Slashdot Mirror
Politics, Endorsements And Privacy
We have a few stories relating to the candidates this morning:
First up is
this piece which lists techies endorsing Gore (including Vint Cerf) but notes that Bush still raised more campaign money. Second is a self-promotional piece from the Green Party on Nader's stance on Privacy.
2^5
Well, for one thing, the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about criminals, it just says "the people". Are convicted felons stripped of their First Amendment rights?
Convicted criminals do have fewer rights under the law -- depending on the crime. For example, I don't believe felons can vote at all...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
(Company_revenue - Campaign_Donation + Increased_Profit_From_Special_Treatment) > Company_Revenue
Get it?
> It's time to end the hysterical equation of
> socialism to communism and the Soviet Union.
IMO, it's time to stop attacking those who don't support even moderate socialism by equating us to Cold War-era dinosaurs. Some of us simply dislike socialism on principle, as it inevitably leads to stagnation and large pockets of complacent parasitism.
No, free-market capitalism isn't "fair" either: life isn't fair, and people just have to deal with that. However, regulation almost invariably makes things worse. Case in point: the minimum wage sounds like a _great_ idea, except in practice when it reduces productivity, increases average salaries, and leads to stagflation, which causes people to scream, "Increase the minimum wage!"
[ home ]
... at the bottom of the letter to the candidates?
*grin*
either way, vote nader!
Well, still not that easy. But at least within the realm of reason.
It makes sense to vote for a candidate who you believe to have the character to make the right decision on future matters. In the same way, a party is not just its platform, but a system and a process for coming to that platform.The Green's platform reflects the beliefs of their members, who at the moment tend to be radical leftists (radical, because they haven't given up, not because they are crazy)
I don't think the Democratic or the Republican platforms really represent their members. If you became active in the Greens you would actually have a reasonable chance to change their direction in a number of ways -- if not nationally, at least locally.
Here in Chicago, under the Democratic Machine, you just can't do that. There is little I can do to make the Democrats reflect my beliefs (and the Republicans are just further yet).
A platform can and will change, but the party process underneith that platform is much more static. The Green Party's process is democratic. The Republican and Democratic parties don't even come close.
--
And, if the wealthiest 1% are paying 34% of the taxes, then there is obviously something wrong with our tax structure...Don't you think?
You raise a lot of interesting points -- but this one stuck out. Why shouldn't the wealthiest 1% pay 34% of all taxes when they own 40% of the wealth in the country?
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I find it amusing that the techies (and /. ) seem to support Gore. But, in general, scientists and techies have tended to side with the democrats or communists (no slam here) rather than more conservative groups. This is not to imply that this is bad, it only goes to show that they care about their fellow man and feel their work belongs to the people. Their hearts are in the right place.
But, this philosophy has maligned itself in the recent decades with misguided politics. The people we elected to promote these ideals have, themselves, become corrupt and self-serving.
Cases in point:
How many people in the Clinton Administrator had to resign or were fired?
Clipper Chip - Designed to allow Law Enforcement to read encrypted transmissions through the Key Escrow Initiative. Failed miserably - thankfully.
Skipjack - Designed by the NSA for Clipper. It never received public review to determine if it was secure or contained any backdoors or trapdoors.
Over the past 8 years, RSA Data Security has contributed greatly to Clinton/Gore. Jim Bizdos as been seen to frequent the Whitehouse. Did he stay in Lincoln's bedroom? Funny, now that the patent has expired, the restrictions on this strong encryption technology has substantially declined.
RSADSI has been allowed to export strong encryption and set up shop in the Far East and Europe where other countries were hindered from similar action. This gave them a strong hold in countries were other companies now must try to compete.
Fund raising incidents involving the democrats (Al Gore in particular) and the relaxing of sanctions on the Chinese.
Loss of e-mail regarding Fund Raising activity during the Monica Lewinsky scandale.
Wen Ho Lee and his subsequent release on plea bargain. He admitted to taking the tapes...yet he gets off. Now everybody is screaming about Racial and Ethnic profiling.
Export of missile technology to the Chinese allow them to build more accurate and longer range missiles.
The information contained in those "missing" tapes supposedly would allow the Chinese to build deadlier warheads.
The list goes on...
How about failed promises --- HealthCare reform lead by Hillary Clinton. It failed miserably. As a result of this "reform", our Seniors are stuck in HMOs that provide worse benefits than they started off with. That issue has been raised again under the guise of Perscription Plan reform.
Hollywoods marking of violent and sexually suggestive material to children -- a Lieberman special. He condemns it yet is willing to take their money.
Don't be misled. The democrats of today ARE NOT the same ones led by JFK. They are corrupt and self serving.
Senator Kennedy was forgiven of his actions in Chappaquidic (sp). Congressman Druce was convicted under similar circumstances (they were both supposedly drunk).
I'm not saying the Republicans are much better -- but they are are concerned more with building this country (and their wallets) rather than countries that really don't want us there. Tax breaks may help the rich, but lower taxes for everybody has got to be a good thing.
And, if the wealthiest 1% are paying 34% of the taxes, then there is obviously something wrong with our tax structure...Don't you think?
Also, let's quote the rise of average salary income since 1976 of 9.6%. This came at a price of working in excess of 220 hours a year...or in excess of 10% longer hours. And, we are better off? Hmmmm...
I'll barely mention the support of Gore gave to Clinton while he lied to the American people.
Economic policies generally take 8-12 years to take effect. What boon we are experienced is because of the previous administrations policies. What we are experiencing now (i.e the slump in NASDAQ and DOW) is the result of Clinton/Gore politics. Don't believe me? Read your history.
President Bush experienced the effect of Reagan's policies following the fall of communism. The machine was too big to fight nobody and the subsequent result was a major scaling back within industry. Prez. Bush turned his attentions back to domestic issues after the Gulf War (after a major build up). But, it was too late then to bring about a recovery before the election.
Think long an hard about the actions of both parties over the past 8-12 years and decide.
If you don't want to vote Republican, then at least vote for a party leader who knows the difference between right and wrong.
RD
Last I heard, the biggest contributor to GWB's campaign is Enron Corp. This company has been involved in terrible human rights violations in India; essentially, one of their subsidiaries paid the local police directly to abuse protestors and their families. (see also the Human Rights Watch report)
This is one of the most blatant and well-documented current cases of a corporation being involved in human rights abuses.
More info on GWB's ties to Enron here.
Then I suggest that Slashdot starts covering other countries' national politics as well, introducing 174 little "Kazakhstan" and "Micronesia" customization boxes in Preferences;. What happens in Japan or China is of quite some impact for development of free speech on the net, for example. We'll let the thing run for a couple of months and then count the complains from Americans who are sick with the foreign stuff that is being shoved down their throats. No colonizing Mars comment this time.
Human extinction is on the way.
Billionaires for Bush or Gore is a site worth reading if you really think that Gore and Bush are so fucking different.
Both had daddies who were Big Men on the Mall, quintessential DC Insiders.
Both of their families made their fortunes in industries which were/are taxpayer subsidized.
Both of them are pro-death penalty and pro-WTO, an organization which has the ability to overrule a nation's laws.
Read some of my past posts and see the light.
And by the way: These "A vote for Nader is a vote for whomever" crap? Congrats, you've been brainwashed.
Last I checked, a vote for Bush is a vote for Bush. A vote for Gore is a vote for Gore. A vote for NADER is a vote for NADER.
If you want to subscribe to the switch-vote lie, then it's more like a vote for BUSH is a vote for GORE and a vote for GORE is a vote for BUSH.
And finally, voting for "the lesser of two evils" is like choosing between Pneumonia and Influenza, according to Studs Terkel. Both are nasty, and both can kill. (And the worst part about voting the lesser of two evils is that you've still got TWO EVILS.)
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Well, for one thing, the Bundesgrenzschutz can search you without any reasonable suspicion.
Germany is really big on the privacy of electronically-stored information gathered by businesses, but they have a very authoritarian government that pokes it's nose into areas of their citizens' lives that ought to be private.
In particular, their propensity for passing laws that parse to "you're free to say anything you want, unless it's on this list of things you're not allowed to say" should frighten anyone who recognizes the value of free speech.
Hell, you're talking about the country that outlawed web browser cookies in 1996.
-
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Maybe she thought you had an accent and were trying to say, "Neither."
Constitutionally Correct
One piece of political skullduggery is to call somebody up and pretend to be polling them, while really trying to brainwash them by asking leading questions. It works great when you have a tight race and want to target non-media savvy undecided voters (e.g. elderly).
The practice is not exactly common, probably because it is expensive. Because it's expensive, it ususally isn't done by candidates themselves but by proxies, such as "institutes" bankrolled by industries with big financial stakes in the election outcome(e.g. the hog industry mobilizing against pro-environment candidates).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
while not using the word, "invent" it definitely stinks of B.S. and taking credit for something he NEVER did. The internet was already created, it was already privatized in most aspects, and algore was simply a member of the group that looked at that kind of stuff.
But of course, why stop there, he has BS'd on SOOOOOO many things. He has taken credit for so many things that either he voted/spoke against, didn't even understand it, was never aware of it, or just happened to be around when "it" happened that I loose count.
I am at least glad you are not voting for him, but if Nader vanished, I guess you would vote for algore, since you said you support algore more than Bush.
Apparantly, character is only important when a Republican that has done something naughty is under your guns. I have yet to hear any reason for algore being better than bush. Keep in mind that the reasons must be unique to bush.
In other words, no stupid Suzan Surandan (sp?) crap about being against bush but for algore because of the death penalty.... what?!?!?!
BTW, I don't support either of them, because they both want to increase government control of EVERYTHING, just in different proportions. algore wants to increase the size, cost, and intrussiveness of the government more than any other time (not just total amount, but proportionally.... with the exception of the prohibition era in respects to legislated morality)
bush is critized for not knowing facts off the top of his head, yet it is OK to make lies up to make yourself look like the "brilliant student" that barely passed school.
As an example, lets take affirmative action. algore uses FUD to scare people into "trusting" him and going against bush, often stating that only he [algore] CARES for minorities. Well, since affirmative action has been proven inneffective, and has caused more racial intolerance, hate, envy and racial attitudes in the workplace as well as home... it would be reasonable to conclude that affirmative action is not the way to go. algore and his mindless, emotional, and illogical supporters are akin to a group of stupid animals next to a tank filled with sharks. Moronically, they fling themselves into the vat to "solve" the problem of the mortality rate of themselves from sharks. The sharks have NO problem with this, and are continuously well fed. Upon seeing this, the stupid animals [democrats and republicans] begin fighting each other, pushing themselves with even more fervor into the water. Then it becomes election time, and the decision makers of the stupid animals begin telling of their exploits. One group tells how they "care" about all stupid animals, even though they are the very ones who throw the innocent stupid animals in the tank. The next group has slowly begun to develop some reasoning skills, and has cut back on thowing in innocents, yet still manages not to grasp the full picture. Then you have all the stupid animals that support the first group. Why? Well, because they have no pattern recognition (sometimes refered to as the basic element of the simplest form of intellegence) and let them selves be led by pretty, lying words, pretty ties, appearances on MTV, scare tactics and FUD, and sensationalism. Next, the other group is sort of clued in, but yet can't shake the tendency to be sometimes led like sheep.
But then, a voice of reason calls out. It calls from a group of animals that are crawling down the ladder to the ground. They all say how they think this is all pointless, and that it is foolish and illogical to support or enact programs that do more harm than good. Unfortunately, their voice is filtered out by the sycophant stupid animals working as the media, and never heard. Also, since both groups up top have passed so many laws taking away freedom and accountability, it is illegal for the smart animals to climb down. Yes, they can ask for permission, but it is never given, and they are thrown in the tank anyway.
So, I would say that if the facts speak of a program's complete inneficiency, and tells us all that it is part of the problem not the solution... well, then don't support it in any form, or the people that support it.
Now about Nader... I have read and seen how he speaks out against the evil of corporations, but what about any other group. the government is basically just one big, disorganized, expensive, corrupt, and inept corporation... one that we do not have any choice but to pay homage to. Will Nader actually bring back individual liberty and freedom, or will he just do what the democRATS do, and enforce his own views on everyone else?
"There is nothing more closed-minded than an open-minded liberal" Basically, liberals are the same tune, but with a couple of different buzz-words directed at a different group of people.
Liberals... I will never understand the liberal mentality of, "Tolerate all, except for those we disagree with and don't like"
But, then again, I try to live by the golden rule, which says "do unto other, as you would have them do unto you", not the modern version... "spread hate and lies in order to further your agenda, so that you may hypocritically single out people to oppress, all in the name of equality and justice" or perhaps it would be better to say, "I perceived a wrong done to someone of my group, therefore I will retaliate on another innocent person of another group, one that had NOTHING to do with the perceived fantasy wrong I witnessed." I hate elections because it always brings out the idiots and hypocrits.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
You aren't supposed to talk about that. Here at slashdot if we don't acknowledge it, it doesn't exist. Tipper was probably drinking at the time anyway.
She's a known deadhead, so she was probably trippin', or on some kind bud.
Why is this starting to sound like a scene from "Life of Brian"? Are they the same party or not?
The AGSP platform is less extreme, probably because they have more of a chance to actually get candidates elected at the local level and don't want to saddle them with unpopular extremist positions.
In fact, I actually like the AGSP platform quite a bit. It's the kind of moderate left position I wish the Democrats hadn't abandoned years ago. And, I hope you will note that I avoided attributing the national party's views to Nader in my original post. I erred in not posting a link to the AGSP platform too for balance, but I quoted the national party's platform to make certain points, which remain:
I'm not doctrinaire about this. I'd be open to voting for Nader if you could convince me that the prorities of the moderate ASGP platform would be advanced by that vote, or that I want the Green party is a party I want to support.
Or are the state Green parties actually a different party from the Greens? The situation is, to say the least, confusing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yes, and Quayle never said most of the stupid quotes he is attributed with. Gore never claimed that "love story" was written about him and Tipper. Bush is not dumb (he got better grades at Yale than Gore at Harvard, and didn't flunk out of grad and law school like Gore).
All of these are media inventions. Welcome to American politics, issues are irrevelant.
Finkployd
I find it pretty disturbing that so many geeks support Nader or Gore. I mean Nader is a socialist. And Gore is well socialist lite. To me socialist are either well intentioned people who want to feel warm and fuzzy inside about social justice (without analyzing things realistically or logically) or they have a very bitter envious economic outlook and are basically pessimistic about individual responsibilty and success.
Thats why I find it so disturbing. I beg people to reevaluate these socialist ideals. I lived three years in a western european socialist democracy and I can't say I reccomend it. I know this country is socialist already to some degree but not nearly to the degree as western europe and Canada. I hear Dems and Green party supporters suggesting we become more like western europe and Canada and it makes me want to move to another country. Socialist speak of single payer universal health care, and outstanding public transport, high quality welfare, and subsidies. What they don't tell you about is that these things come at a high cost. Starting with and finishing with high taxes for everyone not just the rich. We are talking 60% plus of income in many cases when you tally all the taxes and excises up. I mean just recently in all of europe was in an uproar over fuel taxes because they are so high. What kills me is the French farmers and truckers that belly ache about the fuel tax also go nuts if the French goverment tries to reduce subsidies or services to keep from going deeper into debt or further raising taxes. These folks seem to want everything and expect the government to give it to them as an entitlement. That's exactly what happens when you use promises of the treasury to get someones vote.
The quality of life we have in this country should not be taken for granted. We have it really well in my opinion. In my experience these socialist countries have high unemployment, high public debt, regulations and taxes in the extreme, wasteful government agencies for evrything, regulations that make peoples heads spin, reduced liberties, and very rigid and static class structures. I ask you is this what your really want just so you can feel like you stuck it to the man. I mean come on get real.
You have every opportunity you could ever want here in America. All that you have to do is work hard be determined and persistant. And largely thanks to the fact that we don't yet have such high taxes and over regulation. If you don't believe this then I pitty you and no government program will be able to ease your bitterness.
Also I notice alot of people here rail against how evil big corporations are. I find this to be a naive outlook on the world. Corporations are made up of people and are not inherently evil just like people are not inherently evil. They provide jobs, healthcare, and retirement for most Americans. Who do you propose should do this in their stead the government? Also MS and Cisco did not pay any federal income taxes because they made many of their hard working employees rich through stock options who then paid more money than what MS and Cisco would have in taxes. People who get upset over this just seem envious to me. People should concearn themselves more with there own finances rather than be so envious of other peoples money. Remember people, the money in your wallet is your money, the money in rich folks wallets is there money, and not for you to covet or steal for whatever you feel is socially just. It is a basic liberty that makes this a free country. But for how long is up to you.
Jello Biafra showed us a funny prop from the Democritan National Propaganda Show, Live from LA.
It was a 12" disk saying "Tipper Rocks."
But that's nothing.
Lieberman is the champion of censorship in the Senate. He is one of the people that believes the first amendment freedom of speech means "political speech for the current state of affirs only", freedom of religion means "you must believe in some deity".
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
5) Even if Nader doesn't win, he might get a sufficiently large proportion of the votes to persuade others that it isn't a waste to vote for a third party.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that convicted criminals do not have the same rights as law abiding citizens. For example, prisoners and parolees have considerable limitations on their "rights". ( prison time is an obvious violation of the prisoner's "liberty" ).
Second, I don't see why a law about how to purchase a gun is going to keep a criminal from purchasing one.
In some cases, it might. The world is not as black and white as you think. The world is not neatly divided into "criminals" who have zero regard for the law, and "law abiding citizens" who diligently obey every law. It probably would not prevent hardened criminals from purchasing weapons. It might make it less likely that other offenders buy weapons.
How about we limit library checkouts to 3 items for 2 days so that criminals have less opportunity to research how to make bombs?
That's a stupid analogy. An analogous situation with the guns would be that you allow criminals to borrow them for 2-3 days. I won't bother explaining why I don't think that would be effective.
Ventura in 2004 is exactly the thing I am hoping for as well. Everyone gets so caught up in the fact that he was once a pro wrestler that they forget that at one point in time he was also a Navy S.E.A.L. I seem to remember Reagan getting a lot of this same type of bad publicity for having been an actor, and he did an okay job (all right, I admit it, I'm a Republican :)
However, I've heard that Ventura will not even run for the governorship of MN after this term--that he just wanted to shake up politics a little bit. Can anyone confirm or dispute this?= =
==========================================
You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB
That is his stated position. Of course, he once said he had no interest in going beyond mayor (I believe--that was his prior gov't post, right?) before running for governor.
I'm still hoping. The guy is a breath of fresh air.
--Be human.
I think we should all be able to sell our votes, if the politicians can buy them.
Wes Leonard http://www.wesleonard.com
The part about the ecological and economic damage that socialist polcies did to Eastern Europe, yes, I believe.
What Nader advocated is, interestingly, seen as utopian and/or extremist in the US. The funny part is that it's just social democracy à l'european. Social democracy that's even supported by what you'd call 'conservative' parties (excluding the tories in UK which are really conservative and just as prostituted to big businesses like the demoblicans).
And yeah, right, we just live in soviet union. Silly troll.
--
If the coffee was too hot for human consumption...
Of course it was. Anyone who drinks coffee knows that it's boiled in the percolation (or analogous) process and usually kept somewhat below the boiling point before consumption. That's the way it happens when I make coffee at home, that's the way it happens when McDonalds makes a pot/vat. Who would that woman have held responsible if she had just made her own coffee at home and then spilled it in her lap?
Besides, that's part of the joy of drinking a cup of coffee: sipping it gently and letting it cool to your preferred drinking temperature.
If you can't keep hot beverages out of your lap, don't get the coffee.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Surprise, surprise, Microsoft has given AT LEAST $50,000 to BOTH candidates George W. Gore and Al Bush. I've tried to submit a story about Who's Giving The Big Bucks To BushGore. Read 66 Smart Billionaires for the full list.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Here's the guy I'm voting for:
Harry Browne
Vote Libertarian
I'm surprised I'm not hearing more Libertarian support on Slashdot. Not surprising your ignorant caller thought Nader == Undecided, but I wonder if she would have even known who Browne was?
if it could be guaranteed that confiscation would not follow.
Who's word would you take as a guarantee? Since (as previously pointed out), registration of firearms has NEVER in the world's history NOT led to confiscation, I'd be wary.
Finkployd
A few days ago, a telephone pollster called me asking about the election.
Most of her questions were so vague, I didn't answer them, ie. "Would you vote for the candidate that would cut taxes.?"
But she asked if I would vote for Gore or Bush, so I told her Nader. She then said, "Oh, so you're undecided?"
I got nasty, "No, I'm not undecided, I decided I would vote for Nader."
Dipshit, but it sure felt good.
I saw Nader on Politically Incorrect way before he was a candidate. He actually was in strong support of hat old woman who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on her own lap.
There's 2 sides to this story -- me too I thought, initially, that this suit was bogus. It turns out that it was'nt really that frivolous. The lady got REALLY badly burnt, think hospital, HR, surgery ... not just inconvenienced. And I'm not going to cry for McDonald's ...
That we're all helpless consumers who must be protected at all costs from big evil companies crap is just too extreme for me.
We are, without the protection of the law.
--
Wow. Things like this make me wish that Nader could win.
He's the only truly independent candidate, and the only one whose reforms we should truly trust.
Ah well. Such is life in these United States.
|/usr/games/fortune
Yeah, I took it too... It seems they think I'm a left-liberal. Funny tho - every other poll puts me as a fairly staunch conservative. I wonder how they can judge based on 10 questions that point very much to an extreme libertarian POV.
Addlepated - punk & metal
Ther is something called Manpower or voter power in this case, which has nothing to do with money power.
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Holy shit, where did this take place??? That's terrible!!!!
the point I tried to make basically is that people who don't have a lot of cash just don't make it, I mean, if you'd try and become president with *just* $1M, you'd be lost.
No arguement there. However, my point was that individuals do not need to be rich in order to be elected. The campaigns that support them do. Campaigns with an electable candidate (combo of ideas, charisma, high-profile support) tend to get wealthy rather quickly.
Communism: 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
Socialism: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Both definitions courtesy EB.com.
There are a major difference between socialism and communism: in a socialist state a) all are not equal, and may be paid differently, while theoretical communism means all are paid the same; b) the government controls the means of production and how it's distributed, whereas a communist state has the owners own the factories and theoretically all can access the products as needed.
The US is not a democracy or a socialist state; it is a corporate republic, where the biggest corps get their concerns heard first and, if there's time in the end, maybe a few, minor issues could be heard.
Now, you say Browne's politics are 'excellent.' That's all well and good, but governments are needed to protect people from those who would abuse them.
A weak government is an invitation for a large corporation to come in and abuse the people. (See Nike's Asian sweatshops.)
Governments are needed to make sure companies don't screw the workers by paying them less than the minimum wage (though even that wage is a piece of shit).
Governments are needed to keep monopolies out of the picture.
Finally, what good is your bitching if you don't vote? Your vote DOES make a difference.
If you live in a state which is supposedly locked up for a certain candidate, then why not vote? If you like the supposed winner, it won't make a difference, and if you don't like the assuming prick, then you'll be helping your candidate!
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
I don't agree with his political beliefs. That's all it takes. Sure, he is probably the most moral and honest candidate, and I respect that. however, if I don't agree with his political beliefs, why would I vote for him. I'm more likely to vote Brown.
Finkployd
I find it amusing that the techies (and /. ) seem to support Gore. But, in general, scientists and techies have tended to side with the democrats or communists (no slam here) rather than more conservative groups
Techies and scientists tend to be thoughtful, intelligent people. Thoughtful, intelligent people are offended by the Republican party, both as a moral watchdog organization and for helping the rich and powerful become more so.
"Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness." -Robert A. Heinlen
Now I'm being grouped with all those Nader freaks.
:^P Both were neat, but unworkable solutions at the time.
Oh well, the principled side of me would vote for Nader, but the historically biased and forward looking side says that Bush is the safe bet.
I guess that kind of reflects on my schizophrenic preferences of OS's; MacOS first, UNIX flavors second, and, oh that's it. For me, BeOS was a phase like my support of Perot
By the way, this might appear on the surface to be off-topic, but I contest that it is a viable (yes stretched) comparison. I value my OS's by what they bring to the table. MacOS is nice to work with, but doesn't have the depth of UNIX. Similarly, I don't look at the candidates themselves, as much as I look to what they would bring with their administration.
To me, Gore is a GPF waiting to happen, show over substance (ala Windows). Bush surrounds himself with more stable people that do their jobs well (UNIX). Nader, well he pulls few punches, but I would be fearful of a government run by his supporters. Nader's administration would be like the MacOS switch from 68k to PPC instructions. Some parts ran extremely fast, but the old code ran slower because of the overhead of interfacing the new with the old. This would be similar to Nader bringing a hyperactive core to Washington, interfacing with the existing beuarocracy.
Just my thoughts.
-- Len
If only there were more people like you in the world... sigh.
-----
Did you ever wonder if the current high price of gas is what is paying for the Republican election campaign?
In my observation, the general rule is that Democrats get into hot water over sex, while Republicans get into trouble over money.
And, I'm curious why being against the death penalty isn't a legitimate reason to vote for/against someone? I'm personally all for it, but it's no less a devisive issue than abortion, and people should consider a person's view on both topics when considering who to vote for.
What I find hypocritical is that the present administration made a big deal about having increased the number of Federal crimes for which the death penalty could be imposed. Now that it's expedient to do so, it's trying to make Bush out as some sort of 'Maximum George' for letting prisoners be executed for their crimes. Of course, no one has been executed for a Federal crime since 1964, but hey, we've gotten the laws on the books, so I guess that's all that counts.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
To me, full libertarianism (aka anarchy) must be defeated at all costs.
However, essentially being a capitalist, I still don't have an hysterical reaction to socialism, as socialist concepts are supported by people democratically the world over and the concept has proven to work well in education and health care (i.e., everyone deserves a base level of education and health care guaranteed by a polity we all can work to democratically maneuver).
America requires a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism to work. It's time to end the hysterical equation of socialism to communism and the Soviet Union.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Project Vote Smart has something they call the NPAT (National Political Awareness Test or something like that). It's basically a crib sheet for voters that shows candidate support for various policies (though it could take as much as 10-15 minutes to wade through, far exceeding the attention span of the average voter).
Now, our main two contestants (W and Gore) have declined to answer the questions. This isn't too surprising, considering they have much more to gain by continuing to engage in the spin-centered tactics they now employ than providing actual info. Because the people at vote smart are dilligent, they've filled out NPATs for W and Gore from public statements they've made, and left blanks where there's no public statement.
But guess what? Nader didn't fill out an NPAT! Despite being contacted repeatedly by vote-smart people, including relative political luminaries Michael Dukkakis and Geraldine Ferraro. Nader has almost NOTHING to gain by using the same spin tactics that our mainstream friends do. His entire campaign base really should be people who are actually semi-informed. What's going on here? Nader starting to dodge?
Harry Browne did fill one out incidentally, but after reading it, I know I can't vote for him, even though he gets big bonus points for actually putting his views on a clear record.
Take a look at the list. I think you'll be surprised at the sheer number of candidates -- I couldn't take the time to go through each one (so I basically weeded out everyone who couldn't come up with a running mate). And it's interesting that those who fill out the NPAT are the ones who have the least publicity. Stardom going to your head, Ralph?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
What I think I really want is Jesse Ventura (maybe in 2004?).
What, you mean, a former wrestler for president? Why not an actor while you're at it?
Anyway, Jesse has said really cool things about religions (they suck), and he has my support. Not that it matters, eh eh.
--
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Nader believes in a *maximum* wage? Face it he's off his friggin bird. Sure he recognizes corporations are out of control, but his solution is HUGE government actting with impunity as it completely FORCES socialization of the econonomy.
Not only does this NOT WORK, it will lead to complete domination of people in every aspect of their lives. 5000 years of history proves this. (The more privledge you give a ruling class the more they will abuse it)
I don't want that shit. I want FREEDOM!
Small Government
Personal Freedom
LIBERTARIAN
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/
There's another option, if privacy and freedom from censorship are your priorities. The Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne, stands firmly against any regulation which would restrict the internet, or any other form of speech. This has been the Libertarian policy for years. If you take Nader's advice to "vote your conscience", maybe Libertarian is the way to cast your vote.
Did he every say Germany when he said 40 countries?
He said "every major industrialized country" except the US.
If you disagree that Germany is a "major industrialized country" you have a legitimate beef with my post. If not, don't waste my time.
-
If every gun were registered along with its ballistic characteristics in a big ol' database, it would then be possible to determine, to some degree, which guns were likely to have been used in a murder. This would simplify the job of detecting &c.
But as long as there are tyrants wishing to deprive us, this cannot be. And there will always be that sort of sub-rational twit in this world.
Actually, I would vote to "not vote" (yes, that's an option on the ballot) if it weren't for Nader. I think he could change a lot more things for the better. He's been a consumer advocate for a long time, and I think its high time we have someone looking out for the consumer instead of being bought out by big business. Anyhow, I feel that the electorial college is crap, and that takes it away from true democracy.
witty sig goes here
Gore's basically stated he's against the death penalty. When they panned to him nodding, I think that was more "Ah, ha! He fell into my trap!" (which technically wasn't his trap, just that a majority of the US population is against the death penalty, therefore as Bush shows his support for something more than half the country disagrees with, Gore knows that's a point for him he didn't even have to earn)
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
That is not what I said at all. People should be paying their taxes based on their income...that's why its called INCOME tax.
If the rich own 40% of the income producing entities, then they should be paying taxes on that income. That's their fair share. But, why should someone making $125K be paying a higher rate than say, somebody making $40K? Is that really fair?
But, if they are allowed to hide that income, then I do have a problem with it. Do away with the loop holes and make everyone pay a flat tax. Make corporations pay the same taxes as individuals except make them also responsible for paying a larger share of Social Security and such as they are now.
The only exception to this rule should be for those making below poverty level or if the amount of taxes charged would push them into poverty level.
I'm glad he finally posted something about Nader, but it wasn't Nader's best writing on the subject, and he had to qualify it with "self-promotional" as if the news stories on Bush and Gore are anything other than reprinted press releases from the campaigns!
JMC
There are now many exceptions to the orginal law that created the SSN. Businesses are allowed to require your SSN before doing business with you. You are not required to give it to them though. Your alternative is to go elsewhere. Sad, but true.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The wuestions may be slanted, but I'll bet that those questions ended up in the hands of the other candidates too, and they haven't put their answesr up on their web sites. I really doubt that either Bush or Gore would answer the questions the same way. Neither probably know about the serious privacy abuses, let alone have any concern about the fact that we're the only country in the world (practically speaking) that has a government that just doesn't care about its citizens' privacy. I think that Nader's answers to the question prove that he is at least knowledgeable about the issue, has some interest in it, and even has a few ideas about what can be done to fix it.
i have no legs.
My primary story is a little more amusing. I and my wife went to the polling place, handed over the cards we had been sent and stated our party affiliations --- Independent and Libertarian --- which were also indicated on the cards.
The guy running the place ignored us and said "two Democrats" to his coworker.
We ended up with the right ballots eventually. But I wonder how many people at that polling place didn't. Ah, the wonders of volunteer labor.
(BTW, California's open primary is a farce, since they still have to print a different ballot for each party--- so that they can report the count on a per-party basis.)
Essentially, they organize it in two axis-- personal and economic "self-governance". They are, not coincidentally, the virtuous maximum point on both scales, according to themselves.
They also come out as being "dead center". But, since they insist on deregulation, which by removing accountability gives more power to corporations, they are quite simply a rightist party.
Also, note how their diamond graph excludes ideologies from the political landscape. The most blatant exclusions is anarchists, who believe in maximizing personal and economic self-government, but reject capitalism as counter to these goals. Also, the typical progressive answer to the quiz will land you into the "Left Liberal" camp, where they conclude you "prefer [...] central decision-making in economic matters" (a.k.a. the USSR economy) because you think people deserve to make a minimum wage, governments should subsidize basic goods such as food, people might not necessarily be "better off" with free trade, you believe taxing people is better than user fees (which leave the rich free not pay for services they'd have to share with the poor and instead go for private alternatives, with disastrous effects on the quality of services the poor can afford), and finally, you believe the government should give out foreign aid.
This is self-evidently stupid, prejudiced and self-serving.
Seems that if the Greens want to have a massive redistribution of wealth, Social Security Numbers are going to be thrown around everywhere. I'm sure the government will need them to track all those family trusts they will be attaching. What about cash transactions? Will they need to be recorded? What about banks? I'm sure we will need some sort of Know Your Customer type regulations to prevent the rich from hiding income.
I like Nader and am in agreement with the Greens drug war stance. I'm afraid that Nader will replace the drug war with a new War On Income that will create a constitutional erosion and a decrease in privacy that will make the drug war seem tame.
Umm...the 19th century. I wasn't there (obviously), but it's arguable that Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt were elected more on personality than issues. And every election since the dawn of radio has been more about media manipulation than about platform stances.
CPSR sponsors The Social Security Number FAQ, which should answer all of your questions. Of course, don't expect to like any of the answers...
Are you moderating this down because you disagree with it,
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Actually, Al's the one who listened to the Dead...
:)
Tipper's the one who formed the PMRC after catching her daughter listening to a Prince song.
Of course, Frank Zappa effectively shut that down...
No, Tipper is the big Deadhead, check out the book Skeleton Key.
Also, read here, Tipper is a rabid Stones and Dead fan.
Don't argue with me, I'm a deadhead.
Our system is not a two-party system. The Constitution intentionally has no mention of political parties at all.
A one-party system is a farcical democracy where no choice exists. A two-party system is only one choice bettern than none at all, and the Republicrats are trying to make this de-facto for the US.
Our system has been corrupted by two-party collusion to exclude other parties. These are the same two parties that will never support preferential voting* because they know it would cut into their power base.
The only way we can get it is by voting for third-party candidates like Nader who are pushing for political reforms.
* aka: Proportional Representation, Instant Runoff Elections, etc.
For more info, check out The Center for Voting and Democracy
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Vote NADER only a idiot that likes to see good american people put out of work would vote otherwise.
Got Code?
Normally I would keep my mouth shut... or maybe not... but anyway, for once I'm going to come out and say how I'm going to vote to the whole public.
1) I _AM_ going to vote.
2) For president, I am voting for...
No one. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of the presidential candidates. If the best our country has to offer are a stiff twit from Tennessee whose political views are dictated by the polls, a spoiled rich brat from Texas who can act all "aw-shucks" folksey on camera but has something of a temper, an isolationist who is about as warm and cuddly as a porcupine and Ralph Nader, I truly pity us. I've seen all the pro-Nader stuff here, but I honestly believe we can do much better, and I'm not talking about Larry Ellison (who I hear has secret political aspirations.)
In short, I'm voting for candidates I support. I don't support any presidential candidates, so I'm not voting for the electoral college.
that|smoke
----------
Something cleverIn this article (part of a Wired debate on technology policy between Nader and Gore advisor Reed Hundt, former chairman of the FCC during the Clinton/Gore administration), Nader speaks up about the CDA, DMCA, silly patents, and other dangers of continuing to elect corporate stooges like Gore and Bush.
Here's a great (although long) quote:
JMC
Good for you, that's what I'm doing also. Remember, your vote is not going to decide the election. Bush or Gore is going to win regardless of whether you or I vote for Bush, Browne, or Cthulu. The truly wasted vote is when you vote for the lesser of two evils, because you have declared that you support something that you don't.
Go Harry!
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
$previous_post=~s/gun/car/g;
print $previous_post;
"There is no reason to have universal car registration except for confiscation. Nowhere in the history of this world has car registration NOT lead (sic) to confiscation..."
Oh, wait, that's different -- if some moron gets a hold of a car and goes 95 miles per hour through a residential area, he might hurt somebody! Thankfully, guns require no such safeguards -- any moron can blast away without fear of the Big Bad Gummint coming to check up on exactly what they are blasting away at. God Bless America!!!
Read my blog.
Actually, he suggested cutting some fairly big ticket items, such as the Agriculture, certain chucks of foreign affairs, Social Security (through means tests) and the National Guard. Plus a bunch of stuff I can't remember off the top of my head. It was by no means a 'fair' cut, but it was, as he described, fun.
:)
The test he used was 'Would you kill your saintly, grey-haired grandmother for this government program?"
Some things passed, such as National Defense (we need someone to protect us from those Canadian Hordes waiting to invade and force us to eat funny round bacon), and others didn't, such as National Parks (under the idea that people who can afford Winnabegos can afford park fees).
The entire essay, and in fact, the entire book, is extremely tongue in cheek. Not for the faint of mind.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Good for you! Though Nader is about as far as possible from my ideal candidate, I applaud you for voting your conscience. People like you (and me) make the system really work the way it's supposed to. That's what a representative-democratic republic is about.
Constitutionally Correct
Yes I know this is totally asking for a flaming, but the more I hear about the election the more I feel lucky Im in the great white north (Canada eh).
I will however enjoy the party on the 7th while Im in the capital for ColdFusion Dev 2000 (5th-8th). So I guess I just want someone to win. Either way it isnt going to affect me much.
Maybe I'll sneak into a voting booth and vote for the Canaiderian.
Hello?!? I don't know where these graduates get their new math, but where do these flunkies get off saying, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush"?
Because the people who would vote for Nader would probably vote for Gore if Nader were not in the race.
For example, without Nader, the vote could be split in a given state by 52% Gore vs 48% Bush.
However, when you add Nader to the mix, it becomes 47% Gore vs 48% Bush vs 5% Nader.
Again, this is because Nader is drawing his voting block from people who would otherwise select Gore.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Oh man. Do you realize what this means?
Thank you, Coward, for exposing this terrible Red Menace!
damn and me w/ no mod, points...
:)
on a related note, do you know if the CCC, is planing on expanding it's college coverage? here in DC we could REALLY use some good old Cthulu loving...
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
Anyone who's ever had even a rudementary economics class can tell you the minimum wage is the most useless scam imaginable. It's very simple. Companies sell their products at a profit, which is some amount marked up beyond the cost of producing that product. The cost of producing the product breaks down into materials, tools, and labor. Raising the minimum wage only have one of two effects. Either the price of the product increases that much more, meaning the laboror has the same buying power he did before the wage increase because the increase caused inflation; or the company keeps the price the same while decreasing the amount of labor to produce the product, by putting a certain number of the laborers out on the street.
Do you really think its a good idea to have more/bigger government to protect us from the 'evil corporations'?
Lets look at one of the most famous of polution disasters, 'Love Canal'. The fact of the matter is that the company who owned the chemical dump was maintaining the dump in a very good state. Considering they were maintaining it in the 50's the dump site was kept to standards that would even meet current EPA regulations! The county was desparate for cheap land to build more schools and threatened the company with 'emminant domain' if it did not sell. The school district then disregarded all warnings the orginal owners made and dug up and through most of the site unleashing the chemical mess that ultimately occured. Government at work.
Examine some of the things that have been labeled 'corporate welfare'. For example ADM gets a very large subsidy to make ethanol from corn.. I think this subsidy or 'corporate welfare' is in the billions. Ever wonder why they are getting this subsidy? Because someone in our goverment thought that creating this subsidy would help environmental issues by encouraging ethanol over conventional gasoline. The car companies get substantial 'corporate welfare' to develop electric vehicles for the same reason.
Even the most basic things, like starting a business, have been damaged by government control. A hundred years ago it was fairly simple and straight-forward to start your own business. Anyone with the courage and ideas to attempt it could. Now there is so much government regulation that anyone thinking of starting one needs a tremendous outlay of capital to pay lawyers and accountants to ensure the new business meets all the federal and state regulations.
Perhaps some guy in his garage had the greatest idea for a competitor for windows but couldn't afford to go through all the work to start a business. Perhaps that person instead just joined up with microsoft and handed his idea over making a big powerful corporation that much more powerful.
While 'government intervention' might be good in theory it usually has the opposite effect in practice... Making the playing field less fair rather than more fair. A strong government is an invitation for corporations to controll the people by influencing the politicians who run said government.
Finally I'd say that if you don't like how a corporation works then don't buy their product. Nobody says you have to own Nike shoes.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
I don't like a lot of the way things work either, but guess what, that's politics.
So how do you think politics changes? By voting for the crap they offer us or by voting your conscience? Hey, if your conscience sez 'Vote Gore' then you go, girl. My conscience sez 1)Never vote for the incumbent (mostly applies to Congressional elections) and 2)Vote outside the two party system when you can. I'm all for stirring up trouble and fscking with the status quo. Politics as usual sucks and I don't vote for it at all. Sure my candidates of choice may not have a chance, but if Jesse Ventura can get elected, so could Nader (or Browne, or whoever).
So if you're in a state that isn't in play and you want to register your protest, go ahead and vote for Nader.
I blame this on the electoral college. Don't think on the state level, Ack! Every vote counts! Write in your 7th grade science teacher if you want to, but don't vote for someone you hate just because you think they could win. That's NOT the point of voting. This is not the Bud Bowl, folks.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
In many states, the deadline for registering to vote has already (or will soon) passed. Unless there's been a surge in voter registration lately (which I haven't heard anything about), the "54%" number is completely bogus. Of course, even many registered voters don't go to the polls... maybe they just see it as a way of signing up for annoygin jury duty? ;)
I don't live in the US, I live in Holland, we have a different political system, and it works for me/ us, ofcourse, I don't pretend to be totally objective, but I'm going to go through some points.
- In Holland, seats in the house are awarded on total votes, not on how many districts a certain party has won, this allows:
A) Even small parties to actively participate in ruling, and more importantly, make sure they're heard.
B) No truly dominating party/ parties, parties are forced to grow and reform or else they will die out.
- The Prime minster isn't voted in by the people per say, but rather is chosen from one of the parties which is picked to rule, this allows for A ruler to truly be chosen on his merits, he's chosen by his peers, people who all know him personally and can judge him better than the average Joe
- No party in Holland is rich, donations are seriously limited, and the prime minsters usually aren't particularly rich either, it's obvious that this leads to less corruption, as money simply isn't that big an issue in elections.
The biggest problem I see with the political system the US and several other countries use?
Basically, there are 2 parties, it's nearly impossible for more to have actual power, the Democrats and Republicans are allpowerfull, and have been for very, very long, too long I'd say.
These 2 parties are oftentimes fighting eachother more than actually looking out for what's important, how many times will you see both parties either agreeing on a proposal, and how often will you see individual members vote against their own party?
The 2 party system is a dinosaur, it's a corrupt system from top to bottom, ridiculous laws are still upheld, if you look at it objectively, you KNOW that guns should be banned, however, because of the amazing amount of cash this industry represents nothing is done against it, and as a result 10 year olds are blowing each others heads off.
I could go on for days about this, it's the one reason I'd never want to live in the US, I'm afraid that such a juggernaut of a country has such appaling leadership, I worry about nuclear hollocaust still, religious violence, civil war, and I thank the light that I live in Holland, and say thanks that our prime minister can't even buy himself a ferrari, and that the dude lacks all charisma, but still rules my country, simply because he is GOOD.
---- Stage 5 of drinking : Politics begin to appeal
I beg to differ on that. We have to have a license in order to drive a motor vehicle. It shows that we can competently operate the machine and have knowledge of traffic laws. We have to go through alot more red tape in order to drive than in order to purchase a handgun.
I think that if you have a legitimate reason to own a gun (hunting, defense, sport, etc--all are perfectly valid), a basic license shouldn't be a big deal. Sure, criminals are going to get ahold of guns if they want one, but a short waiting period and registration of a weapon isn't going to throw a monkeywrench into most people buying a gun.
Hey, but if somebody down the line really decides to take all the guns away, I'll be right there with you to defend it--probably with a illegal gun at that point.
But, don't start accusing people of taking away the guns just because someone wants some basic precautions taken. Remember, we go through more hassle in order to drive.
Cheers.
-- "I'll be posting more crap soon, I swear!"
www.dynamanga.net
Now, Gore and Nader both subscribe to what can be loosely described as 'liberal' policies.
That just might be the most clueless statement I've ever heard. You apparently have no idea WHAT a liberal is.
Ronald Reagan was a liberal; all the free market pukes have been liberals. These policies are called neo-liberalism for a REASON. Free marketeers need a SOCIALLY conservative (fascist) state within which to run their show. Their economics, on the other hand, are all about liberalism, and have been since Adam Smith.
Gore and Bush are identical. Just because they differ on non-issues like abortion (remember, only the already living support abortion!) doesn't mean they're not cut from the same cloth. The fact that the Gun Rack crowd here is trotting out the Communist epithet against Nader means that he's different; he is certainly NOT a liberal in the Rush Limbaugh-sense of the word.
Please watch your "loosely described" references. Not only are they colloquial; they're wrong.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
Last I checked, a vote for Nader adds only to Nader. It adds nothing to either of the opposing candidates. It underscores the fact that we do deserve more than 'one choice more than Russia.' It furthers the outcry of the popular vote when the popular vote is otherwise silenced by a Duopoloistic electoral college.
Maybe instead of improving the quantity of education, they should start with the quality of their own! ;-)
The problem I have with everyone getting upset over gun restrictions is I don't see the difference between explosives and guns...or for that matter the spudgun (see this /. article If we restrict spudguns and explosives, why not guns?
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
i watched nader on the daily show last night. that combined with this article make me really want to vote for him. i just don't want to waste my vote. does nader have any real chance of winning?
But really, can't we just hunt and protect ourselves with standard rifles and pistols? Why the military weaponry?
Seems to me that it depends entirely on what you might have to defend yourself against. If it's a burglar with a knife or pistol, then a standard pistol or rifle might be enough. Of course having an H&K MP5 handy would probably scare the hell out of the burglar and you wouldn't have to use it anyway.
Now, if it came down to revolution time (which, history tells us, does happen every few hundred years at least due to the tendency of governments to become increasingly corrupt over time), it would be good for the citizens of the country to be able to defend themselves against well-equiped police and military units when necessary. Now there are many arguments on this subject having to do with whether or not a civilian force can compete against M1A1 tanks and F-16 fighters if it came down to that. Well that's deceptive really. It wouldn't be a stand-up fight. It would be a guerilla war and it's quite likely that the military would be operating significantly under normal strength (due to those who would refuse to fight and/or resign/desert). I'm not advocating revolution here. I'm just pointing out that its historically inevitable that it will happen, and that we, as citizens, should not allow ourselves to be further disarmed by our government. I don't have a problem with violent felons being denied the right to purchase firearms. I do take issue with generally law-abiding citizens being denied that right.
Additionally, new weapons laws are quite likely to have little to no positive effect on murder rates or violence in general. Usually, criminals who use a gun to commit a crime have already broken half a dozen or more gun laws in the process. I think something on the order of 17 laws were broken in the Columbine killings. What difference would it make to these people if they break another law or two?
It's already been demonstrated with the drug war that you can't prevent things from being brought into the country if there is a demand for them. You can just drive up the cost and create more criminal activity. Criminals will still get guns. Better to let non-criminals have a means of self-defense. The police are not there to defend you. They show up later and take pictures of your corpse.
Next point. Gun accidents. Yes, they happen. No, a family member or friend is not more likely to be killed by the gun than an intruder or attacker unless you add in suicides and incidents where the attacker is a family member or "friend" (which, for the purposes of the study, usually translates to "someone whose name you know"). That assertion is just anti-gun propoganda.
All things considered, I believe that citizens should be allowed to own weapons, even automatic weapons. I've been thinking about the licensing and registration issues a bit. I'm definitely against registration due to the near inevitability that it will be used to aid in confiscation if the politacal winds begin to blow in that direction. Licensing is a bit tougher to decide on. I would prefer that gun-owners demonstrate some competency in using and taking care of their weapons. I don't want a license to be used to aid confiscation efforts by tying you to a particular gun purchase though. If there was a way to license people without helping the government to keep track of us and our purchases, I might support that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
That's why we need campaign finance reform.
(-;
|/usr/games/fortune
Also notice that Dubya has gotten more donations from high tech companies. I wonder if a large part of that is from Microsoft. Dubya has already said that he's against breaking MS apart. I think it'd be in Gates' best interest to side with Dubya.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
See?
I love the car == gun analogy.
Exactly where in the constitution is it that you have the right to keep and bear cars?
Driving a car (on public roads) is a privilege which you can obtain by entering into a contract with your state government.
California has registration, of all assault "type" weapons. Guess what it has lead to, the confiscation of the SKS type and similar models. Since the states are doing this registration/confiscation scheme anyway, why would they stop it. Also when the Federal gevernment cuts off funding, how long have states EVER fought back.
A student of History would focus your attention on a period of only eighty years ago, in a little country called Germany. A well meaning and benevolent government instated after the first World War used a simple equation:
Guns = War = Bad
And so they removed the right to bear arms from the German populace. Warm fuzzy feelings abounded because people don't need guns, only the army needs them.
A few years later, a suave new leader swept into power. Few opposed him, how could they, he controlled the army. A strict vegetarian, this new leader valued animal life above human. Little wonder the extermination camps he built to rid society of the undesireables. The Jews of the hollocaust, the homosexuals, the Roman Catholics that refused to conform to this leader's new pagan religion based on Wagner operas, all had no way to defend themselves when they were taken away. They did not have the freedom to speak or be heard. They did not have the right to privacy in their own homes.
When you remove the right of self-defense, all others follow. Let me remind you that all types of guns that we know today, the ones you argue against, existed back then as well. Only the materials of construction are different.
-- Len
THINK! Your social security number HAS to be used by the government. Sheesh. You MUST have it to GET social security and pay into social security. You need a social security number for the military too.
First off, the "most" government agencies meant USE of the number. They MUST use the number. Hell, it is a number generated for you BY the government, you paranoid wacko. It is an imperfect sentence not meant to imply that government agencies (ANY) should SELL social security numbers, only USE the numbers.
Guess what goober, your driver's license number is a government generated number associated with YOU too - your address, phone number, vehicle, legal record, etc. OH MY GAWD!
You ARE overly paranoid and very much a knee-jerker. THINK before you spout, please. I know it is hard to concentrate with all those black helicoptors buzzing around your hideaway, trying to find you. All those jack-booted thugs, traipsing about in the woods near you, hunting YOU because YOU are sooooo important DANGEROUS. Gee-aw!
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
The biggest problem I have with Gore is he is married to the Queen of Censorship. Remember way back when she and a group of "concerned parents" were trying to censor rock music?
While she isn't a candidate she is married to him. She has a measure of influence on the office. Just think about the influence Nancy Reagan and Hilary Rodham-Clinton have had.
As for Ralph, it looks like he's been reading Simson Garfinkel's _Database Nation_.
Ralph seems to have some good ideas. Too bad he isn't involved in the debates, it would make them more interesting
Why vote for the lesser evil.
I'm reminded about this every time I see those self serving politicians.
The truth is that they don't care. They'll say anything to get votes. The way to get votes is to appeal to the extremists. moderates don't vote.
Right now they're busily trying to associate themselves with the internet on the basis that being connected with it makes them sound high tech and forward thinking. If they really felt like that then they would be anti censorship. Not pro. I bet none of these high tech candidates even know what TCP/IP stands for. As a result, none of them will get my vote. Cthulu will.
Man, Ralph's sounding more and more like a real politician every day.
Note: "most government agencies." Which ones are the exeption? Surely Ralph knows that federal law prohibits the use of the SSN as an identifier for any purpose other than Social Security benefits? Surely he knows this law is completely disregarded? Surely he's not proposing more legislation instead of enforcing the laws we already have?
Ralph's got a lot of good ideas in this Q & A, but he's cutting them down to sound bites. One of the reasons I don't support him for President is that he's more effective as a consumer advocate when he can tell the whole truth. Running for office he has to say "I think..." and "I support..." a dozen times a day, but doesn't have the latitude to propose actual solutions.
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
Although I agree with your premise, your response was not helpful in the context of furthering the discussion. Perhaps we could edit the flame to remove the incendiary verbiage....:
...[ (the poster feels it is very tiresome to listen to Gore apologists attempt to refute this) ]...
His exact quote is, "During my service in congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet.". Basically, he is saying that he created the internet. [...] The internet was CREATED in the 60s. And him being dishonest to the American people shows what type of administration he is going to bring in. What kind of [incorrect] interpretation is that? [...(flamage)...]
After all, this is the point of the discussion...
I haven't decided what I think of gun registration, but I do know that Congress is highly unlike to pass such legislation, so Gore is indeed a safe choice for gun owners.
By the way, I think Gore wants the states to do the registration (like for cars), not the federal government--that may be in line with the 2nd amendment. If the federal government wanted to confiscate, a state could fight back.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
nt
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
But... ummmm... the Republicans do have two platforms. I mean, no, they're not coming out and saying it, but do you really think that the theocrats and other right-wing nuts have all left the Republican Party? No, they're staying quiet until after the election.
Bush is a stealth candidate for the Republican right-wingers. I don't believe he's really as moderate as he's trying to sound right now.
Oh no, that could never happen in the USA. The very thought of a powerful entity to protect rights rather than profits... that just sails too close to socialism which as we all know is just another word for the scourge of communism.
Yes, this is a troll. I just can't believe that Americans would want their rights to be trampled in order to support an unfettered business market. Who cares about money when life's not worth living?
Does my bum look big in this?
The trouble is most techies have no time for rich Frat Brats like Bush. We make out way based on our skills, not the fact that Daddy's buddies will always bail us out when we screw up.
Okay, this is pretty cool...
Should the US Government create a watchdog agency to protect US citizens from privacy invasions from other government offices or from corporations?
Yes. The US is the only major industrialized country in the World without such an agency. More than 40 countries have them. An aggressive, independent watchdog agency is essential to protect citizens' privacy from corporate and governmental invasions.
Still, I'd rather go to my Democratic preceinct meeting, bring up this issue, have it voted on, and make it part of the Democratic platform than vote for a candidate who wants to take our trade practices back to 1930's isolationism rather than figure out ways to support the individual and worker in a global society...
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
You need a license to drive a car, not own one. You can own a million cars, even drive them on private property, without a license. A license to drive is more equatable with a license to carry concealed weapons. Both will require you to demonstrate competancy so that you don't kill innocent people.
Wired is running an article in which Declan McCollough traces the history of the mythical contention by Al Gore that he "invented the Internet". The article compares to Bogart's never-actually-uttered famous phrase, "Play it again, Sam." Just an FYI.
jMC
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
wookin' pa nub in all the wrong pwaces
For the analogy to be complete, you have to recall that I am being forced to pay for this roof, and you're telling me that it's better than no roof at all, even though I know that if I had that money that I was forced to pay for my share of the roof, I could easily buy myself a good tent or umbrella that would do much better. Just becuase some idiots might spend their tent money on beer and whores, then die of pneumonia in the rain, doesn't mean its the duty of a federal government to protect them from themselve by creating something to screws over everyone else.
Harry Browne is the candidate for people who have enough sense to get a tent and are bloody tired of that damn roof of bureaucracy dripping on them! Nader and all the rest just think we need more and better roofs, then all will be well, but they just don't get it: for the big roof to exist, it has to be made by people (roofers) who inherintly, no matter how hard they try, cannot meet the varying needs of our citizens, and they are also going to make mistakes, which we ALL will have to sufer for. I don't want to live in a big Mansion, and I don't think the big mansion is a very American idea. It should be a neighborhood you're free to build whatever kind of shelter you want, or none at all, and long you don't build it on my land.
Call me crazy, but I'd like the rest of my freedom, please, and I'm voting Libertarian.
~full tide~
"Linux is only free if your time has no value."
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
While Gore won the backing of some of high-tech's biggest names, Republican foe George W. Bush has managed to get more of the industry's campaign donations.
A democrat communist might say that while the industry wants Gore to win, they want to pay off Bush in case he wins. Honestly, soft money, and the ability of corporations to buy legislation is a problem which Gore has hypocritcally addressed, and Bush has kinda let slide.
A republican nazi might venture to say that the 420 high-tech leaders are probably CEOs of companies, and are interested in seeing their pockets get bigger as a result of Gore's new targetted tax cuts. As for the money, there is something to say about actions speaking louder than words, and $972,199 is a lot of action.
Less we not forget, Vint Cerf is a high level executive of MCI Worldcomm, and is on the ICANN board of directors. Both organizations having their own agendas. And I really don't think Mr. Cerf's recommendation of Al Gore is of the same rational as we think.
One more thing. Ralph Nader really seems to "get it". This makes him dangerous, to the other candidates, and to big business.
This right exists in the US only to a very limited extent, in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and it is time to expand this right to other areas of commerce.
Interesting that he mentions the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which only allows you to access your credit information under certain conditions, otherwise you have to pay for it. Some states have expanded this, and I think something should be done on the federal level.
A system that does not have preferential voting is a two party system.
BTW, I should clarify something -- I use "preferential voting" to describe what your link calls "instant runoffs". Proportional representation is OK, but it has the tendency to break if the major parties always vote along party lines ( they do in Australia, but don't so much in the US )
I suppose helping Nader over the appropriate threshold will help him get airtime and help him promote electoral reform.
There will likely be 2-3 seats of the Supreme Court up for reappointment in the next administration. I think that control of this is more important than the worthy longer term goal of getting more choices on the ballot. But not everybody's vote will make a big difference on that.
Here's my opinion:
Who should vote for Nader? - people who live in states where Gore or Bush is a sure bet to win. I live in DC and there is no way that Gore is not going to win our three electoral votes. My vote for Nader can help the Green Party towards the 5% of the popular vote they need to receive matching funds in the next election.
Who should not vote for Nader? - people who live in states where the race between Bush & Gore is close. Your vote will make a difference. Support the candidate that you want making the decisions for Supreme Court appointments. If I lived across the Potomac in Virginia, I would vote for Gore because he definitely needs votes there.
Naturally, the same arguments could be made about Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin and other third party candidates. I just happen to prefer Ralph to any of the other candidates.
--
It's Time -- www.dcvote.org
___
Cognitive Overflow
more than yo
I hate to be a one issue voter, but I'm going to vote for the candidate who seems to be willing to uphold our constitution. Gore and Nader would attack the Bill of Rights itself in order to please those who believe gun control somehow reduces crime. These candidates loosely interpret the constitution in order to further whatever agenda is on their mind. (Wetlands, anyone?... that's not what they meant by interstate commerce) Anyone who walks all over the second amendment and then somehow believes that the first amendment won't be similarly screwed with is an idiot. It's the Bill of Rights, people.
I'm a complete Linux zealot, Java nut, and am very much annoyed by Microsoft. I certainly don't appreciate Bush's lack of understanding of technology, and willingness to let Microsoft continue operating in the interest of the economy (even if they broke a FEW laws). But I could never bring myself to vote for someone who wouldn't have a problem violating the constitution for his own purpose.
Bush understands that you don't just piss on the constitution when its convenient. He's pledged to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will follow the constitution.
1) Forget ideology, idealism, 'fairness',
We are empiricists who work from the best theory which works in actual practice.
2) The US Constitution is a design document. We have been committing the cardinal sin of re-interpreting the terms on-the-fly as we construct/operate our political-social-economic system. No wonder we are in trouble.
3) Don't attempt to violate nature's laws
in designing and operating social, political, economic systems. E.g., chaos is normal in natural systems -- only requires non-linear equations with feedback. --> A close horizon, beyond which predictions are extremely inaccurate.
If you can't predict, what on earth are you doing prescribing an action to produce a predicted result?
--> Limited gov is an idea with a firm theoretical foundation.
4) Laws are an attempt to program for an open environment. In carefully closed environments (don't change OS, don't change toolset, don't change specs, don't change design,
Politicians routinely issue 1000+ page laws with NO testing.
5) In our daily lives, managing a household, a small group, a small business,
Given all of the above, isn't it pretty ludicrous to expect politicians at any level to be able to do better on their stage than we can on our smaller stages? We have a lot more relevant info about our problems than they do, yet we can't, without constant work and adjustment, make anything really work really well for any period of time.
The solution for politics is to make it much less improtant in our lives. The solution for politicians is to make them must less important, and have many fewer of them.
Lew Glendenning
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
sometimes i wonder if those people mumbling about the black helicopters, echelon, wearing tin-foil hats are right.
sometimes
tagline
... hi bingo
Wired News (http://www.wired.com/) has a little debate going between Nader and Reed Hundt (Gore adviser and former FCC chairman). In one of the last articles, "Al Isn't Net's Best Friend" (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39295,0 0.html) Nader talked about technology issues and the 'net.
Page 3 is the really juicy part. He's against silly patents (mentions one-click) and is also against software patents. He feels corporations are robbing citizens of rights in order to protect intellectual property. He writes in favor of fair use of IP ("priceless" paradies and all that). He also talks about government endorsement for the "open-source movement".
An interesting read, IMHO.
-Psychochild
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog
"And, if the wealthiest 1% are paying 34% of the taxes, then there is obviously something wrong with our tax structure...Don't you think?" Um no I don't think so. Say you stick everyone with a 15% fixed taxrate for everything. Guess what? The wealthiest 1% will still be paying more than everyone else! Or perhaps you are suggesting that we tax the poor more heavily so that the wealthiest 1% pay 1% of the taxes and you can jave your nice symetric numbers. Jesus Christ. Get a brain.
Wow. you're really cute in that puppy dog peeing on the rug sort of way.
Now that was an insult. The only nerve you hit was the one that leads to my bordom at technolibertarians brain center. But your incredible lack of contact with reality gave me a good sincere laugh, which I haven't had in a while (been kind of stressed) so I want to thank you.
And to respond to a tiny bit of rational thought from your post, yes, Saranden has switched firmly to Nader (she and her partner Tim Robbins were guests at his New York rally last week.) but if she, like many others, felt forced to choose between only Gore and Bush, it would not suprise me to see her choose Gore on the DP issue. While he is for capital punishment, he doesn't get a gleeful look on his face when talking about excecuting people. If you must choose between two people who aren't "with" you on the death penalty, its pretty reasonable to go with the one you don't suspect of getting a woody when he signs an order.
Anyway, next time don't mistake an honest expression of contempt for anything else. It just makes you look kinda silly.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Quoting from his web site:
In other words: Don't mind the fact that I have no public experience whatsoever, 'cause it doesn't take any qualifications to destroy things!
I think most Libertarians are perfectly well-meaning, and their perception that government is horribly broken is dead-on. But it's as if the nation was a great mansion with a leaky roof, and they're telling us, "Hey, if we remove the roof entirely we won't have to worry about leaks anymore!" Well, yeah, but....
Hmmm... I havn't actually heard anyone in the c/g administration attack Bush on the DP issue, its mostly been collumists and other media types (no, they aren't all lapdogs of c/g)
More to the point, the problem with Bush isn't that his state executes people, or that the executions have gone up so much with him in office, or even that he has refused to grant stays in cases that on casual observation seem to cry out for review. The problem (as I mentioned in an earlier post) is that I swear the guy gets a stiffy when he thinks about people being executed. He is gleeful when talking about capital punishment, he made jokes about Carla Fae Tucker begging him for her life in an interview (which she never did, according to her supporters) and several pundits have commented on his unseeming enthusiasm for capital punishment in the latest debate. Most people I believe have mixed feelings about capital punishment. Even those who support it generally see it as an awesome responsibility that the state is given for the most serious of reasons. There aren't a lot of people who want to envision the symbolic wielder of that responsibility cavorting arround the electric chair shouting "who's your daddy?" and "I'm the MAN!" But very honestly, thats the kind of vibe that Bush has been pegged with (fairly or not, I don't know the guy personally) and I believe that it is that attitude, not number of executions, that is bringing this issue up again and again.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
It seems to me, and probably to many of you as well, that the current rules for how the major presidential candidates obtain their money is just plain rediculous, and leaves them wide open, and more to the point willing, to be, well, fucked up the arse by their corporate pimps to put it bluntly.
When did it all go wrong is what I want to know. At what point did our country change from electing our officials based on the quality of their policies to electing our officials based on the number of fireworks and shiny things in their parades? Because if you ask Joe and Jodie Sixpack in Inbred Trailer Park, Kansas, I can guarantee you they wouldn't be able to tell you a single concrete difference in the policies of Bush and Gore. And if they knew of any of the other candidates, I'd be very surpised, because they don't get the corporate "attention" the main two receive.
And as the need to impress has grown, so has the need to ensure a steady supply of $$$ from corporations with their own agendas. This isn't the cut and thrust of politics, it's the rape of democracy by a 20-stone black man with a Nike logo on his head.
Until candidates receive equal and fixed amounts of money to spend on their campaigns, we'll continue to see a stream of presidents who are already intentured to corporate masters before their inaugurations. And that means democracy is nothing more than a myth, and freedom a fond memory of the past.
What can really be concluded from Nader's responses to the "questionnaire"? The questions are clearly slanted. I'm sure that Bush and Gore would have the same replies to those questions! Who is going to say that they are against people controlling their privacy?? It's kind of like the surveys that ask if you're in favor of reduced taxes. Well, of course everyone is in favor of fewer taxes. However, the issues are more complex than questions this simple can convey. Please disregard such propoganda and base your opinions on the candidates leadership record.
There was an interesting article in the Boston Globe today (which I would link to if I wasn't so lazy) about the evolution of the internet. Aside from pointing out that amoung all the techies listed in various "histories" of the internet, Al Gore is the only politician given regular credit for both vision and effort, it says that while geeks often point to DARPANET (sp?) as the beginning of the internet, this is like giving Native Americans credit for the interstate highway system because some of our modern roads lie over their trails.
You have to define what you mean by the internet. Nothing in the 60s really resembled the scope, accessability and "intent" of what we now know as the internet. One might as well say that the internet was created by alexander grahm bell.
Maybe I just think in "political" rather than "inventor" but when I hear a politician talk about "taking initiative in creating" its pretty obvious to me that he's talking about pushing for funding, not claiming technological prowress.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I have no illusions about the balance of slashdot editors political views, nor do I feel they should have any obligation to be whatever they want... I did find it humorous however that the same story managed to promote Gore and slam Bush... as if just promoting Gore was not good enough :)
Anyway, go back and listen to the first debate, where Gore made it clear that he thought the Constitution was a living document that must be constantly re-interpreted, and if current justice department activities are any indication, aggressivly re-interpreted. Gore went on to indicate that he would choose supreme court justices based on how he believed they would rule on a particular issue (in that case, abortion).
Bush indicated he would choose justices based on qualifications, and that he favors constructivist justices (justices that give the constitution as broad a power as possible).
Take a read of the constitution, and consider all our pet issues it protects... Then take another look at it through the eyes of somebody like Al Gore and do some lawerly "reinterpretation". Remember this is the guy that called the fund raiser at the Buddist temple a "community outreach" event.
He may be with you on this issue... but once the door is opened to manipulate the constitution, then the US is in REAL danger... what is your recourse if he, or his successor, or his sucessors sucessor, is on the other side?
The constitution may have been written by a bunch of dead rich white guys... but they were also a group that had been oppressed by a tyrannical government and were prepared to give life, limb, and fortune to overthrow it. They did not set up the new government lightly, and they were not fools.
Al Gore has been on just about every side of just about every major issue whenever it works to his advantage (gun control, censorship, abortion, etc)... remember this election is not just about issues, but is about individuals, and that the Al Gore you elect may not be the Al Gore that governs.... Bush, for better or worse, has at least been consistent on the issues and is honest about where he stands.
Taco can post his political rants, and I can post mine. I would also prefer this stays a "news for nerds site", but will respond in kind.
"Anyone who is young and conservative has no heart... Anyone who is old and liberal has no brain..." (Winston Churchil)
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Here's somewhere where you actually can sell your vote... Vote Auction
www.harrybrowne.org. Be sure to check out the gun video.
Presidential elections in the US I find an absolute insult to human intelligence, I think it's obvious that you will NOT be voted in as president unless you:
A) Have support from either the Democrats or Republicans
B) Are filthy, stinking rich
For the benefit of us all and to make your point clearer, could you please define for us what qualifies as filthy, stinking rich? Does/did Bill Clinton qualify? How about Jimmy Carter? Eisenhower? Ford?
Probably the best recent example that makes your point would be JFK.
The best recent example that was a party candidate and did not win is probably Ross Perot.
I think you are right, at least for the forseeable future, with regard to needing support from the Republicans or the Democrats. That isn't likely to change either as long as people continue to believe that voting for a 3rd party candidate is equivalent to throwing your vote away. It isn't. Even if they don't win now, their platform becomes part of the national agenda, to whatever degree they receive support for championing it.
- ISP's should be regulated about what kind of info they can gather and store.
- Organizations (especially health related) should be regulated about what kind of info they can share (or sell)
- Consumers should be aware of all the ways that information is gathered (like in supermarket surveillance, etc.), and have access to see what exactly has been gathered about them.
This is extremely important stuff! This is the fodder that Slashdotters rant about almost every day! It would be very interesting to see a comparison of what Nader things vs. what Bore, Lush, and other third-partiers think. (Although, in all honesty, how could any candidate disagree with any of this?)Personally, I like Nader. But the biggest issue that I'm begging everyone to consider is that a vote for a third party candidate is not wasted! When all is said and done and the smoke clears from the battlefield, we will most likely have Gore or Bush in office. But if we want to change the politics of this nation, a great percentage of votes must go toward a third-party candidate of your choosing!
It will not happen soon, but you must banish the "microwave" mentality. We're talking about a slow baste here, not three minutes to instant popcorn. In four years, we might still not have a third party candidate in office, but maybe they'll at least be allowed in the debates! And in another four years...who knows?
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
uhm, what do I see as filthy stinking rich?
that's a good question, however, it's not quite the point.
the point I tried to make basically is that people who don't have a lot of cash just don't make it, I mean, if you'd try and become president with *just* $1M, you'd be lost.
---- Stage 5 of drinking : Politics begin to appeal
I don't live in the US, sometimes, I am extremely happy about it.
Presidential elections in the US I find an absolute insult to human intelligence, I think it's obvious that you will NOT be voted in as president unless you:
A) Have support from either the Democrats or Republicans
B) Are filthy, stinking rich
This system does not work, I might be the most capable person on the planet for the job, but I'll lose out on not being rich alone, this is an absolute shame, the US has obviously had some utter idiots as president, and looking at this election I don't see much changing.
People need to be judged more on merits instead of their ads, these elections are an absolutely stunning show of ignorance and flat out idiocy.
---- Stage 5 of drinking : Politics begin to appeal
...and go away.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
"prefer [...] central decision-making in economic matters"
Central meaning the federal government in this case, yours seems fairly accurate if you ask me. Your answers are certainly not centrist. The things you chose prove this out:
You support...
Federal contol of wages (setting the minimum wage obviously affects all wages above it)
Federal food subsidies; the federal government picks who grows what through economic incentive.
Federal control of trade with other nations
Federal control of apportioning funding to programs (rather than users choosing with fees)
They are not 'dead center', they are clear that they are into reduced government control both social and economic. Democrats favor reduced social control while supporting more economic control while republicans support more social control and less economic control. Totalitarian governments favor tight economic and social controls. This was their point.
-- Greg
PS: Your anarchist statement seems contradictory; how can I have 'economic self-government' and at
the same time reject capitalism, the process of freely buying or selling my property??
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
I assure you that virtually every border patrol in the world has the authority to search you on a whim.
Yes, it's very true that virtually every country in the world sucks. That doesn't mean our goal should be to be just like them.
Until very recently, the majority of the people in the world lived in countries whose governments were either one-party or military; should we have been trying to emulate them?
6 billion people can most assuredly be wrong. Or, more importantly, be wronged.
-
www.dumblaws.com
What state are you from?
maybe she thought you said nada :)
Pat Buchanan would make using Spanish a crime!
The only language for America should be English!
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-jun
Not a word about Communism.
Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you point to anything that backs up your information? Especially concerning the Greens in America?
Oh, and pointing to Buchanan's site doesn't count.
---
Not only am I voting for Nader this November becuase I feel that he's the best man for the job, to vote for Gore or Bush would be effectively throwing my vote away.
Sounds strange, doesn't it? Most people would argue that voting for a third party canidate would be throwing a vote away
In the key battleground states, yes. For the love of everything that is good, if you are in the one of those states, please vote for Gore to keep Bush out of office (or vice versa, if you're one of those people - but most Nader supporters are prolly more likely to lean democrat). However, in a small state it is quite the opposite.
For example North Dakota (where I am now, sadly) always goes Republican. Always. And given how close it is now, I have no doubt that it will again. Furthermore, ND only has 3 electoral votes. So, if I vote for Gore (or Bush), my vote doesn't matter because my state's paltry 3 votes (which won't matter anyway) are pretty much guaranteed to go to Bush.
However, my vote for Nader does matter. It's very doubtfull he'll carry even one state (but who knows... Ventrura *is* the gov of Minnesota), but my vote will help him gain a higher percentage of the popular vote. That means FEC matching funds next time around, greater awareness of his cause. More visibility in being the political watchdog. More pressure on the Democatic party to go back to being democrats instead of Republicrats. All sorts of goodies.
So... think your vote can't make a difference? It can. Don't throw it away, Vote Nader!
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
Nader's simply promoting what he believes in, in this area as in others: surely no-one thinks he's in this for the name-recognition?
"Freedom for the pike is death to the minnow"- R.L.TawneyA vote for Nader could very well be a vote against Gore. Ok, so what? If more people vote for third party candidates, and get them more press, we could actually get one in office after 4 years of Shrub! But if everybody votes for the lesser evil then NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
OK, guys, one more time - Al Gore NEVER said that he invented the internet. He said that he "took initiative in creating" it, in a context of talking about legislative proccess. Some conservative wack job took a slightly over-reaching comment that was clearly about funding and regulation and distorted it into a claim of technological might. Then everyone one the planet decided that the fake interpretation was actually the orriginal quote.
The fact that I support gore more than bush only accounts for a small part of my annoyance at this entire thing (I'm voting for Nader anyway). I just hate it when an irresponsible media allows retoric to trump fact, then eventually to become fact. "A little boy was charged with sexual harrassment for kissing a little girl who wanted him too!" nope, never happened, but that doesn't matter, does it? "One of the colimbine victims proudly declared her belief in God at gunpoint before being killed!" Totally false, but who cares, the book sold well. "Al Gore says he invented the internet!" Significantly different from his actual comments, but its just FUNNIER, doncha know?
OK, enough ranting for now. On a slightly different note, is there anyone for whom the computer/privacy credentials of the canidates will be a deciding factor in voting?
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
The only wasted vote is a vote for the Republicrats. A vote for Nader is useful in two ways:
1) Nader could win. Nader's primary audience is the 54% of the nation that did not vote in the last presidential election. These are the people that don't show up in the polls. Usually, less than 25% of American citizens vote for the guy that wins. If Nader got half of the non-voters to vote, then he'd sweep the election. Regular voters who vote Nader are just nails in the Republicrat coffin.
He could do it too. Nader has been holding rallies as his main fundraising technique. He sells out every venue (including Madison Square Garden!) with people paying from $7 to $20 each to attend. Gush and Bore couldn't pay that many people to come to their rallies!
2) Even if Nader doesn't win, a vote for Nader sends a very tangible message to the Republicrats. 5% of the vote guarantees federal matching funds in the next election. That means almost certain access to the debates and television, and forces the others to address his issues, which up to now they've ignored or to which they've only payed lipservice.
The only good reason to vote for a particular candidate is that you believe what they stand for. Nader is responsible for more beneficial legislation (anti-pollution, workplace safety, fraud prevention, automotive safety standards) than Gush and Bore combined. Nader is the only candidate with true integrity. Nader doesn't accept corporate donations and is the only candidate not in the pocket of big business or special-interest groups.
Voting for any candidate simply because you don't want his big-party rival to win is not true democracy. Whether you vote for Gore to keep Bush out of office or you vote for the Republicans, the Republicans are controlling your vote, and vice-versa. Take back your vote and instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, vote for the best candidate!
By all means though, vote for someone. Even if it's for a Republicrat. As Nader has said, "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you."
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
"While Gore won the backing of some of high-tech's biggest names, Republican foe George W. Bush has managed to get more of the industry's campaign donations."
Because those of us who have made some serious money of the internet economy realize that Gore intends to increase U.S. government regulations regarding the Net. Trivializing a global phenomenon into a regional bureaucratic morass of ill-thought controls just because Gore "invented" it.
Reality is just a clever Hack, and the Planck constant is the refresh rate.
I love these phony questions. Would anyone answer yes to a question asking if misuse is okay? Clearly, the question answers itself!
as a non-american I am really puzzled by this... how can votes for 1 candidate hurt another? The way I see it this can only be because there is a choice of 2 parties, and all other parties weaseled their way into the political system..
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I also believe in it. I'm going to vote Bush, because Rush is Right, but geez! I think every person on the ballot should be getting to speak!!! I mean, news is so biased (er... well I guess so is Rush hehe), and all of the candidates don't get nearly as much time. Just because they're not viable? I don't believe it. I'd like someone to step up to the plate, but at this point the umpire is calling them out before they get there.
----
When "TV" started offering very expensive "advertising" and people actually listened to it.
That will run you a couple million. And corporations are willing to pay these funds... IF they are sure the politition is on their business' side. As Bullworth said: "Give them free air-time they won't have to pay." Not that this is a particularly interesting notion. And actually the free air-time already given to the candidates is impressive (Convention, Debates, Etc...) I think our whole corporate culture has decided to just vote money out of the national treasury.
Like Microsoft decided to give stock options and not pay taxes. We think the Government can solve this problem, but the big G. gave them their patents, powerful copyrights, their free ride, and a good portion of their software sales!
-Ben
In a system that is two-party by design, a vote for a third party is IMO a complete waste. If you really want choice, you should lobby your butts off to get preferential voting in place. In the current system, supporters of the smaller parties will almost certainly polarize and move to the two main parties when they're in the voting booth, even if they support other candidates.
the problem with this idea is that if we don't regulate corporations' behavior, they will end up acting like the government, and having even more power.
Decrease the size of government, and you'll decrease its power.
Decrease its power and you'll decrease its importance to control.
Decrease its importance to control and you'll decrease the money spent to make the attempt.
That's my idea of campaign finance reform.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Part of the problem with voting for a single person with so much power is that people vote for a pretty face insteadof good ideas. Most campains (of what I follow about it) are about getting the candidate to look good (look sharp, nice smile, quick response to questions, etc) rather than te content of the message.
:) This ensures that somewhat balanced decisions are made where everybody's interests are taken into account.
I'm from Holland (so I probably don't have any right to bitch about this subject, but anyway) and we have a queen here. She wasn't elected so we don't have to choose a nice face. The only thing we have here are government and parlement. We can vote for ideas insteadof a face. Lately campains seem to go more about image here too, but I'm glad it hasn't turned into a tie-wearing-cometition yet. Our primeministers aren't the best looking guys around and I hope it stays that way.
Another positive aspect of having something other that a single happy face in power is that whatever the people vote, they get. If 30% votes for party A and 50% for party B (much more diverse than that over here) A gets 30% of the power (in government and parlement) and B gets 50%. So it's not like the winner gets it all and the looser has to fall.
OK, Rob. Can we make you a deal? Just run a second, free "Al Gore 2000" banner ad on slashdot until the election, but promise to stop with the daily Democrat endorsement. We all know where your sympathies lie already! Calm down.
He was wrong then. What is he wrong about now?
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
3) In a lot of states, there are other meaningful vote percentages. Here in Massachusetts, if Nader gets 3% that means the green party will be on the ballot automatically in 2002 and receive funding through the state's clean elections law.
4) Even if there are no meaningful local percentages, if Nader does well in a very localized race (say, 12% in your town or neighborhood), it will be a strong boost to any non-D, non-R running for office in that neighborhood 1 or 2 years from now.
In many ways, a vote for Nader is not about this year's election, it is about next election and the election after that, so we don't have to say "I don't want to throw my vote away" in 2004.
I don't think Nader has the proverbial snowball's chance to win the election, but prior to reading his letter to the other candidates regarding privacy I had felt that he had a certain integrity the major players lacked. While some of what he mentions is certainly true, I don't think the US is going to see people this year losing jobs or being denied medical coverage due to potential problems associated with genetic screening. This is a scare tactic that has little bearing on the truth. Do I think we could be headed in this direction? Yep. But not this year, or the next.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Microsoft is now backing the GOP. This after the GOP's shameless Microsoft butt kissing.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The current system is completely unfair to the smaller parties, and while it's in place, it will be very hard for smaller parties to get votes.
I have a problem seeing Slashdot turn into some kind of national US media coverage. As you probably gather from the decrepit (I'm not sure if this link is nexessary. It's pathetic anyway, so in contrary to established Web principles, please don't follow it) state of my English, I'm not from the US, instead I'm from Vee-haf-vayz-of-makink-yoo-talk -land; so, frankly, all this Slashdot coverage is of absolutely no use or interest to me, and neither is it for the 6.8 billion people on Earth who happen to be non-US citizens. Please stop it. Thank you. Cover stories like colonizing Mars instead.
Human extinction is on the way.
While I told my fair share of wrestler jokes when he was first elected, Ventura has really made me think about the political process.
Office seeking shoudn't be a profession. Some of the best representatives the people have ever had in U.S. government have been doctors, engineers, soldiers and yes, even geeks.
People laughed at Sonny Bono when he ran for Congress, but Slashdotters aren't laughing at the copyright bill that bears his name. We tend to forget that however risible or improbable a candidate may seem, once elected, he has the same powers as his new peers.
We've become so accustomed to every politico being an attorney or a prominent businessman that we've forgotten things can be any other way. I just hope Bono's and Ventura's legacy isn't a string of "business as usual" candidates who just happen to be celebrities.
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
Then I suggest that Slashdot starts covering other countries' national politics as well,
/. reader...
I think that's a great idea, personally. Maybe Slashdot could look at hiring editors (or at least giving story-posting privileges to a user or two) from Australia, Europe, Japan, etc.?
Part of the problem would be, we'd need international stories that are covered on English-language sites, for us ugly Americans whose second langauges look better compiled than spoken -- but then again, there's always the fish, or the occasional helpful
As for "174 little "Kazakhstan" and "Micronesia" customization boxes in Preferences;", start out a little more general;
* Europe
* China
* Japan
* Australia
* International (to cover "those other places", until they warrant a box of their own)
Everyone complains that most Americans don't care what happens outside of their own borders. Here's a chance to change that, at least as far as "geek stories" are concerned.
Jay (=
...you stop posting your lame-ass trolls about colonizing Mars everywhere.
Or, you non-US citizens can do what Taco suggested in the first "big" Slashdot story on the elections and uncheck the "United States" box in your preferences, since he stated that most all of the stories are going to be filed there.
Jay (=
In a "swing state," I would vote for Bush (capital gains tax must go down, socialism must be defeated at any cost, yada yada...), but seeing as I'm in Massachusetts, the second most liberal state in the Union, I will vote my conscience: Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party.
It's actually quite amazing, but logical, that the LP is making huge inroads in "one-party" jurisdictions like MA and DC: these are people like me who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal (and scared of the GOP's faith-based, pro-life agenda).
I guess people like me are also pissed off that the GOP has basically "given in" on a lot of traditionally Democratic issues: e.g., instead of talking about how to shore-up SS, we should instead be talking about how to rid ourselves of it.
[ home ]
I was always thankful to Nader for driving the price of a Corvair down into my price range when I was a student...
Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
It is unclear to me how a sentient being can consider voting for anyone other than Ralph Nader.
illegitimii non ingravare
A few years back Ross Perot's Reform Policy was in the same position as the Greens now. Everything was fine as long as it had a charismatic leader and was just a protest vote, but along comes someone with an coherent viewpoint (it happens to be Buchanan, but it could have been someone else with different politics) and the party splits. It had to split, because there was no unifying goal except, throw out the Republicrat bastards.
I don't like a lot of the way things work either, but guess what, that's politics. Sure it can be modified somewhat and McCain's reform ideas would help, but politics does and always will involve power brokering. Deal with it! If Nader were to be elected he would either get in bed with the same power brokers that Republicrats do, or else he'd accomplish nothing.
So if you're in a state that isn't in play and you want to register your protest, go ahead and vote for Nader. But if your state is in play, vote for the man who you think will do what's best for the country and can win. I think that's clearly Gore. On most other issues, the two aren't that far apart. But Gore's positions on protecting the environment and protecting the rights of Americans (especially women) are not just the better of two evils, but exactly what I want, while Bush's are exactly what I fear.
What's a sig?