex is wrong!" - "Adultery is wrong!" - "Prostitution is wrong!" - "Dancing/Wine/InsertSinHere is wrong!". You see that these opinions/beliefs are just that, but religion confuses the reality that they are more - somehow unquestionable truths of 'god' and that any diverging opinion is unthinkable. Im saying religion does not grant truth. It is your opinion (and you know what i think about that).
It is my opinion, but it is an opinion backed up with Divine Truth, and like it or not (not I'm guessing), some things are just fundamentally wrong. Why is this so hard to understand? People without a firm set of moral guidelines are in danger of sliding into moral relativism, a state in which murder, rape and abuse are justified because everyone's morale code, or lack of it, is equally justified.
Thank God we haven't sunk that low yet.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Man, spell it right. "Jessie" is short for "Jessica". "Jesse" is how a man spells his name.
P.S. "Teddy Roosevelt"
----
Wrong. Go back and do your research. Harry Browne supports letting your state and local officials make all of those decisions independently from the federal government. In other words, you, not past supreme court justices or the president or congress, will be free to choose what you want to be legal and illegal in your state.
You'll still be used by Big Business everywhere as a profit margin
I'm not really sure what this to do with who is in office. If you feel one or more corporations is screwing you over, stop doing business with them.
What is property? ..... Property is theft.
In many states, there are socialist and/or communist candidates for some offices. Do your research and vote for them. Failing that, Ralph Nader makes a pretty good communist in a pinch.
Why not? This isn't a popularity contest, and you don't win a stuffed animal if you "choose" the winner. This election is not going to be decided by 1 or 1000 votes. Whether you or I vote for Browne or Bush has absolutely no effect on who will win. When you vote for Bush, you are explicitly saying, "yes, I do want more socialism, just not quite as much as Gore wants". When you vote for Browne you are rejecting the mainstream big-government parties, and if enough people do that they will eventually take notice.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Which is exactly what I was asking...but never mind. I guess it's too much to ask. I guess the fact that I have to stare at a crappy 14" monitor is what causes me to go outside:-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
You are NOT "throwing away your vote" - voting is NOT about winning, it is about being *heard*
Vote for who you want to win (even if they won't in reality). If you don't like any, vote for "None of the above" as described below
You vote to be *heard* - NOT to win!
So voting for a minority party with no chance of winning is NOT a lost vote.
DO NOT VOTE *AGAINST* CANDIDATES BY CHOOSING THE OTHER - THAT's WHY YOU ARE IN THE CURRENT MESS!!!
And you US boys don't have a 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' option (unlike, say, the UK, which although does not explicitly have one, it does count destroyed papers - so in the UK:
In the US:
-
NO VOTE == Apathy
- Vote for local candidate and no vote for president == "None of the above", since these are apprently counted.
Barring the latter option, your only other choice is to not vote and hope that politicians start asking why 75% of people didn't vote this election, and get that "None of the above" box added to the ballot paper.Roll on non-elected democracies - a random sample of people as politicans is better than this elected crowd, since you fuckers DON'T KNOW HOW TO VOTE and as such skew the results!!!!
Gary
"Making linux GPL was the best thing I ever did" - Torvalds. I'd hate to see the worst thing...
Do not give bad candidates your respect.
If you don't like any, do what the other poster says and vote for a local candidate but not a president - they will hopefully be registered as "None of the above" votes.
In the UK a "None of the above"is a destroyed ballot paper, but these aren't counted in the US.
[ And lets not even get onto the shitty oz system ... ]
Gary
Who here really cares about who wins this election anymore. It's come down to the point where people are voting for one just to keep the other candidate out! Sure as hell says a lot about our wonderful "democracy" when our candidates are Dumb and Dumber, in any particular order. Oh yeah, and a few other candidates who'll get a couple of dozen sympathy votes each.
Face it folks, our once proud nation has lost its way. Rather than serving the people, our government has tried it's damdest to become our ruler instead, starting with the imposition of the 16th Amendment, making it "legal" for them to steal from us with impunity. This century has seen the Government steal more and more power from the people, all in the name of liberalist "protecting the children" legislation that violates our God given Constitutional rights.
As a citizen of America who was once proud of his nation before he saw what it was really like, I urge all right-thinking Americans to boycott the election and prepare to fight to regain control of the Government. If we don't fight back now, an already bad situation will end in tyranny and oppression the like of which we haven't seen since we overthrew the English.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
The fact that you are 19 is the greatest reason to vote 3rd party. You have probably 60 or 70 years of your life yet to live. If you ever want to see candidates that you can whole-heartedly vote for, you have to start empowering them now. Otherwise you will end up voting the lesser of two evils for life. What a scary thought.
Whether you side more with Democrats or Republicans you are screwed either way in this election. Both are moving so far into the middle that they are virtually clones except for a few cosmetic differences in opinion. I considered myself a "democrat" until Bradley lost the primaries. But regardless of our differences, you and I are BOTH being screwed.
So I urge you, vote Browne if you believe in the Libertarian ideas. If only to give the Republican party a kick in the ass and a wake up call. Many progressives will be doing the same with Nader. Democrats have also abandoned progressives.
This is the first election I can vote in, and I thought Bradley was a decent candidate until I found out about Nader. It is an utter crying shame and disappointment when I see kids my age, college kids, high school kids, fall into the two-party mentality trap, and choose a candidate like they are choosing a soda brand. It bewilders me when polls show Gore has a humongous amount of young people supporting him. I want to turn to those kids and say "wake up!". If you want to get active in politics, get active with a burgeoning party that respects you and that you can make a difference in. Don't get sucked in by the two parties that don't really give a damn about you and are only using you and throwing you away.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The reality is that the LP is neither "conservative" nor "liberal" in the sense used by the two large parties to qualify their (or their opponent's) positions. The LP is libertarian in the classical sense, and the name is apt. Not that Freedom Party, Liberty Party, or Down With The Income Tax and Drug War Party would be bad names either. I actually think we should rejuvenate the old Know-Nothing Party; the name was just too cool to ignore. Trouble is, the Republicrats have a lock on knowing nothing, so it might be tough to justify.
You're missing the boat. Taxation without representation was the main thrust. No one was complaining about the idea of taxes in general, they were complaining about not having any sort of say in how that tax money was spent. Thanks for playing.
In many if not all states, there are like-minded candidates for congressional seats as well. Even a dozen libertarians in Congress, and a libertarian president, could easily make something good happen. At minimum it would virtually guarantee no further reductions in freedom.
This saying harkens back to my family's Native American roots, before the Europeans came in & decided everything had to be owned and possessed by someone.
What can I say? I wasn't around then. The problem with not having property rights is exactly that - someone can come in and take by force what you share. I would gladly grant you (or rather, the proper original occupants) the return of the entire state of Nevada, but unfortunately I, a lifelong citizen of this great state, don't own it either. The feds do. Nice, huh? It seems to me like your interests might be served by a much smaller, less intrusive government (read about Browne's idea of getting rid of public lands - that's a tremendous amount of land that could be bought cheaply and used in whatever fashion you like). It won't make up for 400 years of death, destruction, and theft, but it might give you a chance to do better yourself. Property rights aren't going away, at least not for a very long time. But as the saying about corruption goes, we either need less of it, or more chance to participate in it. I think that could be applied to property as well.
Try, as a child, sitting in history class in school and seeing everyone taught lies about your people.
Sure. It doesn't even matter whose people we're talking about. Most of what's taught in public schools today isn't chosen for its truth or its value, but instead to serve political agendas.
Freedom of speech is just one of many lies taught in history/civics classes around the nation.
Blame the Supreme Court for most of this. The problems in schools are of a different nature, that being the idea that children are mindless drones to be protected from everything, taught nothing, and ignored at all costs.
YES IT DOES.
If only Republicans and Democrats are electors for the EC, you are NEVER going to get a 3rd party candidate to win! The deck is so heavily stacked against it. It is utterly ridiculous.
They are under zero obligation to vote for the popular candidate. As is common in the House and Senate, they will fall in line with the party, and vote thusly.
I don't see how you aren't making the connection here. I'm not trying to be insulting, I apologize if I'm coming off as such, I'm just trying to be realistic.
It's not gonna happen unless major changes in the election process happen.
BilldaCat
a private company needs to spend money to make money
It sounds like the perfect enterprise for a consortium of start-up dot-coms! Who needs profit?
Well, clearly we have different views of the system. Let me tell you about mine.
Running the country is not an easy job. Just like any other job, there are things you need to know, and most people don't know them. When I choose to elect someone, I want somebody who is informed, smart, and knows about how things work. I want somebody who will spend time studying the laws because I don't have enough time. The majority is rarely right, and when it is it's usually by accident. I want somebody who will realize most drug laws are bad and vote that way, regardless of what his constituents believe. (Or maybe he'll figure out that they're good and have better evidence than I do. Not likely, but it could happen, and I'll respect that.)
For this reason, unless a candidate is a Communist or a Nazi, I will vote for the honest smart man over the man who agrees with me every time. I'm even starting to wonder about my exclusion of Communists and Nazis. I am sick and tired of lying being considered a normal part of the political trade, and I am sick and tired of wondering what those things the President just said really mean.
If a direct democracy is ever implemented, it will be the end for this country, or whichever country it is that does it. Remember, even if you are of perfectly average intelligence (whatever that means), half the people in the country are dumber than you! Even if you could spend the time required to make effective decisions for the country, your education is almost certainly to be in the wrong direction. What do you know about how things really work? (Just in case you're a lawyer or something, well, quit whining and run for President already!) I'm scared enough at the idea of having my next-door neighbors help decide who the next President will be (although I fully support this idea), and the idea of having them involved directly in important decisions is frightening.
There are more reasons than the technical ones as to why we have a representative, instead of a direct, democracy.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
And if you don't like Gore or Bush, vote third party. Nader, Browne, Buchanan. They won't win, but:
1) If they get a certain percentage of the vote this election, they get more official money and recognition in the next election and more power between times
2) It's a form of protest. If you are sick of the system as is, protest vote for a third party.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Finally, a reasonable argument for voting 3rd party I can relate to!
Thank you very much. I am now seriously considering voting Browne over Bush (not being sarcastic).
One mistake I think a lot of people make is looking solely at the candidate, rather than the beliefs of the party. Obviously the candidate matters, but I think the party actually matters more. Let me explain.
Despite what the popular press would have you believe, Presidents simply don't have that much power. They have most of the foreign policy power, but most of the domestic policy power lies in Congress. Presidents can suggest legislation, but all bills are ultimately written by congress. The President only gets the ability to do a thumbs up or thumbs down on the whole package (unless he eventually gets the line-item veto). That's why you see weird things get attached to bills, because a President is reluctant to down an entire bill over one pork-barrel project.
Bottom line, even if you don't like a particular candidate, vote for the party anyway. For example, I don't think Bush is the best possible candidate in the U.S. However, despite my reservations about the religious wing of the Republican party, I would much rather have conservative, limited economic government policies than the Democrat's "socialism light". Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise.
And by the way, don't let anyone tell you that there is "no difference to the parties". That is just idiocy. Anyone who says that is simply ignorant and is just parroting things they have "heard" with no rational thought.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Of course, there are more than two candidates in this election. The Libertarian party would like to completely privatize space exploration, as seen at the Libertarian Party Platform: Space Exploration. With the taxes you save from the rest of the LP platform, you can donate as much as you like to any of these private space corporations. A privately funded space exploration corporation (could be a non-profit..) would likely be much more efficient...
So I take it you will hold the writings of Issac Newton, and Albert Einstein higher than the words of the Bible. If you're so sure that science proves religion to be outdated then why were two of the greatest scientists in history also devout believers in God?
Instead of spouting your completely unconfirmed by science opinion that God does not exist, how about giving some proof? In fact, you cannot prove one way or another that there is no God. Neither can I. But I have personal experience of Him and while I can't prove that scientifically, for me that's all I need. I don't try to convert anyone else, and likewise, I don't appreciate people telling me my beliefs are nothing but fantasy.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
What really ticks me off is someone like you who is obviously only voting against gore and doesn't get what bush stands for. Name one specific proposal that bush has made to reduce government. Go ahead, I'm waiting. Right, there are none. As Boortz says bush is nothing more than gore lite, just as willing to confiscate my money to buy votes as gore is.
My vote will go to Browne, as he is the only candidate who has specific proposals to reduce government to it's constitutional limits (there is also Phillips, but he as falwell like problems), and is most closely aligned with my political philosophy.
What have I proven? That I will no longer tolerate being lied to by these two figureheads. That no longer will I tolerate the their intrusions into my personal life. That no longer will I continue to be a willing victim to their bi-monthly confiscation of my earnings.
Unless you vote your conscience; vote for the candidate who really believes the way that you do, you are the vote waster, my friend, not I.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the Slashdot forum is explained to Dubyuh...
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
So even if you're not in the active duty military, reserves, or national guard, there's a good chance that you're a member of the militia. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the framers intended that the militia be armed and capable of using those arms effectively -- hence, "well regulated."
And for those with short memories, the best kept police states of the twentieth century have been those where only the government had the right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps the folks who don't like the U.S. Constitution, INCLUDING the Second Amendment, would prefer to have lived in the utopias of Stalin's U.S.S.R or Hitler's Nazi Germany?
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-- Scotty.
you mean "with all the taxes you save from the rest of the LP platform, you can buy a package of services on the open market about half as good as what was available when everyone was pooled together. We've heard of economies of scale, but want no part in them".
The implicit assumption behind your argument is that there is no loss in the transfer of your money (through tax collection) to the government, and then no loss during the transfer from the governmnet back to you. That cannot be true and in fact is the reason why even with "economies of scale" the government cannot compete with you purchasing something directly for yourself.
Furthermore, this system incorporates loss in the fact that these "economies of scale" provide identical "packages of service" to those who receive them. Yet some individuals have different needs that others, so some loss is guaranteed.
From my point of view, it is difficult to imagine the government ever doing anything as efficient as an individual. There is a large amount of beuracracy (sp?) involved in government that makes almost everything inefficient and unfair.
Why not leave private those things that we individuals can do best?
BTW, my political bias is towards libertarian positions, if you had not figured it out, but I don't understand how anyone anywhere can believe the government is more efficient and effective than an individual.
Unfortunately, she doesn't meet the constitutional requirements to be President at this point in time...
...I suppose that the elections in the US do affect the world... so I might accept that as an 'international' story... seeing as though /.'s audience is more than just americans...
...but is it really news for nerds? I get enough crap about the US elections on TV these days... and to tell you the truth, I couldn't care less...
I can't affect your election - I just would like to know the outcome...
BlackNova Traders
"Militia" *is not* and *has not ever been* a synonym for "military". Buy a dictionary, and you might find your obviously limited understanding of your country's constitution (which you people seem so to readily ignore in one breath, and then speak long-windedly on the absolute importance of in the next) changing somewhat.
I'm not an American, but we always amuse ourselves with references to Al Gore having "invented the internet". Even G. W. Bush uses this against him in debates. I've never heard the real story, though; did Gore really claim to have invented the internet, and what was the context of his saying that?
I also find the following quote mildly amusing: 'In the spirit of the Open Source movement, we have established the Gore 2000 Volunteer Source Code Project. www.algore2000.com is an "open site".'
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Maybe the ideas are just bad ideas? Nah, that couldn't be it.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
As of this moment, Slashdot has officially decided to declare all "United States" postings as Karma Mine Fields.
Please be aware when posting you run the risk of losing karma, no matter how well thought-out your arguments, because of political affiliation.
Of course, this is different than the typical loss of Karma due to an unpopular viewpoint, because here there is no consensual popular view.
It's a free-for-all, people!
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
...and the point about news for nerds still stands IMHO.
BlackNova Traders
www.lp.org
please. before wasting your vote on crooks, do some research and vote for the third party ideology of your choice. it'll make a difference someday.
some (many) of you are communists and, barring the lack of a communist candidate, will vote for nader.
others are pro-freedom and will vote for the libertarian candidate.
at the end of the day, those on slashdot are the ones that i would think are least likely to vote for the generic republican or democrat candidates. there are many other candidates that represent YOUR beliefs.
but instead the solution is (somehow) getting a preferential voting system.
Did it ever occur to you that the ideas of the third parties are simply rejected by the mass majority of people? I love it; if no one like your candidate, then it must be the system's fault.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
So, I guess you're the one that should read up on your history.
it's in my head
I think this idea of "voting your conscience" is a bit naive. I'm not going to vote for some guy just because I like what he stands for. That's certainly part of it, but I will also vote for the man I think is most qualified to lead the free world - to do one of the most important jobs in the world. I don't believe Nader, Browne, and for that matter, G.W. Bush, are qualified to do this job.
----
"Oh, bother," said Pooh, as he hid Piglet's mangled corpse.
If you think that with the way this country is run, that a Green Party candidate is EVER going to get a majority of the vote in not just 1 state, but enough to actually win an election, you are seriously mistaken.
c ollege.htm
The Electoral College is seriously flawed and does not give third party candidates a fair chance at winning. But life isn't fair, I suppose.
"Opponents of the Electoral College system also point to the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors. A "faithless Elector" is one who is pledged to vote for his party's candidate for president but nevertheless votes of another candidate. There have been 7 such Electors in this century and as recently as 1988 when a Democrat Elector in the State of West Virginia cast his votes for Lloyd Bensen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice president instead of the other way around. Faithless Electors have never changed the outcome of an election, though, simply because most often their purpose is to make a statement rather than make a difference. That is to say, when the electoral vote outcome is so obviously going to be for one candidate or the other, an occasional Elector casts a vote for some personal favorite knowing full well that it will not make a difference in the result. Still, if the prospect of a faithless Elector is so fearsome as to warrant a Constitutional amendment, then it is possible to solve the problem without abolishing the Electoral College merely by eliminating the individual Electors in favor of a purely mathematical process (since the individual Electors are no longer essential to its operation).
Opponents of the Electoral College are further concerned about its possible role in depressing voter turnout. Their argument is that, since each State is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter turnout, there is no incentive in the States to encourage voter participation. Indeed, there may even be an incentive to discourage participation (and they often cite the South here) so as to enable a minority of citizens to decide the electoral vote for the whole State. While this argument has a certain surface plausibility, it fails to account for the fact that presidential elections do not occur in a vacuum. States also conduct other elections (for U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Governors, State legislators, and a host of local officials) in which these same incentives and disincentives are likely to operate, if at all, with an even greater force. It is hard to imagine what counter-incentive would be created by eliminating the Electoral College. "
Source: http://jceb.co.jackson.mo.us/fun_stuff/electoral_
I recommend you go to Google and search on 'third party candidates electoral college'. You'll find a lot of interesting reading.
BilldaCat
I do live in Mineesota, and what I have found to be the best aspect of Jesse's tenure is this: He has an open mind. He doesn't claim to know everything, and he doesn't have a party line to follow. He can say that maybe we should look into legalizing prostitution or drugs without fearing a diminished role in his party. The one thing that just sickens me about the major party candidates is that they have a predigested response for every issue (although sometimes Bush looks like a deer in the headlights before he starts spitting out whatever springs to mind in a disjointed manner, not unlike a child who didn't do his homework and just got called on).
Jesse is willing to say, "I don't know about that. I'll have to do some more research." And he's willing to come to a conclusion that is not necessarily politically expedient.
...I forgot my high-school civics. For what underlying reason (beyond "That's what the Constitution says") do we still need to use the Electoral College instead of direct popular election of a President? Heck, we went to electing Senators that way a while back and it seems to work OK.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
Disclaimer: I do not live in Minnesota.
I'd rather have Jesse than some of the mealy-mouthed poll-driven crapheads that I've seen in my state. From what I can see, with Jesse, what you see is what you get. Which has got to be infinitely preferable to the predigested pap you get with the two "main parties".
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You and Ms. Kidd are totally and completely wrong. Here's a quote from an article at Policy.com:
Critics also argue that because the Constitution allows electors to use their discretion, there is a possibility of a "faithless" elector not casting his vote for the people's choice but for his own preference. However, this has only happened seven times and never had a real effect on the outcome of an election. Electors now are usually pledged to support a party's candidate.
This clearly shows that if a third party candidate ever received a plurality of the votes in particular state, the electors are bound to support the candidate. There is simply no evidence of a third party candidate receiving a plurality of the votes, but not receiving the electors from a state. Until you can show me this, then there is no evidence that the electoral college is doing anything to prevent third party candidates from winning the presidency.
Also, its a shame that your only source is Ms Kidd. She clearly doesn't understand the electoral college process since she can't understand why H. Ross Perot didn't receive any electoral college votes:
How come Mr. Perot received 0 electoral votes despite the fact that he allegedly received almost 20 million votes? Mr. Bush took 168 electoral votes with allegedly twice as many popular votes but Perot gets 0 for about half the number of votes Bush, Sr. allegedly received. The why is simple: There are no third party electoral college delegates that I can find in the Electoral College.
She tries to blame the fact that Perot received 0 electoral votes because there are no "third-party" electoral college delegates in the "Electoral College". If she understood the way the Electoral College works, she would know that the reason why he received no electoral college votes was because he didn't receive a plurality in any state, not because of a conspiracy.
Sig goes here
He convinced me!
science is a religion
And get rid of the silly treaty about commercialization of moon, etc.
NASA is like any other gov entity: political decisions, not economic/practical decisions. The shuttle has been a huge failure in the latter terms -- no where close to plan. E.g. turnaround times of 30 days, not 2 days, so expensive we can't build any more,
Meanwhile, they have closed down each and every private competitor --> the Chinese and Russians are launcing our satallites.
NASA has no economic reasons for existance, and so we haven't been back to the moon in 30 years, we don't have a moon colony as a base for further space exploration,
Defund NASA if you want space exploration.
Lew Glendenning
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
I don't feel any incentive to vote this election. Furthermore, I don't want to take part of the blame for putting either of the two frontrunning bozos into office.
You can have one of these, but not both. It's o.k. no one will blame you. The only thing you do by not voting is make everyone else's vote more powerful. From what you said (everyone else goes from evil to dangerously insane), you are a complete fool if you don't vote. And you can still be blamed.
--
+&x
why can't we have an all-volunteer welfare system? an all volunteer social security system?
Oh boy, here we go..
I keep seeing this "it's not throwing your vote away" arguments, often times very harshly.. it seems the 3rd party people hate that line religiously.
Also, the "vote for who you want to win".. a nice theory, but again you don't explain why this is the best solution.
I'm still not convinced on voting 3rd party, even after all the arguments I've heard here. Yes, there are matter of principal effects that it can have, and maybe, just maybe, Republicrats inspect why people vote 3rd party. However, I still don't see anything concrete to go on. The Republicans, watching Nader's vote go up in the polls, are LAUGHING, loving it, because they know where those votes are coming from. If Browne had as much support as Nader, the Democrats would be doing the same thing.
I don't feel any incentive to vote this election. Furthermore, I don't want to take part of the blame for putting either of the two frontrunning bozos into office. :p
So you figure that by doing absolutely NOTHING you're keeping yourself blame free? So sorry, it doesn't work that way. By not voting, you are implicitely stating that you're quite happy with the current system. The big guys WANT YOUR VOTE. But if they can have your TOTAL INDIFFERENCE, well, hey! That's just as good! That way the only people voting will be the ones who are buying into the current flawed two-party system and it will guarantee that not only will they win THIS election, but they'll win the NEXT one too. (Keep in mind that there is virtually no difference between Democratic & Republican government.)
Similarly, I heard a lot of stuff about "throwing your vote away on Perot" 8 years ago. If more people "throw their votes away" this time, perhaps we'll have something resembling a true democracy by the time the next 8 years have rolled around.
(Government and your participation in it requires long-term preperation and commitment, not one-time ballot stamping.)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
What, you mean you got an average citizen, somebody who was in military service, who had a real day job, and actually snuck into office? Unheard of!
You know, representation used to be about every day citizens standing up and performing civil service. Now it is about career politicians blowing millions of dollars to brainwash you into thinking they are the only choice and that you shouldn't vote for another brand.
Sure, it's easy to make fun of him, but where has Ventura failed as a civil servant? Huh? Everytime I hear him he sounds rather competent and seems like he's doing a pretty damn good job. So stop bitching. He's certainly better than the run of the mill egomaniacal career politician.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Boy do I wish I had moderator points for this troll.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Pray what magic is it that ensures that privately funded space exploration would be more efficient?
Oh yeh, and do email me if your party ever gets a coherent line on intellectual property and privacy regulation.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Depends on what kind of control you have. I propose this senario.
1. Get together a substantial loyal group of the military which is composed of seasoned, well trained people who are very loyal to you. Brainwashing is optional in this case.
2. Get some nice collection of high tech nasites. Including small range nuclear weapons and stuff like botulism, anthrax, and sarin.
3. Destroy the people quickly and quietly who don't agree with you (nukes com in handy for this.
4. Use the remainder of the people who are now mostly loyal to subdue the population.
Respond to s
I think this statement says a lot more about you than the politicians you hate so much.
While I agree with Platinum Dragon's basic premise, I do have to say that the nature of the presidential election itself has contributed significantly to the dominance of the Two Party Sustem. Individual candidates not only need the widespread legitimacy to overcome the "throwing your vote away" stigma, but they need to do it in each and every state.
After all, we're technically not voting for a single candidate. We're technically voting for the group of electors who will vote in the actual presidential election. If I cast a vote "for Gore," I'm actually casting my vote for the "electors which have been chosen for my state by the Democratic party."
So it's all or nothing. ...in each state. This is why presidents can technically be elected even if they don't have a popular majority. They just need to win in the high-electoral-vote states, and they can come away with a victory no matter what the voters in Rhode Island think of them.
...and third party candidates thus need as much legitimacy spread across the nation as one of the Two Biggies to stand a chance.
Ludicrous, if you ask me.
Of course, my cynicism won't stop me from voting for Nader. I'm too bloody-minded. :)
Remember, the 3rd party problem is a vicious circle:
3rd party candidates get little coverage/money/debates because they have small percentage of the vote
3rd party candidates get small percentage of the vote because of no coverage/money/impression that they can't win
Go back to first step
So, if a 3rd party candidate fits, VOTE FOR HIM! Don't believe the Bush/Gore thing that "a 3rd party vote is a vote for my opponent"!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I hope you never make more that 10x the minimum wage -- because Nader will tax 100% of it.
I hope you don't work for one of the top 500 corporations -- because Nader will nationalize them.
I hope you think that the government should regulate every aspect of your personal life -- because Nader can make it happen
People, Nader is a socialist, 100% US(SR)DA, prime. How could any American possibly support this man? Did we learn nothing from recent history?
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
Seems to me that the confused Reform party should just split and throw in with either the Libertarian or Green party. The "Buchanan"-ish wing seems more Libertarian to me...and the "Hagelan"-sh I'm-a-brilliant-physicist-let's-save-the-environme nt wing seems closer to the Greens. The Constitution party could probably throw in with the Libertarians too.
;)
Oh well, that's my biased opinion. I'm sure the Reform party wants the Libertarians and Greens to join *them*
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I can't remember which episode this was, but I think Futurama summed up the election process pretty well...
Picture two identical twins, in identical suits, at identical debate podiums:
Jack Johnson: "I think your 3 cent titanium tax goes too far."
John Jackson: "Well, I think your 3 cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."
-- 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
The majority is rarely right, and when it is it's usually by accident.
I see. The people are to be trusted with choosing representatives, but are utterly incompentent to decide even the smallest issue. I'm sorry, but I give the public more credit than that. People already decide issues indirectly (through choosing representatives who espouse their views), and the sky won't fall if we eliminate the middleman.
If a direct democracy is ever implemented, it will be the end for this country, or whichever country it is that does it.
Bzzt! Sorry, but thanks for playing. Switzerland has effectively had a direct democracy for some time now, and shows no sign of disappearing.
There are more reasons than the technical ones as to why we have a representative, instead of a direct, democracy.
Then why not a scheme where the voter can choose either one? Let the 'representative' become a 'proxy' instead. If the voter is not interested in a particular subject, his representative votes for him. If the voter is interested enough to vote directly on an issue, his vote is counted and his representative's voting power is reduced by an equivalent amount.
With a system like this, everyone is satisfied. The 'dumb' voters you detest won't bother to vote on each issue (and won't want to), while those who want to exercise their rights directly can do so.
My wife has a fridge magnet dropped in by some Mormon missionaries while she was out. It says "The Lord could not be everywhere at once so he sent his visiting teachers".
I guess that knocks omnipresence on the head as well.
Rich
1876, Tildon-Hayes 1888, Cleveland-Harrison
Political representation (ie, as opposed to direct democracy) is what we have specifically to prevent the common man and his common ideas from infilitrating the political process.
This is not true. There are some very good reasons to have a republic over a democracy. One of the key one's is to protect the minority (or unrepresented) from the tyrany of the majority.
They could have achevied their goal of 'keeping commoners out' by having a democracy that only rich landowners could participate in without the layer of abstraction a republic requires. The reasons for the reforms were _because_ not in spite of government being a republic. What do you think would have happened if the 'wealthy landowners' were given a direct vote to decide if the poor underclass were permitted voting rights?
It was the representitives that the wealthy landowners elected that ulitimately made the decision that the poor were entitled to vote.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." This quote is by a British professor, Alexander Fraser Tyler, prior to the american revolution. I'm sure this any many other problems with direct democracy weighed on the founding father's minds when they wrote the constitution.
Unfortunately in this day and age a virtual direct democracy has sprung forth through the use of instant polls to track the opionions of the american people. The result is that canidates play to these polls offering the majority exactly what they want at the moment and therefore sacrificing the major reason to have a republic over a democracy.
We are rapidly approaching a dangerous point in the country, where the majority of voting citizens pay nothing into the system (income taxes) but reap the most benefits. As it is, 49% of the population pays 80% of the taxes. Both Bush's and Gore's plans would make that 100%, with 51% of the popluation with no tax burden. Hopefully you see the problem here. The majority can vote themselves whatever additional benefits or handouts their little heart's desire, without feeling any of the price for that benefit. The majority will quickly vote themselves benefits and vote the country out of a viable economy.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Is he the biggest moron, ever, to run for president of the United States?
Gore Vidal pretty much thinks so, as does just about every person I talk to. When he's not LITERALLY picking his nose in public (I WISH I had the link to the RealVideo real of him digging away), he's mumbling and bumbling his way through speeches designed for monosyllabic ease.
Isn't anyone afraid--not too mention EMBARESSED--that this wealthy idiot son is one step away from having the Button under his butterfingers?
His dad was a puker, and he's a picker: America--love it or leave it?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
It's interesting: Biopreperat is attempting to come out of "Cold War" mode, so what do we do? Review our BETA tapes of "War Games" and hollar rhetoric. NASA also get's some funding from the US Army. No big you say? The US Army is leaps and bounds ahead of the former USSR in term of biological warfare technology. Take off your rhetoric glasses and peer at the real world.
I see. The people are to be trusted with choosing representatives, but are utterly incompentent to decide even the smallest issue. I'm sorry, but I give the public more credit than that. People already decide issues indirectly (through choosing representatives who espouse their views), and the sky won't fall if we eliminate the middleman.
People are capable of deciding the smallest issue. They are not capable of deciding ten of them, day after day after day.
Bzzt! Sorry, but thanks for playing. Switzerland has effectively had a direct democracy for some time now, and shows no sign of disappearing.
I'm curious if you have some links to information about this. The pages I found while waiting for slashdot to let me reply to this all seemed to report a fairly standard three-branched representative democracy.
Then why not a scheme where the voter can choose either one? Let the 'representative' become a 'proxy' instead. If the voter is not interested in a particular subject, his representative votes for him. If the voter is interested enough to vote directly on an issue, his vote is counted and his representative's voting power is reduced by an equivalent amount.
With a system like this, everyone is satisfied. The 'dumb' voters you detest won't bother to vote on each issue (and won't want to), while those who want to exercise their rights directly can do so.
Actually, with a system like that, everyone is unhappy. Representatives would become even less responsive than they are now, since dissatisfied people are more likely to just vote directly than they are to try to unseat him, but he'll still hold enough power to effectively drown out the direct participants. The direct participants will be unhappy with this, and people who went for the representative will be unhappy because many of the direct types are making decisions with even less information than usual. I would rather go for a complete direct participation system than a compromise system like this.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
40-50% tax rate?!?! Where are you pulling those numbers from?? Bush's platform is pulling for an across the board tax cut, scaled by income (highest percentage goes to lowest income). And with a republican congress, he'll get it.
But what I'm really P.O.'ed about is the fscking partisanship in Congress. Where is FDR when you need him? The man who didn't care what party his own advisers came from. The man who appointed a socialist woman (scandalous in those days) to Secretary of the Interior simply because he liked her idea of a "social security" system! Now, when Billy Boy took office, he took longer than anyone else in history to make his appointments, because the criteria was that you had to be a FOB (Friend Of Bill)...I.E. bought the position with campaign funds. The only candidate even close to this, even close to being able to work through the partisanship, is Bush. I already voted for him (absentee). And I'd do so again. If anyone can get anything done in Washington, it's not going to be the Big Government Liberal Washington Politician, it's going to be the outsider to the washington scene.
I voted for Bush because I'm sick of Big Government beaurocracy telling me how I need to run my life. I'm sick of my hard earned money being wasted on studies on the effectiveness of watermelon on Dung Beetles. I'm sick of the waste, the scandal, the disgrace of our marines being killed and dragged through the streets of some African country without any action, the partisanship, and the stalemate in Washington. I think that Big Government == Big Brother. And I think it's time we did something about it.
I don't think you people read my initial post. MY STATE DOES NOT ALLOW WRITE-IN CANDIDATES. NO THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATES WERE ABLE TO GET ON THE BALLOT THIS ELECTION. The *only* two ways I am allowed to vote are for Gore or Bush. And I don't want to vote for either.
If you have any suggestions for me, I'm more than willing to hear them. I seem to have only three options; Gore, Bush, or frustrated silence.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
How does the electoral college system prevent anyone from winning? Can you name an election in which the candidate that received a plurality of the votes did not win the election?
While the electoral college system causes third party candidates to win zero electoral college votes, it doesn't cause them to lose the election. Nothing about the electoral college system limits the ability of a third party candidate to challenge the two party system. Its the candidate's inability to garner more then 10%-15% of the vote. I challenge you to give me one piece of evidence to justify your belief that things would be different if the presidential election was decided by a strict plurality. There are numerous barriers for third party candidates, but the electoral college system is not one of them.
Sig goes here
Well, technically you're not voting for Nader, Browne, Buchanan, Bush or Gore, either. According the the constitution, you're electing members of the electoral college who will represent your state, and vote for whoever won the majority of the popular vote in your state.
But... a presidential candidate doesn't need the majority of the popular vote to win (in fact, they are often elected on pluaralities).
It's nit-picking, I admit... but hey, it is how our government works.
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized. -AC
I really can't believe that you're claiming that <i>BUSH</i> of all people is for a smaller government. Do you really think Bush will cut taxes? All polititions who say they will cut taxes are just trying to get the popular vote. Once they are in office, they realize how tight the budget actually is (did we forget about the national debt or what?).
:/ Now THAT just ticks me off.
Secondly, what is it going to prove? Well Nader's whole platform is that voting for the "Lesser of Two Evils" is just downright wrong and a mockery of the democratic system. Vote for who you think will be the best candidate for the job. <i>THAT</i> is democracy in action. If you think Bush is best, vote Bush. If you think Gore is right, vote Gore. And if you think Nader is right, vote Nader.
I'd actually like to know some of the 3rd party candidates position on high-technology issues... such a space travel and the internet. On all the sites liked from the Slashdot article all I see are Bush vs Gore platforms. Anyone know of a web site where you can view these issues?
Not that anyone cares, but right now i'm torn between Gore and Nader
-<b>Dave</b>
Comment removed based on user account deletion
An unorganized militia composed of buck toothed red necks playing with guns that the government dosn't want them to have is just another standoff away from ending. They never win and never will beacuse the organized professional soldilerly class is much larger and better equipped with larger supply bases and better sources of new recruits. David Koresh, the Freemen, etc they all got their asses kicked and they are never going to get anywhere.
Respond to s
If people only vote for Gore because they hate Bush more or only vote for Bush because they can't stand Gore, we will never get any marquis candidates.
Nader is a good choice, I am also very intrigued with Harry Browne.
Hey, leave comments about my mother out of this!
That's a bit of a blanket statement isn't it? Do you also believe that everyone of the hundreds of million Christians out there are also "not very well adjusted"? Or maybe you believe that in...
History also tells us that many religions existed before Christianity, ancient civilizations had religion, native North Americans, Australian First-Peoples all had religion. What makes you so positive your Bible provides the roadmap to the one true religion? Or another religion is 'the one true religion'. Have you ever played a game of 'telephone' in grade school? Notice how the true meaning of something is vastly altered. Consider that what was surely begun as an oral-history (religions in general) has morphed into 'a bible, a jesus, a virgin mary, a lake of fire' ect. Are you honestly trying to say that your 'bible' is a document of fact?
Why invoke the existence of an eternal chain of universes evolving through a cosmic analogue of natural selection or the background space of "chaotic inflation"
Would you propose that an 'entity' of unknown origin (ever-presence is the explanation of 'when/where/how was God created') has built this great drama that is humanity, complete with villain and hero. His motivations are unknown - unless you reason the story of Angels fighting and the creation of hell (adam / eve et al). All this is more likely than a function of gravity/mass and the Big Bang. By your logic Occam's Razor would prove that the world was flat because of the 'unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known' clause. But Occam's Razor firstly states that: "simplest of two or more competing theories". Christian religion is not a scientific 'theory' because 'theories' require objective and nonpartisan analysis. Not piety. Theories require proof. Not belief. Theories require repeatable, quantifiable Evidence. Not promises of truth from a questionable source of history (itself). In that light Christianity is not 'simple'. Thus Occam's Razor actually will disprove (most of*) Christianity quite handily.
Sorry, but the Lord gave us free will to make our own decisions, good or bad! This is why there is evil in the world, and why I see it as my choice to spread the word of the Lord and try to be a good person. Note the word choice in that last sentance!
Please try and re-read your last statement, but consider for a second that you may be wrong. Really imagine how that sounds.
hold their beliefs, no matter how much you may disagree with them?
I agree - but mostly Religion is used as a hammer to justify irrational and unproven pretense. "Abortion violates the word of the Lord!" - "Premarital Sex is wrong!" - "Adultery is wrong!" - "Prostitution is wrong!" - "Dancing/Wine/InsertSinHere is wrong!". You see that these opinions/beliefs are just that, but religion confuses the reality that they are more - somehow unquestionable truths of 'god' and that any diverging opinion is unthinkable. Im saying religion does not grant truth. It is your opinion (and you know what i think about that).
Anyway, my views aren't changed by your attempts to make me "wake the fuck up" as you so eloquently put it. At the end of the day, when I'm in Heaven, you're the one who will be burning in the lake of fire.
I suggest you also reread my statement in the context of yours. I dont know what else to tell you.
*Note: exceptions being that there is a Jerusalem, wine does make you drunk, animals live in stables.. ect.
yeah, too bad we don't have slavery as an issue today huh?
Don't we?
The majority of my income is taken away from me and given to other people without my consent. If I try to resist this theft, I'll be arrested at gunpoint.
Isn't that akin to slavery?
I can be arrested for actions I take in the privacy of my own home that affect no one else.
I can be arrested for attempting to exercise rights explicitly protected by the Constitution without obtaining permission from the Government first.
Aren't those conditions akin to slavery?
I do not mean to imply that we're as bad off today in the US as the slaves were; but we're certainly a lot farther down that road than at any time in history.
Farther down it, in fact, than the founding fathers were when they declared war upon England and formed a new nation.
Fortunately, today we still have the hope of fighting it without bloodshed. Unless all the sheeple continue to vote for the candidate with the best hair instead of the candidate who agrees with them on the issues.
-
What state do you live in? There is a Libertarian candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Harry Browne is in 49 states and D.C., while it's Neil Smith in Arizona.
My source? Ballot Access News.
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized. -AC
Ok, you win troll. Either your that; a troll, or one of the sadest-diluted people Ive ever had a conversation with. Yes your right, God will save us - have faith, everything in his Divine Hands will Save Us from Burning Punishment in Hell. God Save Us. Thanks for the excitment, but Im growing tired of a debating someone who cant conceive of a life without his crutch. Oh and BTW: Good luck with Gabrielle!
People are capable of deciding the smallest issue. They are not capable of deciding ten of them, day after day after day.
...people who went for the representative will be unhappy because many of the direct types are making decisions with even less information than usual...
They certainly are so capable, but they (and you, and I) just don't want to take the time required to properly decide every little issue. I, however, might like the right to decide the big issues for myself.
>Switzerland has effectively had a direct democracy for some time now, and shows no sign of disappearing.
I'm curious if you have some links to information about this.
Try this link. In addition to referendums (or direct open-air democracy) at the cantonal level, the Swiss federal constitution has referendum and initiative provisions liberal enough to ensure that any contentious issue will be brought before the voters directly.
>Let the 'representative' become a 'proxy' instead.
Representatives would become even less responsive than they are now, since dissatisfied people are more likely to just vote directly than they are to try to unseat him...
Why? Even the direct voters will want a good representative for 95% (or 99.9%) of the issues that come up.
But the beauty of this scheme is that you don't have to choose 'your' representative by majority vote of your neigbors! Under the present system, if 51% of the people in your district disagree with you, you are powerless and unrepresented until the next election. Under a proxy scheme, you could designate any representative to carry your vote, and choose someone _you_ respect and trust.
What a joke! As if our esteemed representatives really care about the reality of the issues, as opposed to the political spin that can be put on them!
In any case, even if we didn't go as far as a proxy-based legislature, a referendum and initiative system on the Swiss model would go far to eliminate the abuse and arrogance of power we see in Washington every day.
I'd like to be able to do this myself. Could you tell me how? Where can I get this information?
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Er..."gets the misinterprets something". Obvious screwup. My apologies. ;)
I think the question here is why do you bother? The biggest disappointment of the Clinton-Gore administration wasn't Clinton's lies about sex. The biggest disappointment of the Clinton-Gore administration is that both of them turned out to be Republicans! (WTO, NAFTA, welfare "reform," DOMA, etc.) So maybe Gore takes a few different stands than Bush right now, but if he wins, the Democrats will see that this drift toward the right is A-OK with Democratic voters, and continue the rightward drift. Then in a few years, Democratic candidates will be no different than Bush is now.
Therefore, I'm voting for Nader. If that means Gore loses a significant chunk of votes and Bush wins, I'll consider it an "electoral bitch-slap" to the Democratic Party, and a reminder that they can't stop representing progressive views and still get progressives' votes.
Michael Moore said it right: A VOTE FOR GORE IS A VOTE FOR BUSH.
Dear Voter,
I'm voting for my penis in the 2000 presidential election, and I encourage you to do the same.
My penis loves babies and old people. My penis will make education its first priority. My penis is both compassionate and tough on crime. My penis loves minorities and shuns corporate interests.
Mine is a God fearing penis.
I humbly ask for your support this November. America needs my penis. Cast your vote, and let my penis rise to the occassion.
Regards,
JMW
my opinion is currently not wearing any pants.
You know, representation used to be about every day citizens standing up and performing civil service. .
It's a nice idea, and I like it too. However, it's completely untrue. Political representation (ie, as opposed to direct democracy) is what we have specifically to prevent the common man and his common ideas from infilitrating the political process. America's fouders were too worried about the rabble getting in to politics -- you couldn't even VOTE unless you were a property owner, let alone hold office. Hell, the US Senate wasn't even direct-elected until ~1913.
Ventura is failing in that he really hasn't done anything but suck up to the Democrats that control the state Senate. The Republicans hate him. The only thing he seems to do is provide Joe Sixpack a role model.
Accountability. If a privately-funded space exploration company does not live up to its donors'/investors' expectations, then they don't get more funds. If they do perform well, happy people can choose to give them more money.
If a public space exploration branch of government doesn't live up to taxpayer's expectations, what happens? Nothing. NASA's funding isn't based on performance. It's based on weird political things that no single human is capable of understanding.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You are kidding, right? You might want to let Jesse Ventura onto that. Seems that Ross Perot running for President did a lot for him getting a) into a debate and then b) elected.
Seeing the results of voting for a third party candidate takes patience. Someone gets a lot of votes for president and that allows someone to get elected governor years later... That governor getting elected allows a Senator to get elected years later... That senator getting elected allows a presidential nominee to...
Well, you get the picture.
Like I said before, voting for a third-party candidate is a win-win situation.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. A vote for Browne is a vote for Browne.
A vote for anyone is a vote wasted, if you are only concerned about the outcome of the election. If you vote because you think your vote will change the result, forget it. Stay home. There has never been a presidential election decided by one vote, or even a hundred votes. If the law of large numbers holds up, it very likely never will.
No matter who wins, you can be sure of one thing: if and how you personally voted or didn't vote will make no difference to the outcome.
I stand corrected regarding my statement, "How does the electoral college system prevent anyone from winning?"
However, the Electoral System still does not prevent a third party candidate from winning, so I still stand by my second paragraph.
Sig goes here
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration. Yes, that was bad...but not nearly as bad as some of the other rights being taken away now. Free speech is worth more to me than 40% of my paycheck, although I don't like the fact that they take that much either. They force us to do a lot of things that are against the constitution. Basically the U.S. Government has no respect for the citizens, and unfortunately most of the citizens are too apathetic to care. I've looked at both Gore and Bush, and neither of them is fit to have this office. I know a lot of people on Slashdot spend their time bashing Bush, but seriously, they are both scumbags. It's sad to see that there is no major difference in the two. They both are idiots when it comes to the issues. I could vote for someone like Ralph Nader just so I can say I voted, and that I am not responsible for putting a dickweed like Gore or Bush into office, but even that is only symbolic.
Personally, I think I should move out to another country so I can have more freedoms since a majority of the other people in the U.S. don't seem to notice what is going on. It's sad to see that people don't realize the politics in this country has turned into the "devil" that was the U.S.S.R. and we are becoming more socialized in the wrong areas, and people are too fat, lazy, and greedy to care. I won't go into all the problems I have with the U.S. since I do know it is still one of the better places to live in the world, as I get all of my physical needs taken care of and have a decent living. However, there are better places to live than here.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
Taken from http://www.devvy.com/crockett.html:
---------------------------------------------
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several
beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker - I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be,
as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice
to the balance of the living.
I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member
on this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as
members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.
Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the
close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as payment of a debt. We
have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as
we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every
member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no
doubt it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and of course, was lost.
Later when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress when our attention was attracted
by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast we could. In spite of all that could
be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The
weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning
a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I
had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in part of my district in
which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that I should meet
as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.
I began, 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-'
'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out
electioneering right now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
This was a sockdolager, I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which
shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In
either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege
of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.
I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I
should not have said that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook because the
Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and
misinterprets it, is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any
constitutional questions.'
'No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very
carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in
Georgetown. Is that true?'
'Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give
the insignificant amount of $20,000 to relive its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you
had been there, you would have done just as I did.'
'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than
enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the
most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the
country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess
how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even
worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give
$20,000,000 as $20,000.
If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you
are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper.
You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for
robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.
Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that
purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have
thought to appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for
the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington
who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.
The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the
people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours
to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and
pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.
So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country,
for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for
the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see
that I cannot vote for you.'
'I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking and in that district I was a
gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him and I said
to him:
Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it
and thought I had studied it fully. I have head many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your
plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put
my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another
unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.'
He haughtingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are
convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you
will tell people about this vote and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition,
and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
'If I don't, I said, I wish I may be shot, and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if
you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque and I will pay for it.'
No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbeque and some to spare for those who
have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days and we can afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday. I will see to getting up on
Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday and we will go together and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'
'Well, I will be there. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.'
'My name is Bunce.'
'Not Horatio Bunce?'
'Yes.'
'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you and very proud
that I may hope to have you for my friend.'
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and
incorruptible integrity and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in
acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I
had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and have been beaten.
One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I
found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably
fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight talking about the
principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the world - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I
go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed as he
does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But, to return to my story. The next morning I went to the barbeque and to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many
whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me. In
due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened by speech by saying:
Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice,
or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been
able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to see your votes. That I should make this
acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition
of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to
the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so. He came upon the stand and said:
'Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man,
and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised to you today.'
He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. I am not much given to
tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few
words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or ever
shall make, as a member of Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "
"There is one thing now to which I call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very
wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to
accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owned the deceased - a
debt which could not be paid by money - and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when
weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash
when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice
honor, integrity and just to obtain it."
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I hate giving personal info on the web, for various reasons. I should have started this thread anonymously. But you are correct, and I am wrong, to an extent.
I was told by coworkers that no 3rd party candidates are on the ballot. Took me some time, (and a work hour of web searching) but I found that was wrong -- Browne and Buchanan also made it in. To me those are two more bad choices; as I said, Libertarian policies (especially drug policies) scare the hell out of me. Nader isn't on the ballot.
I'm still very upset that I am not permitted a write-in vote. At least now I do have the option of making a protest vote...although I'd still be voting for someone who I dislike as much as the main party candidates. I'm sorry, I still don't see much point in doing that.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
The National Guard is not around to protect me or my family. Nor are the Police. Neither of them are expected to be around to protect me. I proudly carry a gun every day. The second amendment is clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If Gore is elected our right to keep and bear arms will probably go away one way or another. That will pave the way for censoring the amendment and infringing on Free Speech.
Go fuck yourtselves you fucking land-thieves.
"Making linux GPL was the best thing I ever did" - Torvalds. I'd hate to see the worst thing...
The problem with the Second Amendment is that it's poorly worded (quite possibly the only slip-up in what was otherwise a very carefully written document).
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The major problem is that the Framers felt it necessary to justify this amendment, so they built it in. The worst problem with this was their choice of wording with "well-regulated."
The Constitution was written by people who had recently revolted against a corrupt government, and was their second try at making a replacement which worked. Nonetheless, they were not naive; they knew that somehow, there was still the possibility that their new government might someday become as corrupt as the one they had just fought. They were very afraid that this might occur, and thus the entire Constitution, if you look at it, is little more than a set of restrictions to reduce the possibility of corruption as much as possible.
The government they set up is based on a system of checks and balances. Congress makes laws, but the President can veto them and the Supreme Court can overturn them. The Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional, but the President appoints the justices and Congress can start the process of amending the Constitution to overturn the Court's decision. The President must approve laws, but Congress can override vetoes and the Supreme Court is the one with final say in any impeachment process (though it's never been used in that capacity). And so on, and so forth.
The people have two checks against the government itself as well. The first, of course, is the vote. At least in theory, the people pick who makes the laws. But there is another check built into the Constitution, one meant to be used only as a last resort: the ability to revolt. To do this, the people need a fighting chance (no pun intended) against a "Government COntrolled Army, Navy, and Airforce." Since these bodies have guns, there's only one way to ensure this fighting chance: the people must have them as well.
Now, the government has its own check against revolution: it's illegal. In other words, if you decide to revolt, you'd damn well better have enough popular support that you can actually win so you can pardon yourself. Otherwise, you're screwed. And you can't get the kind of support you'd need unless the government did truly become so corrupt it was unmistakable. Thus, an adequate set of checks and balances.
That's what "well-regulated" meant. An armed populace is the Constitution's way of checking the military, so that it (ideally) must face the possibility of an uprising that might actually succeed, should the higher-ups ever consider going corrupt.
Don't forget that. The first half of the Second Amendment was nothing more than justification for the second half. A poorly-worded explanation, yes, and not strictly necessary, but an explanation nonetheless.
Am I against all gun control? Certainly not. Mandatory inclusion of trigger locks as a part of gun sales, for example, makes perfect sense. Such locks won't reduce gun crimes one iota, but they will reduce gun accidents.
One final note. Check crime statistics in states which have implemented concealed-weapons permits. You'll notice that in every case, crime (particularly violent crime) has gone down since the permits were instituted, not up. Just something to think about.
----------
It's morons like you that keep us locked in a two party system. Vote your conscience or don't bother voting at all.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Yep! I'm an odd individual, no denying that. :)
:/
Still, odd individuals have voting rights too. And (at least this year), apparently no reason to exercise them.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
There were several major federal income taxes enacted during the Civil War years and the years thereafter. War-time income taxes were upheld by the supreme court in Springer v. US(1876 or so, IIRC). But when the first peace-time income tax in 1894, enough was enough, and the Supreme Court struck it down in Polluck v. Farmer's Loan and Trust 1895 as a violation of the direct-taxes provisions of the constitution (that income taxes as a direct tax must be apportioned among the states according to the census). The spectre of income taxes was not again raised until after the passage of the 16th amendment (proposed in 1908 or so, ratified in 1913) in the income tax act of 1913, itself challenged and upheld that same year. It's a terribly interesting chronicle of the illegitimate accumulation of power in a central government made constitutional only after the fact by a poorly thought-out constitutional amendment.
-- Anne Marie
Sorry, but that kind of so-called protest will get you nowhere. It's impractical.
The problem you're trying to solve is giving 3rd party candidates not having a chance. The solution is not throwing away your vote every 4 years for the same lost cause, but instead the solution is (somehow) getting a preferential voting system.
I'd really like to vote for Browne, but it doesn't make sense if he has no chance.
I too am sick to death of this shit.
Notice that you hit a nerve there, since they modded you down?
Wankers.
Gary
"Making linux GPL was the best thing I ever did" - Torvalds. I'd hate to see the worst thing...
The word "militia" has a very specific definition in the US Code, and that's used for the (last I checked, three) Militia Acts. The unorganized militia is VERY large today.
Note that
a) Even from the beginning... the very first Militia Act required the militia to supply and keep their OWN firearms and ammunition.
b) This was derived from English law, which at one point was pretty specific about their citizens keeping their own personal arms, and on their premises.
c) The 2nd Amendment does not specify that only militia members may bear arms, but instead that the right shall not be infringed -- for the people. This is the same word as used in the other amendments to specify individual rights.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Being one of hundreds of politicians that voted on one of hundreds of spending initiatives gives Gore no special claim on the internet. Just like the economy and Clinton, he was just there when it happened.
Credit the scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs for the explosion of what we enjoy today. It would never have happened had it not been so unfettered by governmental planning.
---Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
A decent place to start is election2000.com/review.html basically 'lists' the candidates and gives links to their platforms. warning, has a slight left bias. (not that i'm picking sides, cause i couldn't care less what you label someone. although, as a question, is a leftist someone who believes in more social programs, or is a leftist someone who is prejudiced against people who believe in more social programs? :)
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
Looks like the rich papa's boy race is tied.
While George apparentely goes digging, Al seems to claim credit for everything under the sun (and in fact, just claimed credit FOR the sun. . .)
A pox on BOTH of them ! Vote NONE OF THE ABOVE!
That would be Michael Winslow, who the Stonecutters seem to underappreciate ;)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
1. Do you feel that Microsoft is actually a monopoly? Do you agree with the breakup of Microsoft? Does you organization accept campaign money from Microsoft?
2. Do you feel that the MPAA is infringing on the rights of consumers? Do you feel that organizations like this are trashing copyright law and leaving consumers with no freedom?
3. Do you feel that large multinational corporations are ruining our nations soverignty? Do you feel that they should only exist when they benefit the public, as the Constitution states, or should they be allowed to exist as long as they turn a profit and are good for the "economy"?
4. What are your views of Shell, Mobil, and other oil-companies exploitation/extermination of African Tribes to steal the oil their land rests above, as well as their support of dictator-police states in Nigeria?(see boycott shell home page )
5. Do you agree with the current U.S. policy of forcing Israel and Palestine to the peace table? Are we forcing them before they are ready? Do you think that excessive medelling by the U.S. could cause an all-out war there?
6. What is your position on internet regulation? How, where, and when should the internet be censored or regulated? Do you support internet "taxes"?
7. Do you support more work visa's for IT? Do you feel that the IT shortage is due to too few people qualified, or too few people willing; due to Dilbertesque management tecniques and a lack of a willingness to train people? What is your policy regarding these Visas?
8. Do you beleive in corporate welfare? If there is a seperation of church and state, then is there an inplied sepearation of corporation and state? Do you feel that taxpayer funds should be used to support the building of ball-parks, rec facilities and other ammenities, that will be owned by private business and not publically available? Do you feel that these rich business people have other outlets to get investment, or are they so "needy" that they must be bankrolled by the government, at the expense of education and other public responsibilities?
9. Do you think the the FBI Carnivore system is a violation of Citizens search and siezure rights? Do you think it is constitutional for such a system to be implemented? If you would make any changes to the Carnivore program, what would they be?
10. Do you feel that any of the above issues actually warrants your attention, or that they are just small issues that have no impact on your election? Do you feel that any of the above issues could alter the course of Democracy in this country? Do any of you have a pulse?
Perhaps these questions should be asked to all Presidential canidates, not just the Dem and Repub nominees?Why are you bothering.
This isn't flamebait, but you all should know full well that a third-party candidate can NOT win in an electoral college system. It will never happen.
I support the idea that people will go out and vote for Nader, he's my first choice as well, but to me it's more important to keep someone like Bush out of office than it is to register my protest vote this time around. Bush is simply too stupid, and too dangerous to be in the White House.
Hemos said it right. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
BilldaCat
- Gore -- if this guy ain't looney, I don't know who is.
- Clinton -- caught getting hummers from a whale in the oral (oops, oval) office.
- Dukakis -- did he look good in a tank or what?
- Mondale.
- Carter.
- Johnson.
- Kennedy (any of them).
I rest my case.The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-- Scotty.
Ick - my Logical-Fallacy-O-Meter just went off the wall. Can you say "Excluded Middle"?
Did you forget to count the Hezbollah soldiers, with automatic weapons, Katyusha rockets, explosives, and plenty of experience with all of them? Plus backing from Syria?
The leaders of the Days of Rage are instigating armed rebellion -- aided and abetted by their political leadership. The Israeli objective should be using sufficient firepower to shut them down with minimum losses to themselves and uninvolved civillians, not to be nice and friendly in order to even up the casualty columns.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The larger part of the way you see it seems to involve adding nonexistent words to the text to suit your own views on gun control.
Some people date the Net from its earliest roots in 1969 when two DARPA computers first talked cross-country. I prefer a late 1980s when a number of things happened:
(1) Name service. In the original net every computer had to download a central name-ip number database. This started breaking down at about a thousand nodes. (Note they are still prefecting this with the expanding ip numbers and registry privatization.)
(2) Privatization of the backbone. It was difficult for commercial interests to join the network when it was a DARPA/NSF toy.
Al Gore and the Internet
- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
0 600/
e _internet/
By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of
the Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented"
the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration
among people in government and the university community. But as the
two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols
that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's
contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President.
No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater
contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on
his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress
I took the initiative in creating the Internet". We don't think,
as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented"
the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that
while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and
beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the
matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long
before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our
perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high
speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and
the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected
official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have
a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and
scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was
an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet
started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place
in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was
not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early
stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual
leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of
high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored
hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas
like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural
disasters and other crises.
As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to
consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and
unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network". Working in a
bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's
administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance
Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported
the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that
became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond
the field of computer science.
As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out,
as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government
agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration
proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and
networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and
is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools
and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are
on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the
speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to
become a commercially-driven operation.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's
rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been
political support for its privatization and continued support for
research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has
been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for
a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear
champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with
the public at large.
The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the
value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term
and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to
American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.
Version 1.2
Word count: 709
***************
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use
the "redirect" option. For information about RRE, including instructions
for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:07:53 -0700
>From: Phil Agre
To: "Red Rock Eater News Service"
Subject: [RRE]campaign lunacy
[clip]
The mother of all "Gore's tendency to exaggerate" factoids, of course,
is his supposed claim to have invented the Internet. This factoid is
just plain flat-out false. Gore made a perfectly accurate statement
taking credit for his legislative work on the Internet, and the
Internet's inventors back him up on it. Even Newt Gingrich backs him
up on it! But still the claim is endlessly repeated by the Republican
candidates and the media. For more examples, see:
http://www.speakout.com/Activism/oped/Howlings/09
Why isn't it big news that the Internet's inventors speak so heatedly
against the Republican media claim? Where are the headlines about
that? I've enclosed the most recent of many statements, this one from
Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf. Presented with this statement, the Wired News
reporter who originated the false accusation against Gore actually
responded by suggesting that Vint Cerf was speaking in bad faith,
covering Gore for political reasons. These people will say anything,
which of course is the reason why they accuse Al Gore of the same.
Read it here:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gor
A recent article in First Monday also adds some facts to the story by
digging up some of the specifics of Gore's congressional record:
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/
But this story is defective in two ways. First, it fails to trace
the false claim back to Wired News. And second, more disturbingly,
it accepts, for no clear reason, and despite the massive evidence
to the contrary, the claim that Gore's assertion was false. This is
so strange. It's like we're all in a lunatic asylum. Look: Al Gore,
during his service in the United States Congress, took the initiative
in creating the Internet. This is a plain fact. It sounds like a
wild claim only to people who aren't acquainted with the remarkable
reality of Gore's very early and very extensive work on the issue.
[clip]
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Well, you got me. Your witty response has left me speechless.
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-- Scotty.
I have one- I'd like to see a comparison of the candidates (and their parties) on issues of digital freedom. It seems like you can find quick summaries of the candidate's positions on capital punishment, education reform, gun control, and so on- but I don't know where you would go to find out which American political party, for example, resisted the DMCA most vigorously (if either of them bothered)
Nader would demand that the space vehicle be fitted with airbags and anti-lock air brakes, making the project too expensive to work.
Buchannan doesn't know what life forms may exist in the cosmos, but he already mistrusts them. "They'll work cheap and take away American jobs!"
Haglin doesn't think the government should be in the business of funding space exploration. Re-arrange the wording to emphesize the monopoly the government has on space and you may have something. I think we have a winner.
Tomorrow- candidates prepare for "Loser Leaves Town Night" in St. Louis
www.ridiculopathy.com
While I did enjoy reading up on Bush's and Gore's viewpoint as they specifically relate to space and other sciences, I find it rather sad that they are yet again the only candidates to get a mention. It appears that the folks at NASA Watch took some time to find out about the candidates' viewpoints on the space program, but they couldn't spend just a few minutes learning who the other candidates running on the majority of the ballots were and what they thought? I understand the thinking behind the whole "wasted vote" philosophy which so many people abide by and therefore disregard third party candidates, but it is that kind of thinking which has resulted in this two party oligarchy that currently holds power in the USA today and will continue to do so until people learn that you shouldn't vote against a candidate but for a candidate. The Republican Party was a third party once as well, until a guy by the name of Abraham Lincoln ran on their ticket back in 1860, and that was 140 years ago, when to find out what candidates were about, you had to run your dumb ass all over hell and gone just to catch a rally and hear what they were about. These days, we have so much info without ever getting off of our asses, that there really is no excuse for not knowing who's running, what their stances are, etc.
If you are still in the dark, cruise over to www.vote-smart.org to get a brief view of the candidates and links to their official sites, or for a cool website concerning the candidates' stances on many issues, check out Issues2000.org. Oh, and don't neglect to learn about your local Congresscritters, either, especially since their decisions have a hell of a lot more impact on your daily life than the president's does. Whatever you do, don't just whine about not being able to make a difference, because that's a load of horseshit; even if your candidate of choice doesn't win, at least your vote is officially tallied so that whoever is elected will realize that, although they may have won, there is a large number of people, voting people, who support a different way of doing things and that they do well to find out why so many people voted a certain way. So go out, learn about the candidates and their views, decide who you would like to support and, most importantly:
Vote!
Deo
i hereby put forth the suggestion to form a lobbying group made up of concerned, informed citizens of the United States who view technology as the primary catalyst to change and advancement to our country.
I will the let moderation decide the interest. If it is high, I will be writing back to let you know the next steps. I suppose you can write me as well.
Far be it from me to introduce actual informed analysis into a gun control flame war -- so instead I'll just refer anybody who is still interested to A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I'd love it if the list of federal programs was actually even close to that short, I'd add funding research and space exploration and be done with it. However, the list of federal programs is a little longer than that, and that is the problem. It appears both candidates have a commitment to increasing that list of programs even though many of us don't want it.
The Framers failed to envision a future in which the population is dulled into submission by the Telletubies and Monday Night Football. Are we going to revolt? Only if they pre-empt our TV show.
Apollo astronauts Buzz Aldrin (2nd man to walk on the Moon) and Eugene Cernan (last man to walk on the Moon) have endorsed George W. Bush for president. Buzz Aldrin, who is one of the United States' leading advocates for human exploration of space, wrote a letter in this week's Barron's explaining that Bush seemed more enthusiastic about human space exploration than Gore (unfortunatly, I can not find a link to it online). Dr. Aldrin evaluated responses sent to him by the Bush and Gore campaigns.
how about giving some proof? In fact, you cannot prove one way or another that there is no God
No i cannot dis-prove 'god' exists. It dosnt really matter, because If i ever want to check, i can simply fly to heaven - and jesus lives in the clouds and I have wings... yep wings. Dont believe me? Dis-prove it.
At least the death is far less painful then a full on beating from 5 guys with sticks/clubs.
Respond to s
on being morally outraged. The would rather rant about something ineffectual because in their minds it makes them more important. Sure they could change their options, but then they wouldn't be able to feel morally superior.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
To prove I'm not totally nuts, the Durham, NC information is (they'll hate me for this :)
here.
If people like you and I don't vote, we'll never get a professional wrestler/actor/etc into office. The point is, we can't have a politician in office because they will just make stupid laws that hurt us. What we need is a wacky sitcom type of person to be in office and entertain us at least. If people like you didn't vote in Minnesota, Jesse "The Body" Ventura wouldn't be in office. We all know politicians don't actually do any good work, we might as well hire PeeWee Herman or Pauly Shore to do the job.
Actually no, I want to vote for that guy from all the Police Academy movies. You know, the black guy that made the funny noises. I think the president was a better fit to be an actor in Porky's.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
I see too many people speaking of boycotting the election. People don't want to pick the lesser of two evils, so they're choosing not to vote. This is not the best response.
Don't vote for the lesser evil. Find a candidate you do believe in and vote for that one. You're not throwing away your vote. You're showing that you're fed up with the two main parties. That you are no longer represented by them.
This govenment is not going to be changed overnight. Ralph Nader, for instance, has no chance in hell of winning this election. But, if all the people who believe in his ideas vote for him, instead of voting for the big party candidate that they fear the least, a very clear message would be sent to the government. And then in 4 years, maybe Ralph Nader, or another 3rd party candidate, would really have a chance.
We must respect evil, and we must make evil respect us.
Doesn't anyone else think we should have a 'ask the candidates' forum on
The War of Independence is often blamed on the government raising taxes. Do you know why the taxers were so high? Because defending the American colonies from other European powers was expensive.
The colonists felt that the taxation was unfair, only to have a replacement government decide that such taxation is fair.
How dare the evil government level income taxes to pay for national defense, the interstate highway system, polution control, and crime prevention? How do any of those things benefit you? Why can't we have an all-volunteer, UNPAID Army, Navy, and Air Force? That way you could have a free ride and wouldn't have to pay those odious income taxes!!
Until this century (1913 IIRC) the government collected no income taxes, instead relying on stamp duty and import taxes. We seem to have managed quite well before some bright spark in the government decided that they could do with a bit more money to spend on offices and such.
People who seem to believe that taxation is the natural state of things need to learn a bit more about our history. The fact is, that taxation is nothing more than armed robbery, and the government nothing more than a brutal and grasping thug.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
I'm angry at people who brandish something that doesn't exist to justify their actions, as if they could not justify them on reason alone.
If you absolutely need religion to make yourself a moral, that's your problem. Just don't make it mine.
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
I guess that's the kinda truth one needs to be religious...
You don't need any convoluted bullshit to realize that there is no need for a god to explain the universe as it is. You just need to realize that:
-
Stable matter lasts longer than unstable matter. So, as soon as stable
matter happens by chance, it will persist indefinitely.
-
Matter structures that can reproduce themselves will have a certain advantage
over matter structures that solely happen by chance (and yes, a matter
structure that can reproduce itself can happen by chance).
-
Life that can evolve to the point of being able of altering it's environment
to suit itself will have a certain advantage over life that cannot.
There. It's very simple. No need for bullshit to understand that.That's how you end up with an "universe".
That's how you end up with "life".
That's how you end up with "intelligent life".
Nature doesn't bust it's ass. It does things as simple as possible, so it leaves the evolution to chance.
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
My bad. I thought you were merely referring to the income tax. But Bush seems to be doing better at exactly these things, and others the President can do very little if anything about: >40-50% Tax Rate: >estimate a 22-25% tax bracket Which Bush has said he'd lower. >15.3% "social security" Which the Bush plan allows a certain percentage for private investment. Sure, it's only 15% or so, but at least it's something, and it's better than people in their 20's or 30's like myself will get under the Gore plan. >7% sales tax State, City, or County mandated. There is no national sales tax. >?? % gasoline tax Gore wants to raise it! Read his book if you don't believe me. His environmental extremism is legendary. He's basically said that he wants to put heavy fuel taxes on in order to try to reduce gasoline consumption. Bush actually got a good jab off on him about this in last week's debate. I'm sure a lot of slashdotters side with Gore about the environment, and I agree that it's good to be environmentally conscious, but to forgo all consideration of the economy, local jobs, or whatever is a little over the deep end for me. >?? % property taxes Again, county mandated. Not much can happen here. Though, the primary things that Property taxes go to, at least around my area, is for schools, which Bush does seem more committed to than Gore, at least in the area of reform. I don't know. I'm being biased, but I honestly think that Gore likes to throw money at problems and hope they go away where Bush likes to actually try to fix them permanently. As for the "Read My Lips" thing, that was his Father who said that, not George W. And yes, there's no way the whole plan, 100% will pass congress. But the same is true with the Gore plan or any other plan. Congress has to pick it apart first. But from these plans, you see the kind of things that the candidate will do if elected president, the kinds of bills he'll sign, etc. But either way, if you agree with me or not, VOTE! It's the only layer protecting you from the government. Your voice does count. And I'd rather see you vote for Gore than not vote at all.
He's not on the ballot in most states, so your omission is excusable.
It amazes me how most of these raving, looney left, anti-Constitution fanatics don't even bother to research what the "militia" is. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, it meant essentially every able bodied man capable of bearing arms in the defense of his country. The only thing that has changed is that a couple decades ago the Congress amended the term to include women. I believe the age limits are 18 to 55. Look it up. Then wipe the slobber off your chin!
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-- Scotty.
Alright, I'm going to test this idea in the furnace of slashdot.
If you haven't seriously studied election candidates -- that is, done something well beyond what comes by in the newspapers or on TV or radio ads -- you shouldn't vote. At all.
Lots of people vote on a vague feeling that someone is "a good man" or "would probably represent me well". I get these expressions when I talk to people every day.
We wonder why politicians pander and pontificate, rather than intelligently speaking about policy and justifying their positions with reason. It's not much wonder. Joe voter hasn't learned to do much other than go absorb what the mass media says by osmosis and show up at the polls.
If you're one of those people, take the time to do a little bit of research. Project Vote Smart is a decent place to start; there's more to be done, though, if you really want to dig in. Example: you know how many politicians are positioning themselves as champions of education. And the things they promise to do? Increase spending per pupil, decrease class sizes. Yet, there's a fair bit of data that indicates there isn't a correlation between spending and better test scores, or (down to the point of about 15 students) class size and better test scores. What does help? Smaller schools, apparently. The studies have been known to and distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council for at least a year. Any policy maker sincerly interested in improving things should know things like that. If you know things like this, and your candidate trots out the same old tired solutions, that can tell you something about them.
A number of you, however, will just not take the time to do research before Nov 7. At that point in time, please do the rest of us a favor, and don't turn the election into a spin-based lottery. Keep your vote to yourself.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Then they lost it, and had to have it given to them by the UN ... but they didn't think that was enough, so they had to slaughter some more arabs (13 year old kid yesterday among others) to get more ...
it's in my head
How dare the evil government level income taxes to pay for national defense, the interstate highway system, polution control, and crime prevention? How do any of those things benefit you? Why can't we have an all-volunteer, UNPAID Army, Navy, and Air Force? That way you could have a free ride and wouldn't have to pay those odious income taxes!!
A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush. A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush. They have the same stance on every issue. The only difference between them is their relative intellegence and honesty.
Nader has actual opinions and convictions. You may not feel the same way on every issue, but at least you know he has the good of the country in mind.
See other posts for reasons to vote against GoreBush and the Republicrats.
Exactly what I was gonna say. Taxes are actually used for things to benefit us. Not all in the best possible way but still very much of it is. I hate when people bitch about paying taxes. If you have such a problem with it I say move to some other non-most-powerful, non-strongest economy, non-strongest military nation where they don't charge taxes.
The election this year between Gore and Bush is going to be really close. The 5% that Nader might get, or the 5% that Brown might get, would radically change the election if those people wer instead to vote for one of the "Dumb and Dumbers."
What is the consequence of this? Maybe the losing party will look at the results sand say "Well, gee, if we had Nader's vote, we would have won."
So what do they do the next election? They take on a platform that will hopefully woo the Nader (or Brown, or Perot) voters.
The result? Things that I agree with might get into a main party platform. That or a third party gets enough votes that they start becoming more popular (you might actually see another third-party in one of the debates!).
Either way, it is a win-win situation for people that vote their mind and vote third-party.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Pray what magic is it that ensures that privately funded space exploration would be more efficient?
Smaller space-oriented enterprises will be forced to innovate and produce something that people want. Manufacturing and entertainment come to mind, as well as the potential for space tourism. Time and time again, it has been shown that projects given a governmental crutch fail misearably, due to corruption or mismanagement (I live in Boston, the Big Dig is a classic example of this.) If space proves to be profitable on any front (not just financially, but also academically), large companies with more resources will take notice, causing competition, and a healty market.
Oh yeh, and do email me if your party ever gets a coherent line on intellectual property and privacy regulation.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Statement of Principles
Protection of Privacy
I don't want to sound like a shill for the LP, but at least their platform is spelled out for all to see, and their politicians are there to facilitate them, as opposed to the "flavor-of-the-week"-style politics of the GOP and Democrats..
Not as omnipotent as advertised, I guess.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
The idea of a Nader presidency scares the crap out of me, but it seems that voting for him is the only way to shock people into rethinking the nature of our two party system.
P.S. All my life, I've heard that this generation is apathetic. From boards like this, you can tell that we care deeply about certain things. We're just too lazy to vote. I can guarantee you this: more than half of the people bitching and moaning about the options this year will never bother to register.
today: Albright as ugly american
High Performance Computing Act of 1991
there are others, but those are the two biggies... if you want more info, go to THOMAS and search under legislation/major legislation/previous and enter gore +computing... you'll find dozens of examples of mr. gore's legislative efforts for the computing industry
hope this helps
i thought, therefore i was...
al gore was directly responsible for the funding bills that allocated money to create this country's internet infrastructure... he is the legislative equivalent of tim berners-lee or vinton cerf
the bill that actually got signed into law as part of george bush's 1991 budget was the high performance computing act of 1991 — the precursor to that bill (which was way ahead of its time) was the supercomputer network study act of 1986
i thought, therefore i was...
It wasn't the Republican vs. Whig, it was the Democratic-Republican vs. Whig, and the D-R was closer to the modern Republican party than the Democrat. Also, there have been other parties over the years like "Federalist". But, I think Washington was right when he said the America doesn't need parties. Of course, he was the only unafilliated pres we had. Let me ask you this, though... all everyone is talking about with the elections is "parties" this and "parties" that, but does anyone ever really throw one??
WorldMaker
Gee, that's not overstating the obvious. Slashdot is a partisan forum which takes one specific side on every issue; though hypocrisy is not out of the question. Slashdot is pro-AMD, yet it still lets Intel ads squeak onto the site. Slashdot is pro-Gore, yet it still points out that his personality is on a level with Dan Quayle. Slashdot portrays their defense of the politically powerless hacker, yet it has sold out to the status quo (andover.net). What new chapter of hypocrisy will grace the hallowed pages of Slashdot next?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
1) He does have a point, if poorly expressed
2) Invoking religion is cause for an almost immediate mark-down as a Troll (I notice that in the time it took me to load the page and press reply, this has already happened. But you knew it would).
3) Bashing religion is cause for an almost immediate mark-up as insightful.
so why bring up the subject at all if you know that its value to the discussion is marginal at best?
Hi Americans, Do you realise what George W.s image is like in the rest of the world? He is generally seen as the idiot son of a former president with no ability pertaining to the presidential. He is seen as having nothing to add to the world stage, but merely as some guy who will have to be dealt with for five years (no-one honestly believes he could be re-elected) during which it he will be just another obstacle to avoid. Vote for him if you wish your country to become a laughing stock in the international community. The man's backward views on such things as contraception, coupled with the fact that he is so obviously in hock to big business are actually scaring people. If you want the world to turn away from the US, toward most probably the EU, as leaders of the free world.
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
Moving to another country is not the best way to solve the problems of the country you live in.
The government works for the people. NOT the other way around. They are our servants. If you have a problem with your servants, you tell them to correct their behaviour. If they don't then you replace them. You don't move to somewhere with better staff.