Slashdot Mirror
Technology Issues by Candidate
An anonymous reader sent in a good story listing the tech issues and breaking them down by candidate. Of course to me, the best part is the huge percentage of questions where yes/no wasn't good enough and a little asterick denotes "but" so you really don't know what half the candidates think of half the issues anyway. Regardless, tomorrow is the day. No matter what you believe, get out and vote tomorrow.
Don't you consider voting to be a shameful and damning indictment of the comfortable middle-classes?
The people who have it easiest in life also have the most say in the running the country - unfair and disgraceful. The viewpoints of minority groups are ignored as a result of the middle-classes seeking to maintain the status quo.
As a vegetarian, anti-abortion, G-d-fearing person of washed-out color, I feel my opinion is undervalued in today's society. None of the candidates represent me.
But what can I do? I have no voice that will be heard. I am in minority groups that get ignored in the statistical comparisions.
I will go to the nearest voting booth, and I will make a statement in the only way I can.
I will use the ballot paper to wipe my ass.
Now, if he had said "first internet browser", I could agree with you. But instead, I'm inclined to think you are a knee-jerk idiot.
...and I am an anon cow >
W ain't no Regan. He's done a line of coke or two, and clearly got wasted enough to get a DUI arrest. The dude is pretty chill. Sure, he can't talk too well, but do you really want a hyper-intelligent ego-maniac in the White House (Al Gore) or a stupid, chill ego-maniac in the White House (Bush)?
Slashdot is tending to get on my nerves this time of year. The poll seems to indicate about 50/50 for Gore and Bush, yet all the comments that get mod'd up are blindly anti-Bush. Why exactly is that? There's certainly nothing witty or humorous in your comments that really deserve to be above the rest of the comments yet it is. Hmm. All I know is George W. better get elected tomorrow so I can get my damned tax cut that I'd never see from Al Gore or the democrats. As we all know, the first thing Clinton did when he took office was raise taxes.. retroactively no less! Are we to expect anything less from his protege?
Yes and No. If Bush is elected, the DoJ case will go away without any question, but the antitrust case itself will go on until every state attorney general agrees to do the same (not happening).
The only way MS is getting off is if Congress repeals the Sherman Act. When a law describes your business plans verbatim as illegal, your only recourse is to have the law repealed.
Hello.
This is Slashdot.
Nobody reads the articles.
Nobody does any further research in order to form their on opinion.
Everyone has something to say.
Everyone has to say their something loudest.
I would avoid trying to torch the White House. You'd have to pass through some very bad neighborhoods where the locals are probably going to be a lot more heavily armed then your army. Do they even issue firearms up there or do your soldiers rely on throwing witty European-wannabe taunts at the Americans? ;-)
Yes and no.
I believe that at a Federal level, the suit will be dropped. However, at the State level, I believe the fight will continue and I believe that the States will prevail.
FWIW, I believe the above scenario will happen no matter which one gets elected.
Cal
If you wanted me to agree with you, you shouldn't have given me Mod points.
Are you implying that 95% of the people that read /. aren't US citizens or are you implying that 100% of the world's population reads /.?
Besides the FACT he didn't lie about it, he also didn't blame anyone else.
No accusations about a "vast left-wing conspiracy". No DNA sample was needed for him to admit it. GWB didn't hide behind his daddy when he got caught (unlike Clinton and Gore during the Vietnam War).
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
... Gore's father told his commanding office not to send him near anything remotely dangerous. So, yes he was in Vietnam, but he wasn't in any danger.
Bush was in the National Guard. Which suprises me since GB senior was a combat pilot.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
I read that message and couldn't figure it out either. A libertarian going to Gore?!? Heck, why not go all the way and vote Nader?
It's too bad when someone doesn't truly understand what their own values are.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
Did you read the rest of the article???
NO! Because if you did you would see that GW is for it, BUT he wants to hold the schools accountable for student performance. If the students do not do better, then the school will not get the money.
Do you own stock in AOL/Time Warner?
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I'm really getting sick of all the whining about internet filtering software, in particular this comment. This is going to be a crow bar to push schools around? Far from it. First, let me tell you why not. Second, let me tell you my experience.
Already, a huge part of schools across America are implementing filtering programs on their networks. This isn't just limited to the schools - libraries are putting them in place as well. Why? Because there's universal pressure from the politicians in power to put them there. Look back at that chart of candidates. Did you notice that out of the six listed, four support filtering, and two didn't respond? Why's this? Because the vast majority of the public feels like it keeps their children safe. It's a nice warm, fuzzy security blanket.
Now to my experience. I'm a college student now, but I'm originally from Fairfax County, Virginia. I went to Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, one of the greatest high schools in the nation. Our entire school system is consistently ranked very highly. I have personally dealt with filtering software. As of right now, nearly every high school in the Fairfax County Public School (FCPS) system is filtered by I-Gear, a product developed by URLabs (now owned by Symanted). Take a look at the FCPS overview and background info. On the background info page, scroll on down to the "Pilot results" section. You'll notice that 0.2% of the 1.1 million sites accessed over a six week test period were blocked. 0.2%! That's 1 out of 500. Additionally, notice that web access improved from 9 seconds per page load to 3 seconds (on average), thanks to the cache that I-Gear provides.
So you're telling me that this internet filtering system makes the internet a non-useful resource? A waste of time, and leads to poor education? I think that's a ridiculous assertion to make. Look at the FCPS system. Through the filtering, the million students in Fairfax County manage to obtain some of the best education anywhere in the United States. Yes, I agree that filtering sucks, and I wouldn't want it on my connection. However, if I live in a low-income area, where my school has no internet access, I definitely want to have a filtered system, rather than nothing at all. When implemented properly, filtering can work. This is going to a crow bar? No. This is going to be a positive addition to millions of childrens' lives.
-David Ziegler
-dziegler@hotmail.com
-David Ziegler
-
www.geocities.com/smushmoth Be sure to click on the images for a better view
http://www.geocities.com/smushmoth Be sure to click on an image for a clearer view.....
The debt was inflated by Ronald Reagan, The deficit became a surplus durring the Clinton Administration
What's the matter with a Ficus tree? Vote Silly Party
The encouragment is not for people to vote stupidly but rather to consider the issues most important to them and vote in spite of the general attitude that a single vote won't change anything.
The more proportional the representation is, the better the system works. While the general public may not be well educated, as a whole, their votes are the best available measure to minimize the extent to which government agents act on their own behalfs.
I don't see how you equate this with fascism, much less "FASCISM". I'm not forcing anyone to vote nor am I forcing anyone to stay away from the polls. But what I am saying is that if you can't find the will inside you to vote without being prodded about it every election season, stay home. I'll mobilize myself and encourage those I agree with and nobody else .
If you don't agree with me and can't be bothered to get off your couch one or two days a year, stay put, I'll make your political decisions for you by being overrepresented in the election process.
As far as I can tell from your response, you would not only prefer to be the only one to vote, you would also prefer to be the only one to exist.
What I meant before was that if you don't value opinions besides your own you might be happier in a fascist state.
Not at all, not at all. But I'm completely and shamlessly dropping the false pretense of wanting to put my destiny in the hands of everyone else. I want my opinions to matter more, much more, than those disinterested or less interested who have to be prodded incessantly every election season to stop in at the neighborhood polling station for a few minutes.
Read the original post again. I'm all for mobilizing voters and getting the vote out. But to mobilize just any doofus out there isn't what I want... why should I want those potentially in opposition of my view mobilized to neutralize my vote out of some sort of civic duty, when I can focus my efforts on those who agree?
Generalized "get out the vote" campaigns are a goofy waste of time and money, unless you have insight into the demographics of the non-voters and expect them to vote your way if you get them to the polls.
Get out the vote messages are also an integral part of the two party system of control because Joe Sixpack, who can't be bothered to vote unless someone convinces him it's a good idea, "ain't votin' for some guy I never heard of."
To hell with that! If you're not voting in agreement with me, I'd rather not see your face at the polls! Can you say you sincerely feel differently deep inside? I don't see how you can if you care deeply about the results of this election.
Agree with you about what?
About an unsubstantiated rumor?
If someone can prove the validity of that claim, then maybe I'll have an opinion on it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
heh... forgot Buchanan himself is running on another ticket. regardless, those holier-than-thou guys are behind Bush.
Jerry Falwell made a comment during the GOP convention to the effect that he hoped his crowd (christian right) would keep their mouths shut until Bush is elected.
This isn't just about abortion. It's about preserving the separation between church and state. For example, religous convictions notwithstanding, there is no reason to disallow gay marriages. This is not a country by and for christians. There are lots of others, too. (for what it's worth, I in fact have no problem with making partial-birth abortions illegal)
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Here, here!
Here in Houston, during the last Mayoral election, a surprisingly large group of people (about 3,000 as I recall) voted for "The Outlaw Josey Wales".. it was terrific! It was enough of a protest that "he" was actually listed as coming in 3rd in the race at one point while they were counting the votes.. it was hilarious to see "The Outlaw Josey Wales" clearly listed on the Channel 2 newscast graphics, while the talking heads steadfastly refused to say it out loud.. a smashing bit of culture-jamming..
Praise the Force Field! Praise the Laser Project! Slackware Loon #19830573
It seems that the original site redirected through an advertising site that is blocked on my host.
Rather, it says that you'd rather not be in the position of trying to exert political control over others. Control of yourself is what you have in the market; control of other people through force is what politics and elections are all about. A vote for a lesser evil is still a vote for evil.
I decline, thanks.
Randall.
Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
The gist of that article, and all of Moore's output, is satirical, and can be easily seen as such by most anyone who reads it. I think even those people who hate Moore the most would not be able to truthfully call him uninformed or ignorant. Indeed, he seems to work hard to be exceptionally well informed on any issue he puts his axe to.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Actually, you are the mindless one, as most Americans, even the large group of people with questionable intellegence that make up the South and always vote Republican, would be able to spell that right. Unless you support throwing people's rights away to support a candidate that's more "honest".
-Splat
Well, big deal.. nobody related to the campaign would do something so blatantly stupid so you can't blame them, but in any case, if the right man cheats and lies himself into office, fine. Only the outcome matters. If Gore has to cheat to win, so be it. He's better.
-Splat
While I am a Gore supporter, I have to say that I don't think internet access in schools is a valuable learning tool. When I was at school all we used the 'net for was yahoo games and downloading mp3s. We could find better answers to our research questions by looking them up in the vast array of hard copy sources our library had. In a school without the resources to support a good library, however, internet access might be the next best thing.
-Splat
Splitting up MS may fix the symptom, but I don't believe it will fix the underlying problem. MS was given their monopoly by the government -- though things like copyrights and patents. Now with the DMCA saying we can't even reverse engineer software, there will be even more monopolies springing up. If it's not MS, it's some other company.
Of course, the real irony is the merger of AOL and TimeWarner in the middle of the MS Antitrust suit.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
...this is actually happening in North Carolina (and probably elsewhere, too). people are calling women voters (at least in the news story i saw) to tell them that either women are voting on the 8th and men on the 7th, or democrats on the 8th and republicans on the 7th.
hooray!
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
And what's wrong with that? There are merits to both sides of each of these three issues, and quite frankly, I don't really care which way they go, as each side has fanatics pushing at both sides, ensuring little movement one way or the other.
There are relatively few people who seem concerned about the erosion of the public domain, the corporate control of Internet policy, and free speech rights that are trampled, so I will focus on what is important to me because if I don't who else will?
And don't get on some elitist trip and start telling the rest of us IP and technology policy doesn't matter. In the long run this little toy called the Internet is far more important than these other issues. They are fashion, even if you ascribe great philosphical significance to them, they are still fashion, swinging back and forth according to the norms of current society.
Technology, however, doesn't go backwards, and it doesn't take sides, but it does have a profound effect on society, far more than I would ascribe to the ideological hand waving of people with "causes". The Internet is going to define the culture of this new century, and I want it to embody my values, not those of the corporate hucksters, fundy politicians, and social engineers whose propoganda compose most of American politics.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
The above link didn't work for me... try
this one if yours doesn't work either.
That is ok by me, burn it down. Just don't infect us with Canada's obscene tax rates in the process.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
The only thing that low turnout signifies is happiness with the status quo. Personally, I'm a Nader supporter, but if you really feel strongly about how bad the choices are, you should just go vote for something stupid, like a Ficus tree or Barry White.
At the very least then you send a clear signal to the powers that be that you're dissatisfied with what they're offering and could be a threat to them in future elections.
Basically, Voting for something stupid is a like a big "Fuck You" to everybody running, especially the majority.
Staying home and voting for nothing just says that you're happy to have others (whom you do not approve of) in control of you.
if we go with the status quo, we'll keep winning
/can/ rally behind.
until someone people do care about comes along, someone people
except for a small percentage, most people were at best, non-dislikers of bush.
but lots and lots of people (for whatever reason) really loved clinton.
that's why he won twice in a row and that's why his support never waivered no matter what he did (before and after being elected.)
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
They've been saying this since the '80s, when "educational software" was something along the lines of "electronic flashcards" running on an Apple II or other computer of that time and there was this fuzzy, nebulous concept called "computer literacy" about which so-called "educators" didn't have a clue. I suspect that things have gotten no better since then. Kids ought to have a solid grasp of the basics (reading, writing, math, etc.) before they're let anywhere near a computer. You wouldn't let a third-grader use a calculator in place of learning the multiplication table, would you?
Technology is a tool. It can be used properly or it can be misused. (The same can be said of other things, such as guns, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.) So far, it's mainly been misused by ed-school types who took up teaching because an education degree was easier to get than one in underwater basket-weaving. As long as substandard teachers (and not all of them are substandard, but a shockingly large number fit this description) continue to botch the education of the next generation, and as long as the institutions remain in place that perpetuate this situation, all the computers in the world aren't going to teach Johnny how to read, write, calculate, and think.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Neither the Feds nor the States.
It will be picked by school boards, mostly on the basis of how slick the brochure is.
The content will be chosen by the company, and there will be no oversight by anybody, because the filtering algorithms and lists are closely protected IP.
So either way, the Republican view that corporations can do no wrong will prevail.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Well, yeah, when only half the people vote, my vote counts double.
Remember the conventions, with all those people having orgasms at every stupid catch-phrase the candidate mouthed? Each of those people counts way more than even my low-turnout-enhanced vote.
And the smaller the turnout, the greater the influence of the party loons.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
I find it interesting that Gore wants to provide public schools with free internet access, and he also thinks schools should use internet filtering software.
This is going to be another crow-bar to push schools around. Can't afford internet access? Here, you can have it for free. Except that it has to be filtered.
What? You don't think that filtering works? Too bad- pay for the internet yourself, unless, of course, you can't afford it. In that case we'll allow you to use our plan which gives you inferior access.
No money == Badly Filtered Internet == Non-useful Resource == Time-Wasting == Bad Education.
-Adam
Another instance of "Icon gives context", user doesn't look at icon. I'll give in on this one.
An analogy would be Linux iconed articles refering only to "The Operating System", or Microsoft iconed Articles talking only about "The Corporation". You don't see that assumption as much. It's not that I don't want to see articles on American Politics on Slashdot, it's just weird to see it out of context.
I guess "election" is shorter to type and read than "US election". (as opposed to examples above). Oh well, time to burn off karma..
Regardless, tomorrow is the day. No matter what you believe, get out and vote tomorrow.
Personally, I plan to vote on November the 27th.
Ohhhhh the *AMERICAN* election.. Right, gotcha.
What about the other 95% of us on the planet?
At least the campaign here in the Great White North is marginally less boring than the one down south. Canadians seem to be the king of politics. If you do happen to get CBC, tune in Thursday night for the English debate. Do a comparison.
Actually, I just wanted to let people know what the link was... I could very well have typed the HTML, but, I chose not to, because I feel most people who use slashdot are educated enough to type it in themselves.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
So you are saying that you knew there was a socialist party running? :-) Anyhow, I certianly didn't know some of the off-the-wall things a few of the "lesser candidates" were for... like the complete removal of social security, and the ending of federally funded schools. Very drastic stuff.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
I'm sure that EVERY candidate has people that are going to vote for them doing this. They are probably not officially related to the compaign in any way, just random voters. Just because the ones that were caught support Gore doesn't mean shit. They were just the only ones that were caught.
Come on people, if any of you really think that elections are honest, fair, [insert any optimistic, positive word here] then you have your head up your ass. The system is corrupt, the electoral college sucks and dead guys voting is the least of our worries. How about trying to change the system rather than pointing out it's obvious shortcomings and the bad circumstances that it breeds...
FWIW the drunk driving thing is coming from congress not from Clinton.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
I believe that I'll get thrown in jail if I try to vote, given that I'm not a US citizen. ;-)
[TMB]
It's a VERY good website, and helped me focus on the issues I really think are important. It's definitely worth the look.
--Mike--
Fortunately, the article includes links that show how each candidate would probably respond to the list of questions:
browne | buchanan | bush | gore | hagelin | nader
(btw has anyone else noticed the Preview button modifying the content of the Comment textarea?)
--
The shareholder is always right.
-jruderman@hmc
--
The shareholder is always right.
Yeah, they do signal that apathy you talk about, but to the candidates that just means, "if we go with the status quo, we'll keep winning. If we change the message up, people will com out to vote and then who knows who'll be in power." Personally, I feel that the major candidates have their heads on straiter than the 3rd party candiates (not that the status quo is great, but a lot of the ideas put out by the 3rd party guys are great on paper but just won't work), but if you don't like them, go vote for someone else. Even if it's a write-in.... That's how you really make a statement.
-
Addlepated - punk & metal
No it wasn't. The first web browser was invented by Tim Berners Lee (as well as the first wysiwyg editor which was integrated). It ran on NeXT.
Mosaic as far as I know was the first cross-platform graphical browser (release on Mac, Windows and Unix) but it certainly wasn't the first web browser by any means.
Were they in any way associated with the Gore campaign? I think it's an important point, as I have documentation of Bush supporters claiming to have beaten people up for being black.
Ideology breeds Hypocrisy. Just how much is up to you.
One of the truely great ideas that I have seen from the libertarian party....
Every election for a candidate should have a "None of the above is acceptable" option. Something which does NOT cast a vote for any of them - something that says "I would rather have the office vacant than filled with one of these men"
I think part of the real problem is the way the system works. The democrats and repubs automatically get someone on the ballot. They have enough money that they can buy enough advertising to make other parties pointless.
Nothing has struck me quite like Jesse Ventura's story of his mayoral election. Both Democrats and Repubs joined forces to attack him. They drug hius name through the mud and said he would be the worst thing for the city that was possible. Being city level - he was still able to win (its much easier to fight such things when your scope is limited to the area of a city)
What did they do when he won? They aproached him sepratly and asked him to join their party. No morals, just do whatever it takes to win and have the most winners on your side.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I like this idea alot - even more so than "None of the above is acceptable".
What would even be better.... numbered votes.
Lets say I list
1. Harry Brown
2. Ralph Nader
3. Al Gore
Then if brown can't win...my vote dgoes to nader - if that doesn't push nader over the top - then gore.
of course it would need to be a little more complex than that I mean...if Someone else votes for Nader then Brown... you need to handle both
cases. Maybe start with whoever has less 1s and move up...
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
For my colegiate research papers I was always tempted to put up a site with the perfects quotes/"evidence" for my topic... But i could never bring my self to do it.
I just wonder how many people have, and if they have gotten away with it. I know none of my professors were too net savy...
"I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines." - Mr. Furious, Mystery Men
I'm assuming this isn't a troll.
he was also a professional in all matters of foreign affairs
Ummm, bombing an aspirin factory is a professional act? Allowing nuclear secrets to be stolen, with exactly 0 reprisals is professional? Making the sanctity of the Oval Office, and his position a laughingstock is professional?
C'mon. GW ain't perfect but don't tell me Clinton knows how to behave. That's like saying Ted Kennedy has sexual restraint.
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
The highway funds legislation is just that, legislation. This change in rules governing federal highway funds just underscores my point, it's the result of legislative action, not executive order.
I do admit the executive branch can manipulate funds in very bad ways. An example in Massachusetts is the way the governor's office routinely witholds state employee's raises for one or two years after their contracts have been approved and the money has been approved by the legislature. I guess presidents and governors just feel they have to exercise their power where they can.
Idol Star Astronomer
Two or three, it's so easy since they don't check ID, all you have to do is ask a couple of friends if they are going to vote. If they say no look up their addresses, go to the polls and vote away! I was surprised they didn't require photo-ID. I needed photo-ID to rent a movie, but to pick the president? They trust me.
Idol Star Astronomer
There is your typical "new" democrat response. Who c
There is your typical republican response - make broad generalization that villianize your opponent
In the words of "Live" - this is not a black and white world
XML causes global warming.
All in favor?
All opposed?
The Aye's have it
XML causes global warming.
It'd probably be a good idea for us to do that anyways, because no matter who wins, we're screwed.
-RickHunter
Bobby, mama says that POLITICIANS ARE THE DEVIL!! now dont go playin no more foosball neither! Now we return to your regularly scheduled monday.
I am !amused.
And i'll have no choice but to donate some propane to your little party =)
I am !amused.
I guess you are just so used to democrats being lyers (ie Clinton) that you think we need more lyers and cheats in the White House. You are just a mindless GORON! DrVPN
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
yeah.....so too bad the Alamo was a BATTLE and not a WAR.
I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.
Have you seen Harry Browne??
"Fiscal conservativism yet social liberalism" pretty much sums up the main beliefs of the Libertarian Party.
Please do check it out, I'm sure you won't regret it, and it may even change your mind about the futility of voting this year...
-the wunderhorn
-the wunderhorn
#define OH_YES_INDEED 1
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.
Have you seen Harry Browne??
"Fiscal conservativism yet social liberalism" pretty much sums up the main beliefs of the Libertarian Party.
Please do check it out, I'm sure you won't regret it, and it may even change your mind about the futility of voting this year...
-the wunderhorn
-the wunderhorn
#define OH_YES_INDEED 1
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
you are both lame. shut the fuck up.
Its reganomics but instead of inflating the Military spending you use it for services. However we all know how reganomics turned out. Its taken 8 years for clinton to reverse the path that Reganomics put us in.
That's as much an endorsement of flipping a coin (6-sided die, if you believe in third candidates) as I've ever heard. I think I'll vote for Pat Buchanan.
- - - - -
- - - - -
automatictaxistopelectriccigarettelovebaby
Hey democracy lovers, add Quorum as a c
Nader has stated that the majority of non-voters are smart enough to see through the "Republicrat" scam that has been rotting the nation from the inside out. Rather than assuming that non-voting is an act of laziness or idiocy, he acknowledge that it's often a protest against the way things (don't) work for the people in politics today.
digital artist, 3D animator, web designer, and otherwise technological creative type....
Click Here for more info on proportional representation.
digital artist, 3D animator, web designer, and otherwise technological creative type....
Jesse's a governor, bud... When in doubt, undermine the status Quo.
digital artist, 3D animator, web designer, and otherwise technological creative type....
That Linda Bowles column is blantantly false. Gore graduated Harvard summa cum laude and Bush graduated Yale with a mediocre gpa. Gore dropped out of both divinity and law school, but maybe that reflects a change in his life goals?
Not enough time to comment on the rest of your comment.
"I am a student. Please do not fold, spindle, or mutilate me." -Slogan of the Free Speech Movement, 1964.
The CONSTITUTION of the United States prescribes only one duty for the vice president. He is the president, or presiding officer, of the U.S. SENATE, and if a Senate vote ends in a tie the vice president may vote to break the tie. The vice president has been assigned other duties by statute, and the president may give him other responsibilities. The importance of the vice president derives almost entirely from the fact that at any moment he may succeed to the most powerful office in the world.
taken from http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/vp/vpusa.html
>BR> Maybe the Candidates views on law are more important than you think eh?
Bad URL; care to repost?
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. Or a juggernaut.
As I yearn for the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans of yesterday.
may you run like a vicuna
Libertarians are, by definition, supportive of increasing liberty. And yet, you're going to vote for Gore, who is ideologically heavy-handed in his politics! (You can't argue with me on this one... he's got a history of trying to get the Government into everything.)
Imagine that, a Libertarian voting for a wanna-be Socialist.
/me shudders
How can all of the other candidates talk about reducing taxpayer burdens, while pickpocketing taxpayers to pay for their campaigns (or wishing that they could)???
As for your reasons for supporting the goron -- oh, puh-lease. Matthew Shepard's killers are being prosecuted -- for murder. Abortion is and should be a matter of personal morals, not gov't decrees. And Microsoft's success is hard-earned -- and will not be cured by a Federal Department of Software Innovation.
Liberty in our Lifetime
Just had to pull that comment out for comment. You're actually comparing Bill Gates, who has earned success by the individual choices of millions to Adolph Hitler, who gained his (short-lived) success through the killing of millions? Huh.
Oh, really? Looks like you're willing to unleash the uniquely coercive power of government to meddle in those businesses that bother you...
To rephrase a WWII-themed quote, since you bring it up -- "When they came for the IBMers, I did not speak for them. Then they came for the Microsofties, and again I did not speak for them. When they came for me... there was no one left to speak for me."
To put it another, simpler way: "Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you've got."
Think carefully before you unleash the beast... it's not particularly discriminating, once it's had a taste of blood.
Liberty in our Lifetime
no, that would make me someone who's lazy and prefers to click links instead of copy/paste, and someone who's sympathetic to the other fuckers who are as lazy as me...
and me being a kharma whore..isn't quite accurate...since i am now, and have been for months, in negative kharma...which doesn't bother me, because everything i post is an honest comment, and i dont care if i get modded down as flamebait because i express my opinion.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Doomed? Doomed? I don't know how long you've been on this earth, but the U.S. has survived much worse things than electing either of these people. The genius of the American political system is that it's remarkably resiliant and resistant to even deliberate efforts to derail it. Buck up there, Hex, we'll survive and even prosper, even if that complete sleezebag is elected. (And you can take your pick as to which one I mean.)
Something is lousing up the html, so here it is for a cut-and-paste:0 0/itsyourvote/stories/-20001105-134550.h tml
http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/mil/election20
Washington was burned in 1814 (during the War of 1812), but it was the British who did it. I suppose that Canucks, being British subjects at the time, took part. It's also true that during and immediately after the Revolution, most of the Royalists ended up in Canada, so there's the grudge factor involved.
Presumably the state or local school district. Which is as it should be. However, I don't really think that the federal gummint will be able to resist the temptation to micromanage. They'll ultimately use the threat of witholding federal funds to extort the schools into implementing filters pleasing to the Dept. of Education, IMO. It's how they got recalcitrant school districts to get on board the school lunch program.
Read it here: http://www.salo n.c om/politics/feature/2000/11/06/bush/index.html
A couple of comments: Abortion: My problem with voting democrat is not that they'll keep abortion legal - it should be (sad but true). However, it should _NOT_ be subsidized by the government, which the democrats have been doing. Now the government will take responsibilities for your (stupid) actions! Ludicrous! Although Nader my unfairly try to make an economy where no salary is over $100K, the sad truth is that most people who make over $100K don't deserve it, and the people making them the money (eg working class) at $30-50K should be given a huge pay raise. Reward hard work but don't allow exploitation.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
It's the information age. People can choose to live how they want - real or unreal - and there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't plan to have children, why should you care about abortion? And if you don't go outside, you don't get shot. If you have enough money, why should you care about budget issues? I personally don't care about my health as long as I have my freedom.
He apparently forgot the revolution, where Loyalists were persicuted, becoming non-persons and taxed to death. Not unlike pre-holocaust Germany.
That was just one war of 1812 story.God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
What is really interesting about this article is the reasons behind each candidates choices. Make sure to find out why each of the candidates has a certain point of view on an issue.
Of course sifting through the answer of a politician for the truth is enough to give anyone a headache...
Flashblade
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Moderators get to moderate because they visit often, post good comments and have Karma. So maybe Bush has significantly less support in this group than among general slashdotters.
Or Maybe, Bush supporters suffer from the same inability to express themselves as their hero ( present company excluded)
Finally, maybe there is a left wing conspiracy to put down bush by hacking slashdot's mod system. After all, if Gore invented the internet, hacking slashdot should be a piece of cake for him.
PS. I believe the first hypothesis is probably the right one. And you?
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Bush will most certainly appoint a non-entity to head the antitrust department ( as well as most other federal regulantory bodies), and this will affect future cases. But we will not notice probably because it is difficult to notice what doesn't happen ( until it is much too late;-}).
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Fair, equitable, profitable, and safe for our children, our politicians, and especially their children.
Patent Pending #6780944367687909
-- look, cheese ahoy!
dont forget the wheel...
This years presidential race reminds me of my middle school sga elections. Its a popularity contest. neither candidate knows what they are talking about. neither candidate cares about the consitutional rights of american citizens. Both candidates are hypocrites, and i pray that the tech worlds effect on the american economy will beat out the negative effects either of these men will bring us.
The White House became the White House after its previous incarnation was torched by the Brits in 1814. Wartime repairs included a hasty reboarding and a coat of white paint with plans to restore the original look--Red Federalist.
Public approval and government inertia maintained the white, and changing fashions led to an updated facade and vestibule reflecting what period architecture considered a state mansion.
I don't believe anything?
sulli
RTFJ.
You shouldn't vote just to vote. You should vote to express on opinion. If you don't have an opinion, then don't vote.
...of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. He ran because none of the other candidates were doing anything to preserve wetlands within the city.
Why should this case be dropped at the federal level? This is clearly and issue of interstate commerce (MS has used the same business practices in multiple states, and their products are manufactured in Washington state and sold in every other state), which means it is a federal issue.
"That was WAY too easy."
It was meant to be...
Anyway, what makes you think I'm basing my complaint about the lack of thinking on the part of Republicans soley on your previous post?
Ranessin
What the Hell makes you think the above poster speaks for anyone but himself? He does not speak for all democrats, "old" or "new". In fact, he only speaks for one democrat.
How I yearn for Republicans that can actually think.
Ranessin
Check out Michael Moores' very amusing opinions. It may help to explain some of GWBs answers.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Why should I believe a slanted news site anyway?
Respond to s
That's completely irrevelent if you don't like the choices that you are given for candiates. The candiates who get more votes than any other (even if they get 3 votes and the rest get none) will win anyway.
I don't believe that many people who don't vote are really all that educated about the issue and doing it to "stick it to the man" in the least, just lazy.
Respond to s
Prove it to me with absolute and undeniable facts then we'll talk. I doubt that a sizeable percentage of people are doing this out of any symbolic significance I think it's more of a true disinterest from the process because it's not dealing with wrestling or drinking beer or sports or anything that they truly care about.
There is no "Republicrat scam" as you call it it's just that the majority of people have voted for these parties and they keep doing so. Politically there are major differences between parties just because other people don't vote for the under dog dosn't mean that there isn't that choice.
So what does this mean? It means that people are not really believing that these 3rd parties can do anything in a sensible and non revolutionary way. Most people don't like their lives to be dramatically changed in unspecified ways and ways that may eventually make America a second class nation so they don't vote for those people who promise problems and difficulty.
Respond to s
"the Democrats are as pro-business as the Republicans are"
It would be great if they were (which they are not) because businness is what makes this whole country what it is.
Who gives a fuck about what Canadians want US to look like.
Obviously they don't like Nader either since nobody really bothers to vote for this guy .
I think vote casted on Ficus tree would be as reasonable as the one casted on Nader.
Or maybe not. Ficus tree would be unable to fuck up perfectly good ( the best ?) country with its lightly covered socialistic politics.
Heheh.
Dude you ARE experiencing reganomics now. If Gore gets in the office you will see offects of Clinton/Gore policies 10 years from now.
What edication system is it?
When did you Canadians burn the White House the last time?
You are Napoleon, right?
Ch eck it out
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Is there an n/a option on the ballot tomorrow?
from an earlier story link, we see that M$ gives fairly equally to BOTH parties. Don't kid yourself - the Democrats are as pro-business as the Republicans are, it's all a matter of who donated what. Why would a Gore presidency be any different?
Not that it matters, even the mainstream press says Bush is ahead, and their polls are historically about 10% more generous to the Dems than they should be. I'll bet Bush will even win California, or it will be very close. Woo-hoo. That will make life so much more different.
I'm just looking forward to the sudden cessation of political commercials.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
That's why we need none of the above on the ballot. In many countries if the majority votes none of the above the elections are scrapped and thirty days later there is a new election with new candidates. This is an idea that is being promoted by Ralph NAder in his campaign.
Fiscal Republican but social Democrat. Huh? You want to provide services without getting taxes? Where's all this money going to come from? Or will you just hugely inflate the National Debt?
Regardless of what their opinions are you have to assume that it doesn't matter. The only thing the president will push for > endorse > sign are the bills and policies his largest constituates (Corporations) demand.
We all know the marriage between corporations and politics so I'll stop trolling now.
BOSTON SUCKS!
Regardless of what their opinions are you have to assume that it doesn't matter. The only thing the president will push for > endorse > sign are the bills and policies his largest constituates (Corporations) demand. We all know the marriage between corporations and politics so I'll stop trolling now.
constituates = constituents
BOSTON SUCKS!
The branch that passed the bill in the first place, which is the same branch as the branch that can ovverride vetos with a 2/3s vote. However, winning the Presidency is important for other factors besides checks and balances. Should a third party candidate ever actually win office, then you can be sure that a good amount of people will start seriously considering 3rd party candidates for the LEGISLATURE, where appropriations(sp?) are created and passed.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
And the wheel!
apparently he can change history:
Really? And I thought the text-based browsers were around before Mosaic.
"My job is being right when other people are wrong." -- George Bernard Shaw
You find this no matter what party. I don't think it reflects the candidate so much as how desperate people are to see their candidate win.
A guy I work with has gone out on the street, picked up homeless people, taken them to register (absentee ballot) to vote, and voted FOR THEM (Bush), all in exchange for $5.
"O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" She chortled in her joy.
I would classify myself much as you do: a fiscal Republican, social Democrat. However, I find the fiscal issues to currently outweigh the social ones. I think that Bush will be more likely to lower my tax burden, and that's what I care about most in this particular election.
It's hard to say what might happen in the supreme court. I'd rather not see abortion illegalized (I wouldn't mind seeing RU486 in the drinking water like flouride, for that matter) but that one issue isn't worth moving toward even bigger federal government. As our pal Nader points out: If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the abortion issue goes back to being a state by state decision, so it actually wouldn't be strictly illegalized. Is that so bad?
While many pundits will complain that Bush is the governer of maybe the worst-managed state in the Union
I would dispute that statement. I just moved to Houston, TX, at the beginning of 2000. I've now lived in California, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, and Texas. Texas seems to be run no worse than any of those other states, overall: the schools are actually pretty good (unlike California), we feel safe crime-wise (unlike Louisiana), we have more access to parks and "green areas" than anywhere we've ever lived, and dealing with the typical government bureaucracy getting licenses and such has been less painful than anywhere else we've ever lived. In that comparison, it's especially important to know that TX has no state income tax.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
No, no, try Kabul, Afghanistan for a great place to live.
Never forget: The religious masses are full of stupid people.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
it should _NOT_ be subsidized by the government
/. and looking for porn.
/., and play video games. Luckily for those people I employed, you aren't running things.
Of all of the things that the government does wrong, I think that this isn't that big of a deal. If someone doesn't want to be a parent, I'm all for helping them to not be. Being a good parent is actually one of the most important long-term jobs in our society. The worst thing for us in the world is to force the most irresponsible segments of our society to be parents against their will because they don't have the money to have abortions. I'm definitely for chipping in to help with the whole abortion thing. I think that man will never overcome a lot of his faults until he takes control of his genes. That will only happen after parenthood is acknowledged as a priviledge, not a right.
As has been said: You need a license to drive a car, sell real estate, or own a gun, but any horny idiot can be a parent.
people who make over $100K don't deserve it
Said like someone who'll never make $100k/year because he never applied himself enough to not surf the net half the day reading
What an enormously short-sighted statement you made. I've employed dozens of people in my life at my multiple businesses started with my own money that I originally made as an egineer. If someone had told me that there were no financial rewards for doing what I did, I would have taken a less taxing job - working less hours so that I could go home in the evening to look at porn, read
You be sure to let us know when you've decided what the system should be for who deserves what, and we'll get to work implementing it.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
flustered he got in the debates when pressed for details or rebutted
Getting flustered when on the spot isn't necessarily due to ignorance. I think that Bush is a bit more knowledgeable than we're led to believe, just like Gore isn't quite as dishonest as we're led to believe. Those stereotypes are built up by the press and their opponents, both of whom like to focus on flaws.
sound like he has any clue what he is talking about?
Oh, I see. When a candidate uses technological terms in a "correct" and confident way, that means that he doesn't have any clue as to what he is talking about - or are you just making an ignorant statement based on a tremendous amount of bias?
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
It's partially the harshness of Islam, but I see it as more of just a third world mentality.
I spent a few months living in Hyderabad, India, back in 1995, so I feel that I'm somewhat qualified to have an opinion on this subject.
The common people in these countries are so down-trodden, and so ignorant that they really don't know up from down. They follow their popular leaders without question because they can't even begin to understand how the world really works - even to the point that they can be convinced that being even hotter and more uncomfortable in an already hot place is a good idea.
When we were there, we were absolutely amazed at the complete lack of even rudimentary health knowledge. Time and again, we encountered people who didn't even know how to clean a wound or the value of keeping animal urine off of their food.
These environments are ripe to the point of bursting for the takeover of religious fervor. When your whole life is just consumed by misery, promises of eternal happiness in the hereafter are just too good to pass up.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
After pointing out that the primary respondsability of the executive branch is to enforce rather than draft laws it is odd that you forget that the primary respondsability for the budget rests with Congress.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
Unfortunately, no one will care if you do that.
As I recall, Donald Duck gets about 5% of the vote in every Swedish election, and it usually gets a chuckle and is quickly forgotten.
Politicians will never care about this as it is essentially an invalid vote.
Linda Tripp had evidence. Like it or not, she was able to back up her claim.
:)
True, but Larry Flynt has sworn affidavits and Bush's campaign won't comment on it, he's just waiting for the right time to pounce
This is going to be so great, the GOP elected an anti-abortion hypocrite who paid for an ILLEGAL abortion at the time.
And since it happened in texas, there's a death penalty for what you describe as "murder", so by his own standards, Bush should be put to death, or atleast imprisoned like he does to thousands of other coke-addicts.
Fucking hypocrite.
No I didn't, I got into this debate with you earlier and checked to see if you were still fumbling about this issue.
So, what's your take on my earlier post?
Seriously, I guess this would help the hapless voter, but don't all of us who are the informed already know every one of these points more or less?
Perhaps the CAPS were a bit much.
I agree that if one does not understand the issues he should leave the decisions to more capable hands, but the overall system would undoubtedly be better off if representation were higher and the uninformed did not vote.
As far as I can tell from your response, you would not only prefer to be the only one to vote, you would also prefer to be the only one to exist.
What I meant before was that if you don't value opinions besides your own you might be happier in a fascist state.
'If you don't agree with me, I don't want your sorry ass voting. Don't vote. Stay home!'
So basically you're in support of FASCISM...
The encouragment is not for people to vote stupidly but rather to consider the issues most important to them and vote in spite of the general attitude that a single vote won't change anything.
The more proportional the representation is, the better the system works. While the general
public may not be well educated, as a whole, their votes are the best available measure to minimize the extent to which government agents act on their own behalfs.
Avi
Don't forget now, he invented the calculator too!
- This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along, move along..
If your parents are already dead, why should you care about forced euthanasia?
George W. Bush PAID for an illegal abortion in 1970!!! HYPOCRITE!!!!!
How CNN censored the Crossfire episode right here
San Francisco Examiner article about the cover up right here.
Any questions?
As reputable as Linda Tripp :)
:)
:)
Yes, Larry Flynt did break the story, as much as the Republicans try to smear him, don't forget that he was right about the infidelities of Livingston, Barr, Gingrich and that other slut, all of whom retired
I hope Bush does get the Whitehouse, his past fuck-ups, i.e. abortions, cocaine, racism, drunkeness, etc., will all come back to haunt him. This is the best thing that could ever happen to the Republicans, they've got a bumbling idiot for a martyr, and he WILL be brought down
Just like we will be able to back up our "claim". It's more than a claim, it's the truth. It will definitely rock the presidency should he even TRY to push an anti-abortion agenda!
Sorry, wasn't me, but he made some good points.
Bush will also pay for his own actions in the past, just like the repubs tried to make Clinton pay. They threw stones while living in glass houses.
Bush paid for an ILLEGAL abortion, he broke the law and should be punished, just like the repubs tried to punish Clinton for a MUCH less serious crime than "murder" as you call it.
He's trying to think of something intelligent, unfortunately, he lacks this, can support any of his claims.
No response to my questions? I'm assuming you agree with me then?
If you plain don't vote, you'll just be another statistic among the other million slobs who didn't bother to vote. Impact: zero.
If you vote, but spoil your ballot, those ballots get counted and tallied, and you actually register in the process. If millions spoil their ballots, then obviously the candidates are crap, or there's soemthing else wrong with the process.
So get out there and either vote or spoil, but don't stay home pulling your peter hoping to make a difference.
"There's a party," she said,
"We'll sing and we'll dance,
It's come as you are."
"...we were surprised by the degree to which all six candidates...expressed the same opinions." On paper, they're all going to look the same. They all want to be as palatable as possible to as many people as possible, no one wants to stand out by taking any approach other than the most vanilla of them. The real person is not the one making the staged sound bites or prepared written responses - it's the one being hit by random unexpected questions we should focus on, and see the reality there.
... accuse presidential candidates of all being exactly the same (and usually unfairly, I think), but this time, everybody has nearly identical answers! What gives?
On the whole, though, the answers seem reasonable enough. The next step, though, will be to see who actually holds to it.
------------
For what its worth, check out this Wired News story for some of Bush's blather. A quote:
Sounds like some college intern working on the campaign got a little creative, and the puppet-masters with their hand up W's ass liked it and stuck it in the speech. Does it honestly sound like he has any clue what he is talking about?Bush is a college-educated man, and I don't doubt that he knows his readin, 'ritin, and 'rithmatic. However, I don't think his ideas are very well thought out, and are the epitome of mealy-mouthed rhetoric. If he could defend his plans and stances against his hardiest critics, I would believe him and vote for him. However, I see him using rhetoric, attacks, and finally stuttering and changing the subject to hide the fact that he has no substance.
I also don't believe Gore told that great lie about inventing the internet. I believe he knew what he was talking about, and assumed whomever he was addressing knew what he was referring to. The quote was taken out of context, and now he has to defend himself constantly against the ridiculous idea that a career politician sat down one day with a programming book, a dumbterm and a time machine and single-handedly invented the internet.
If he used these sort of terms or analogies constantly, or even sparingly throughout his campaign and in casual speech, I'd believe that he understood what he meant by them. However, it's a bunch of buzzwords cooked up to make W seem a bit hipper, and a little bit hi-tech friendlier, and it doesn't even fit into the context of the speech.In other words, no; my opinion is well informed, not ignorant. Also, my bias, which is not so tremendous, has been formed by observing the campaigns. I perceive that Gore has better PR and better stage presence, probably due to coaching, but that alone does not make his message more true that W's. However, he has been more forthcoming with facts and explanations in defense of his stances, therefore he has my confidence.
However, net access with the right resources, updated regularly does make a difference. Being able to have a hyperlinked textbook, with an infinite amount of depth on any subject would be a boon. Not only would they save money on constantly reprinting tons and tons of paper textbooks, but the teacher would become more of a guide, showing students a certain path through history or whatever subject is covered, while the student is free in spare time to read in more detail on topics that interest them. A web book would be impossible to deface (given sufficient security), more accurate since changes could be made after publication, and could be linked to current events of interest.
So yes, if such resources existed, they would justify net access and PCs in schools. It's true that just putting the kid in front of the PC won't instantly make them smarter.
According to this quiz, I AM Ralph Nader.
I think he was just in a hurry to get FIST PROST.
I'm wondering if the Department of Justice's case against MicroSoft is gonna quietly go away under Bush. This isn't flamebait -- I'm hoping someone will say something encouraging.
Alright, you (and my girlfriend, who advanced similar arguments) won me over. I wanted to vote for Browne anyways, but my anger at Bush's attitude led me to want to doing something that I thought would be more effective.
To quote from Kang & Kodoss:
"Silly human! You have a two party system! You HAVE to vote for one of us!"
Okay, convince me. I know that Democrats are for more government (which I'm against) and Republicans general go for less (which I'm for), but at least in the case of the war on drugs Bush seems to place it as a very high priority. Gore hasn't seemed to mention it at all (I can't find anything about it on his website) but Bush seems to be making it a major part of his platform (see this).
I normally vote Libertarian, but the closeness of this election has me a little nervous. I'm going to be (gag, choke) voting for Gore, just because I'm afraid that Bush might win and push our government's spending on military supremacy and the war on drugs back into the 80's.
Now what's I'm really looking forward to voting on is Prop 36. If you're a Californian, check it out.
That may be the message you're hoping to send, but that's not the one that's received. What you mean as "I don't like any of you," is taken as, "I didn't consider any of you." If you want to say you don't like any of them go do a write in vote for Homer Simpson or something inane.
It's probably just the basic egotism of politicians, but they're much happier to decide that you're lazy than you're smart but dissatisfied.
That said, I'm sure you could find a candidate whose view are 'close enough' to yours if you cared to look.
--
Well, obviously you won't be voting for the Alliance, a group that might be called the fiscal Democrats and social Republicans.
I come from a long line of unionised NDP party hacks and moderate Trotskyites, and now I live in the US, where I work for the Man, have a 401k and worry about the capital gains tax. I'm hoping to get out of the USA before whoever's in office next has been in for long enough to start screwing things up, because America's a bad place to live if you still remember what it's like to be poor.
Whoever gets elected in the US will be a disaster. There will be an economic downturn - either soft or hard - in the next four years. Someone will have to take the blame, and it's usually whoever's in the White House. So, if I could vote in the American elections, I'd vote Nader. Harry Browne turns my stomach - corporations already control too much of my life, thank you, and compare any Canadian hospital to, say, LA county's public hospitals and you'll begin to appreciate socialised medicine. Nader at least is campaigning on actually improving people's lives, instead of the slow erosion of wages under the status quo. It won't make much difference if Bush or Gore is elected. Unless there's a Republican President, Republican Senate and a Republican House, no one will have the power to interefere with the status quo anyway. But a vote for Nader is a vote for the possibility of a real, social democratic third party.
In Canada, a vote for a party that can't win is still a vote that makes a difference. 10-20 NDP MP's moves parliament well to the left, just as 10-20 PC MP's would to the right. Better still would be proportional representation.
But in the US, if you live in a state where the election is a foregone conclusion, or you just can't abide the two candidates with real chances, your vote is wasted.
Maybe these questions were just hideously generic (is this wrong, is this right), but I didn't see a whole lot of difference between these candidates.
Could it be that these candidates just don't have concrete opinions formulated about this (relatively) new medium, or are they all just advised on technological matters by the same people?
Many people view technology as a replacement for good teachers. The truth, of course, is that technology is not needed to learn. If you are well educated, technology will be easy for you to learn.
My $0.02
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
in 1814, according to none other than The Whitehouse itself.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I can guarantee you that nobody gives shit one what the nonvoters think: not the GOP, not the Democrats, not the third parties. This is because nonvoters (surprise surprise) are not likely voters. The likely voters are party aparachniks, idealogues (usually leaning conservative), and moderates, and they determine policy. If you don't like it, too bad, because the politicians aren't going to cater to you.
If you really want to give people other options, you might want to run for office yourself.
fearbush.com
Finding God in a Dog
Try http://www.speakout.com/votematch/index2.asp . This is one of the redirects from the site referenced above.
This is a very nice little quiz to see what candidates agree with you. Make sure you read the clarifying text with each question (each question has a little link)... your answers will probably change when you see how they interpret what you select.
I took it and liked it... No suprise to find out I am the complete and total anti-Nader...
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Are you sure about that?
Here's a hypothetical for you:
Congress passes a law giving schools $20 billion to be used on Internet technology, to be administrated by the Department of Redundancy Department.
President Bore's appointee to the DoRD implements a regulation that says "in order to get this money, you have to install filtering software."
Now which branch's opinion on filtering technology is more important?
Things like this happen daily.
-
The branch that passed the bill in the first place, which is the same branch as the branch that can ovverride vetos with a 2/3s vote.
Not all things are done with bills, I'm telling you. The EPA does things every day that are supported by their own regulations, not any law on the books.
The interpretation of the ADA is a hot topic in Congress, and in the Courts, because the Executive branch basically sets all of the law regarding it due to an incredibly vague law.
As for the "hypothetical" situation I named, Al Gore is proposing to do exactly that.
Should a third party candidate ever actually win office, then you can be sure that a good amount of people will start seriously considering 3rd party candidates for the LEGISLATURE, where appropriations(sp?) are created and passed.
Historically, it's the other way around. Look at the last third-party President who was elected; Abraham Lincoln. His party, the Republicans, had to claim massive legislature gains first.
It's less so now, with the popular vote loosely controlling the Electoral College, but it is still a matter of winning at lower levels first before you can win the Presidency.
That's why these numbers are important:
Number of elected or appointed officials in various parties around the country:
Libertarian: 313
Green: 72
Reform: 7
Constitution: 1
Natural Law: 0
-
No, actually, that's just about right. Read Nader's and the Green party's platform! "Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage." Now do the math. It may not be exact, but it's close enough.
How I yearn for Republicans that can actually think.
What the Hell makes you think the above poster speaks for anyone but himself? He does not speak for all republicians. In fact, he only speaks for one republician.
That was WAY too easy.
Finkployd
if the right man cheats and lies himself into office, fine. Only the outcome matters. If Gore has to cheat to win, so be it. He's better
There is your typical "new" democrat response. Who cares if we lie cheat and steal, we know what is better for you than you do.
How I yearn for the "FDR" democrats of yesterday.
Finkployd
They are fashion, even if you ascribe great philosphical significance to them, they are still fashion, swinging back and forth according to the norms of current society.
I'm not going to get into either abortion or gun control, because those issues are so charged that we'll get away from my real point. However, the budget and spending policy is a great point to illustrate because without a SOUND fiscal policy in place our economy will go into the shitter. Who cares about abandonware if you've got to figure out how you're going to feed your family and keep your house? Just because you don't care, doesn't make those other issues unimportant. For example, I know that environmental concerns are very important, but they rank far from the top of the issues that I vote on.
Technology, however, doesn't go backwards,
How many millions of people stopped using the internet last year? I'm not going to pull some figure out of thin air, but those people do exist.
The Internet is going to define the culture of this new century
Not in any manner that is radically different from TV, Radio and Telephone. Sure it's easier to create your own internet content than it is to run an amateur TV station, but it's just another medium of communication. Don't make it out to be some digital messiah because that it isn't. It's a tool nothing more, nothing less.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If you don't plan to have children, why should you care about abortion?
If your parents are already dead, why should you care about forced euthanasia?
And if you don't go outside, you don't get shot.
Then, you die from a heart attack when you're 36.
If you have enough money, why should you care about budget issues?
How much is enough? What if a downturn in the economy causes your investments in the stock market to plummet? How about if interest rates change so you're not pulling in as much as you expected this year? The budget is important for everyone.
I personally don't care about my health as long as I have my freedom.
If your health is poor enough, you won't live long enough to enjoy your freedom.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
George W. Bush PAID for an illegal abortion in 1970!!! HYPOCRITE!!!!!
You proof of this is what?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Yes. I should have phrased my question this way, "Do you have a reputable source for that claim?"
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Linda Tripp had evidence. Like it or not, she was able to back up her claim.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Roscoe, you forgot to log out and chance which ID you were posting under.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.
How about if the Republican party ceased to be in the pocket of all sorts of religious organizations?
Yup. That pretty much says it all.
Dammit. I HATE Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and James Dobson and Ken Hamm and Pat Buchanan and Billy Graham and Bill McCartney and all the rest of them.
And all those guys and their vast herds of sheep are salivating at the chance for a victory at the polls tomorrow, and it looks like they are going to get it. That, more than anything, is the worst part of it to me. I don't know exactly why it gets me so much, but I have such a gut-level revulsion to those people that most of the other issues are insignificant to me compared to the importance of turning away their increasing grabs at political power.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Exactly what is a "qualified no answer"??? Is that like answering a somewhat related question, but ducking the issue at hand? If so, all of them should have been marked n/a*. It's what politicians are best at!
Eric
No, I don't think they were given questionaires. I think someone compiled the answers from their previous statements. So n/a doesn't mean they refused to answer, just that they haven't happened to answer yet.
Just my impressions.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
Sorry, there is more to the story than the first page (damn that tiny text). They DID answer questions directly.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
If the Libertarian Party is so great for liberating corporations, then why does "Big Business" donate millions of dollars to the Republicrats and nothing to the Libertarian Party? The Libertarians are the eternal third party candidate, with candidates running for most offices but no publicity or corporate backing. I think the corporations like the stats quo. They like having politicians under their thumb, hiding behind the veil of da gub'mint.
cpeterso
Gore used to have an "A" rating, based on his voting record, from the NRA when he was in Congress. Later on, when it was expedient for him, he changed his stance on gun control and, as a result, received an "F" rating from the NRA. He also received a 94% rating from the National Right to Life Committee for his opposition to abortion. The guy is a weasel. Oops, I've just insulted the weasels of America.
I *really*, *really* hope Pat Buchanan is not celebrating victory on Wednesday. Although perhaps his campaign strategy really is to suck fewer votes from Bush than Nader is from Gore - he's doing really well there. Also he's probably going to drop below 5% of the vote, so there'll be no federal money for Ventura to run in 2004.
I laughed at his "auction" commercial, though. And I really want to know what exactly he'd do to stop people withdrawing their support from the Boy Scouts.
--
--
E_NOSIG
What really happened in 1812 (in mp3 format).
--
--
E_NOSIG
Here here.
I keep hearing statistics of how many elegible voters actually vote. If a significant enough fraction of them came out, and voted (doesn't matter who for), they could have a tremendous influence on the whole system.
If you don't normally vote, great, just sign your name, walk in, and do nothing.
Thats right, don't fill out that part of the ballot. There are usually other choices on the ballot (local ordinances, other elected officials, etc.). If you don't like your choices, don't cast your vote. If you want to see the political parties have a caniption, watch them count the votes and realize that 30% more people came out to vote and didn't like their choices BUT STILL CAME OUT TO VOTE. Then watch the next election when you find a choice you do like and it isn't one of the major political parties.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Even if he does claim to have invented the Internet.
Okay, I'll admit I love poking fun at him about this silly quote as much as anyone.
(Slight digresion)Has anyone else gotten a bellyache from the latest 'Snikers' advertisement with the guy going into a polling booth only to have a talking cartoon elephant plop down on one of his shoulders saying things like "I'm the same as my father" "We both wear pants" and a cartoon talking donkey on the other shoulder saying things like "I invented the internet" and retorting with "I invented pants".
But back to the subject. In context, what Gore had said was that he was responsible for championing Arpanet in Congress, which he was, and that he felt like its father (or something to that effect), which quickly got balooned out of control by the media. I was rather surprised when I found out that he actually DID have something to do with getting the internet created. He didn't create it, but he said something too close and its too good a story to pass up, and besides, a Vice Presidents primary job is to make the Pres look good, and he had a heck of a job with that one.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
(And please don't think that I think abortion is a good idea; it does devalue life and encourage people not to take responsibility for their actions, but to ban it outright is to ignore the fact that it will happen no matter what the policy.)
So you agree it's morally wrong, but think that government should do nothing about that? What the heck is government for if not to uphold the right and punish wrongs? Besides, abortion is far less defensible today than slavery was in the 1860's, in both cases, it's the Democrats ignoring injustices to the voiceless oppressed.
But, Clinton is Presidential. Not only did he clearly have fun in office (and some of that was even *without* Ms. Lewinsky), he was also a professional in all matters of foreign affairs. And, he was a thoroughly likeable individual for the world to see as the American leader.
I see. This would explain the incresed stature of the US during the Clinton years (yeah, right.) Clinton has never been remotely presidential - foreign leaders laugh at him, and he has made our nation and the office of the presidency a joke in the international community.
Bush, however, is that amiable guy sitting over there at the end of the bar, spinning yarns; he's interesting and exciting. If you met him - probably in a dimly-lit sports bar in the backwoods of Texas - you'd think he was a tractor salesman. He will command the respect of the world not through dignity, but only through sheer power. This is not the best way to influence international or domestic diplomacy. Bush is *no* statesman.
As Linda Bowles put it so well in a recent column: "Although Gore flunked out of divinity school, dropped out of law school, and had lower college grades than Bush, when comparisons are made, it is Bush who is routinely underestimated. His humility and his plain talk are viewed by the liberal elite as evidence of mental limitations when in fact they are evidence of a refreshing lack of intellectual snobbery. Underneath Bush's folksy, disarming ways is a degree at Yale University and a masters degree at Harvard." Having seen Bush handle the international issues that arise in a border state such as Texas, I'd say he's a FAR better statesman than Gore ever could be.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
At the very least then you send a clear signal to the powers that be that you're dissatisfied with what they're offering and could be a threat to them in future elections.
Basically, Voting for something stupid is a like a big "Fuck You" to everybody running, especially the majority.
Staying home and voting for nothing just says that you're happy to have others (whom you do not approve of) in control of you.
if you hit 'next' and read the
once again, taco proves his ineptness.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I guess anybody who believes that gets what's coming to them, but it is still Not Nice (tm). Shoulda put a smiley or something.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
But the bill might be passed before the candidates get to weigh in on the issue. (during lame-duck session in congress, starting Nov 14)
--
Interesting theory on Nader btw. It would be fun to see mass infighting between principled socialists (Greens) and unprincipled near-socialists.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
What about Harry Browne?. By conventional standards the Libertarians are a bit extreme, but they're the only party which is consistently for liberty and against government intrusion in personal and economic issues.
Gore hasn't got the same joi-de-vivre as Clinton has, but at least he's an elegant and digified statesman, a boring but professional person.
I would disagree with this. Look at his performance in the debates; he was consistently interrupting, violating the agreed-upon rules, at one point literally getting in Bush's face as he was talking. That does not strike me as professional, and I would not want anyone with an attitude like that representing my country.
Bush is *no* statesman. The fact that he's leading in the polls arguably because more of the electorate things he'd be a more fun guy with whom to have a beer arguably proves the every dictator right: perhaps the people *aren't* smart enough to choose their own destiny after all.
Can't argue with the first statement, but I don't think people are quite that stupid. I think people are tired of the constant lies and scandals emanating from the White House (of which Gore played many integral roles), and are not buying Gore's hysterical claims that Bush's plans would destroy the economy, cause senior citizens to starve, or result in the earth being sucked into a black hole.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
http://www.issues2000.com
or
http://www.issues2000.org
I can't remember which it is. They have a LOT of information. So, if anyone out there is *still* undecided, check out the site, and make sure you are part of the election tomorrow!
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
I thought it was repugnant and disgusting because they're bribing them with cigarettes. And after all the fuss the Dems made about the evils of tobacco.
Just goes to show, whoever wins (Rep or Dem), we can blame it all on the tobacco companies.
(Vote for me and you'll all get affordable health care! Now heres some cigarettes so you can get lung cancer.)
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
Bush keeps claiming he claimed that. Here's the real story in Gore's own words. And here's a viewpoint you may not have heard.
clear-cut reason for a Linux-loving computer geek to get out there and vote, it's for GoreIt is true that a vote for Bush is a vote for Microsoft. He'll shut down the antitrust case faster than you can crash Windows 98.
He loves some big corporations, but he doesn't love big tobacco (IMO, this ciggies for votes thing sounds like a setup) and he doesn't love Microsoft. In fact, on a campaign trip to Redmond last year, he got right in their faces and said that antitrust law should be applied to the software industry.
That's not exactly correct. GWB didn't bother to answer their questions, but instead sent in what sounds like his generic policy paper on the issue. PC World went through and dug out the comments that came closest to answering their specific questions, but in a lot of cases the questions are different enough that the actual answer comes out as somewhat qualified compared to the question asked.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Even though I'm voting for Nader - I feel like I'm betraying Al Gore.
After all - he did INVENT the Internet!!!
*heh*
[Connection closed by foreign host]
It seems the majority of the candidates support censorware in schools. I'm suprised by the fact that even though they support censorware, the don't think the federal government should decide what is to be censored. I guess this would move the decision to the states, either way it's bad. I'd hate to see what my home state of Mississippi (heart of the bible belt) would decide to censor. Obviously alternative and minority religions would be gone since they are cults to Southern Baptists. And does that mean that Califorinia would be more liberal? I wonder who these candidates think would be the appropriate agency to decide what is to be censored. I must say I find the whole position of censoring schools disheartening.
All I have to say is that up here in Canada, it has been decided that if you folks vote Bush into office, we are coming down there to burn the White House again!
Funny... down here, among many of us, it has been decided that if the idiots vote Bush into office, we are moving to Canada.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
Wise men do well to surround themselves with other wise men.
reposted, one level up. try now.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Not true. Just look at the FCC instituting a telephone tax for the purpose of funding the wiring of schools. That wasn't authorized by any congressional action, but there it is nonetheless. The executive has broad powers via its regulatory agencies. Even if the executive can't directly force an issue, it can threaten to withold federal funds to get states/municipalities to pass the laws it wants. Witness the threat to withold highway funds unless states make .08 the legal limit for drunk driving.
Call and write letters to your representatives if you want to have an effect. They really do pay attention, particularly if you can get a group of people involved. Voting for Bugs Bunny doesn't tell them a thing about what's pissing you off, but a slew of mail, faxes, and phone calls on a topic will at a minimum let them know that there might be consequences for ignoring your wants.
Hey man, we rammed our share of Spanish Fishing Trawlers!
Carefull, or we will turn off your water.
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
It seems that G.W. qualified EVERY answer dealing with privacy...
All I have to say is that up here in Canada, it has been decided that if you folks vote Bush into office, we are coming down there to burn the White House again!
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Now with the DMCA saying we can't even reverse engineer software, there will be even more monopolies springing up. If it's not MS, it's some other company.
Yeah, I doubt that was specifically part of the plan with the DMCA. It was well-intentioned, but clearly written by people with no concept of computers.
The law will always be behind technology. There's no way anyone could ever predict another potential killer-app like Napster. But at least if the people who wrote the laws had had a clue...
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
I *really*, *really* hope Pat Buchanan is not celebrating victory on Wednesday. <snip> Also he's probably going to drop below 5% of the vote, so there'll be no federal money for Ventura to run in 2004.
Uhh... Yeah. The Reform party itself is pretty scary.
I think Ventura, from what I've heard about him, very much appeals to me. Fiscal conservative, but of the Pierre Elliot Trudeau attitude that "the State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation". (Too bad PET wasn't a fiscal conservative...)
But, between Ventura as the guy who calls religion a crutch for weak-minded people, and Pat Robertson as Bible-thumper extraordinaire, there's no real solid definition of the Reform party. I think this scares away people who would support it from either side...
Until they get their act together, they're going to remain a fringe thing. (Remember their leadership convention in L.A.? Not gonna happen soon...)
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
This isn't just about abortion. It's about preserving the separation between church and state.
Absolutely. You wanna live in a relious state? Move to Iran.
For example, religous convictions notwithstanding, there is no reason to disallow gay marriages.For sure. It's time for people to get over it already. Remember, though, only a scant ?40? years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. The same people who were so against interracial marriages are now the ones who think that gay people are a satanic cult.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
I'm wondering if the Department of Justice's case against MicroSoft is gonna quietly go away under Bush.
Yes, it will.
The Republicans feel that business is business; Microsoft is just conducting normal business practices, and that is how they have achieved their dominance.
Now, on one hand, the Republicans hands-off attitude towards business is wonderful.
On the other hand, in this case, some very special tweaking has to be done to extricate Microsoft from their current position. Clearly, they are not the party to do this.
If ever there was a clear-cut reason for a Linux-loving computer geek to get out there and vote, it's for Gore, and for this very reason. Even if he does claim to have invented the Internet. <sigh>
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Abortion: My problem with voting democrat is not that they'll keep abortion legal - it should be (sad but true).
Exactly.
However, it should _NOT_ be subsidized by the government, which the democrats have been doing. Now the government will take responsibilities for your (stupid) actions! Ludicrous!For sure! If people aren't held responsible for their inattention to proper birth control techniques, they won't do it. Now, I'd draw the line with rape and incest; perhaps that could be paid. But general "I didn't think I was fertile at this time of the month" or "I thought if I pulled out before I ...you know..." just aren't good enough.
Although Nader my unfairly try to make an economy where no salary is over $100K, the sad truth is that most people who make over $100K don't deserve it,But when you make an arbitary decision like that, you give the successful no incentive to work any harder; to take that additional risk and open another business, which will employ x new people.
The fact of the matter is that you can't punish success. If you do, your best and brightest will flee.
Lemme tell you, I speak from experience. I'm a Canadian, no dependents, 26 years old. I make a good living. And over 50% of it is taken from me with one tax or another. That's one of the most tenuous issues that angers and frustrates me and just makes me crave an escape from Canada so that I can have a better standard of living in the United States.
Nader's solution is great in theory, but it's no solution.
and the people making them the money (eg working class) at $30-50K should be given a huge pay raise. Reward hard work but don't allow exploitation.Oh yeah, but doesn't the free market do that already?
Is a parking attendant really worth $21/hr? Nope. But that's what Toronto's municipal parking attendants are paid. That's through unions, not through legislation. The net effect is that the municipal lots actually *cost* Toronto money; they're subsidized in order to make them compete with the private lots.
This raises your property tax burden, and gives companies and people reason to locate somewhere else. Allowed to escalate, your economy will quickly flouder. And those people who are parking attendants will never feel the hunger for cash that drives many people to go on to higher education or tinker with that old 486 in the corner. Again, the economy stagnates: eventually, you have an economy based on convenience store clerks, parking attendants and janitors. And let's face facts, they're not generally the most innovative of people.
However, if the job market was so tight that you couldn't get anyone to do the job for $20/hr, then that'd be fine with me.
Capitalism generally works pretty well when you don't meddle with it.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Please do check it out, I'm sure you won't regret it, and it may even change your mind about the futility of voting this year...
Sadly, I'm a Canadian citizen. I'm still a job offer, Green Card and 5 years away from being an American voter. <sigh> The fact that I was born north of the 49th parallel is proof positive that God not only exists, but also that he's got a sarcastic and evil sense of humor.
But, even so, the problem is that if people vote Libertarian this year, even if it gets them up to the required 5% for federal funding, it also means that we've got the vote being taken away - probably substantially - from Gore.
Even if the Libertarian Party gets over the 5%, it will be at the cost of Gore's Presidency. This particular election is especially crucial, because the next President will be appointing a whole bunch of Supreme Court judges. Republican appointees might well overturn Roe vs. Wade, etc. Not to mention absolutely decimating DoJ vs. Microsoft. Remember, in Republican eyes, Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong.
In other words, while the Libertarian Party makes sense, you must vote for Gore this election, for God's sake. Or else abortion could be banned, Matthew Shepard died for nothing, and Microsoft will be allowed to take over the world.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Nice... I'm assuming this isn't a troll.
Nope, not at all. A measure of frustration, yes.
Ummm, bombing an aspirin factory is a professional act?Was he choosing the targets? It was an unfortunate wartime incident; sh*t happens.
Allowing nuclear secrets to be stolen, with exactly 0 reprisals is professional?Wasn't Wen Ho Lee cleared? I'm sure it burned Janet Reno's ass, but didn't the facts show that the guy was just an imbecile with no criminal intent?
Making the sanctity of the Oval Office, and his position a laughingstock is professional?Are you gonna tell me that no Republican has ever gotten his Slick Willie licked in office?
Gimme a break.
There are two unfortunate parts to this incident:
Part 1, he lied about it (but come on, any guy can understand that, and Hillary is a bit of a ball-crusher, I'm sure).
Part 2: Bill, Bill, Bill. You're the leader of the free world. You can do better than Monica!
But, the rest of that is between Bill and Hillary, where it should be.
C'mon. GW ain't perfect but don't tell me Clinton knows how to behave. That's like saying Ted Kennedy has sexual restraint.Nah, Bill's just human.
Further, under the scrutiny of being President, if Bush gets to that point, I'd bet large sums of money here and now that facts will turn up against the man that are *far* more damning than anything raked up about Clinton. Remember, we're talking about the priviledged son, who has never had to work for anything in his life until this campaign. The party-boy whose only previous experience has been doing lines of coke off toilet tanks in the local saloon and then crashing his father's businesses. Then he gets to be governor of Texas, maybe even President. If he's elected, just you wait. He won't be in office a month before the first scandal, I promise.
I consider GW Bush's DUI arrest in 1976 to be far more damning than Clinton's bit of Presidential penile recreation. Even in the context that, in 1976, drinking and driving was a lot less illegal than it is today.
I don't think the electorate should expect *anyone* in office to be perfect; these are human beings, with individual strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us.
But, let's face facts. Bush is the new Quayle; even if you happen to agree with his politics, the guy is a *goofball*. There's nothing about him that makes you look at him and say, "Wow, this is a dignified and capable leader". Clinton wasn't perfect, but he sure did capture the hearts and minds of Americans and the rest of the world alike, on a level unseen since the Kennedy days.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
And Microsoft's success is hard-earned -- and will not be cured by a Federal Department of Software Innovation.
Yeah. Right. A little bit of luck, a good marketing department, and a founder who has the same absolute assuredness that what he's doing is the right thing as Hitler had...
If Bush gets into office, he'll kill the DoJ's case against Microsoft. And then... ?
And we'll get to support Windows 2002, then Service Pack 1, 2, 3, Security Packs 697 to 3,422, Service Pack 5, Windows 2004, Service Packs 1-17, Security Pack 14,921 - Security Pack 21,476, and somewhere in there Windows Me2, Windows Mini-Me (for palmtops; no Austin Powers reference intended, of course), Windows Me4u, and all the other nasty names that Microsoft's marketing department could get past our friends, Bill and Paul.
Please. I don't like government meddling in business, but if for no other reason to help the DoJ see this thing through, vote for Gore.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
No, no, try Kabul, Afghanistan for a great place to live. Never forget: The religious masses are full of stupid people.
I've never understood Islam. I mean, I know they're just out there, doing their own thing. But it strikes me that Afghanistan must be pretty warm in places? And they want you to keep a beard? [sigh] I'd already read the article, but I still don't get it.
I understand why Islamic customs make women wear all the headgear; apparently, the men get distracted when they're horny. Sure, fine, makes good sense to me. I can't condone it, but at least I understand it.
But, some of this is definately arid tropics where these people live. Don't the women get heatstroke? Even if Muslim men don't consider their women to be equals, doesn't a day of heatstroke at least reduce the quality of the sex when they get back to the tent that evening?
Understand that I'm not making fun, I'm just seeking an answer for what I consider to be a valid question.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Disclaimer: this article contains thoughts of a politically mature nature. You're welcome to agree or disagree with me. But if you're moderating, remember the Slashdot rules: moderate based on the intelligence of the posting, not based on whether you simply agree or disagree with it. Consider your motives between choosing a moderation point and then clicking that Moderate button.
Fiscal Republican but social Democrat. Huh? You want to provide services without getting taxes? Where's all this money going to come from? Or will you just hugely inflate the National Debt?No, I suggest that you simply don't provide the services, but let people live their lives as they see fit.
I've since seen the answer, though they've not got a snowball's chance in hell of being elected for the near future: the Libertarian Party.
They're for low taxes (0 federal income tax!), the separation of church and state, and not meddling in capitalism.
They're for an abolition of entitlements, which make up a *huge* percentage of the federal budget. They're for a system which forces people to be accountable for their own fiscal survival.
Imagine how nice your retirement portfolio would look if you could invest everything that you now spend on income tax into it.
They're for an abolition of gun control. Fine, Columbine was tragic, but we all agree, based on an earlier Slashdot discussion, that there were underlying problems with student morale that caused it. The fact of the matter remains: criminals are called criminals because they ignore the law. Do you think criminals are going to register their guns? Nah. So, current gun control laws can only serve to hurt legitimate gun owners and sportsmen, antique firearm collectors and those who feel a need for personal defense.
The Libertarian Party wants to rescind all marriage taxes and fiscal benefits. And, since they're not affiliated with any religious organizations the way the Republicans are, they don't care if your sister wants to marry a yack. It doesn't matter to them, as long as both parties are consenting.
They feel abortion is wrong, as I do, but we also agree on the point that attempting to stop it through legislation will only mean that women start getting killed by coat hangers again.
By all measures, the war on drugs hasn't worked. Like Prohibition, most criminal activity can be attributed to the fact that drugs are illegal. Murders, thefts, etc. are all related to that. Back in the 1930s, anyone could walk into any pharmacy and buy heroin, yet no one was being killed in drive-by shootings over drug territories. Sure, some people will get hooked, and they might even die. Oh well. Darwinian Theory goes hand in hand with Libertarianism. Even so, few informed people could actually call marijuana dangerous. It's ironic that huge numbers of people are currently in jail - instead of productively working and spending - over what is widely considered in pharmacology to be a less addictive drug than either tobacco or alcohol.
And, they propose to get the federal government out of its involvement in all tasks not specifically described in the Constitution. In the USA, the Federal government has millions of square miles of land. The Libertarians propose to pay down the debt by auctioning that, and keep the government running on only its Constitutionally-appointed tasks with a variety of existing federal taxes not including income tax.
In Canada, they would do the same thing by selling constant fiscal liabilities like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, zillions of other silly government agencies that don't serve the Canadian constitution, and ending subsidies to private companies. Nortel, for instance, gets over $100 million CDN a year from the Canadian feds. Remember, Canada's population is 1/10th of the American population; that's a big strain.
I'd vote Libertarian in the upcoming Canadian election - at least out of disdain for the more practical choices - except there's no Libertarian candidate in my riding.
Maybe there's even a future for me running for public office... :)
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
What about Harry Browne?. By conventional standards the Libertarians are a bit extreme, but they're the only party which is consistently for liberty and against government intrusion in personal and economic issues.
Yup, I have checked out that website, and I agree: He's the man. You're one of the few people to have changed my viewpoint. Thank you.
I would disagree with this. Look at his performance in the debates; he was consistently interrupting, violating the agreed-upon rules, at one point literally getting in Bush's face as he was talking. That does not strike me as professional, and I would not want anyone with an attitude like that representing my country.I will agree with you about Gore's skill with the debates, too.
Certainly, running against as inept a Republican nominee as one can imagine (short, maybe, of Dan Quayle), one would have expected Gore to have done a lot better, especially in the debates.
Fundamentally, I think they'd underestimated Bush. Further, I think there's a lot of animosity and frustration in Gore that Bush is even on his radar screen.
If you were forced, by your aspirations, to have what is essentially a job interview against a fellow computer geek who feels that Outlook is the most secure e-mail client in existance, wouldn't you feel smug and superior, too?
To my way of thinking, this was Gore's undoing, but as a human being, I can understand it and even empathize completely. He must have been frustrated as hell.
So, despite the absolute debacle of the debates, I still feel that Gore is an elegant and qualified statesman, a gentleman of a high caliber who could represent the United States abroad with a measure of dignity unparalleled by Bush's brash hail-fellow-well-met demeanor.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
It seems to me that about 50% of the questions received answers from Gore and Bush that put them both in direct contradiction with the current actitivities of the US government.
Most telling is this, though, "Do you believe the internet should be filtered in schools? Yes, Yes." next question: "Do you believe the government should set criteria used to block web sites in schools?" Bush: no answer. Gore: "No." So just who the hell does he expect will decide how to implement the filters he just stated should be used?
I do not have a signature
Seems like there's a general consensus on the issues they chose to answer. Who says you don't have any choices?
Nader is dangerous. Sure, he sounds noble enough on the surface, but he's a great way to:
drive businesses away through punishing regulations and embrace of a society where no one makes over $100,000/year
That isn't in Nader's platform...
No, actually, that's just about right. Read Nader's and the Green party's platform! "Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage." Now do the math. It may not be exact, but it's close enough.
No, YOU read the Green Party Platform that was ratified at the Green Party National Convention, June 2000.
As you will see, Ralph Nader's platform mentions NOTHING about the progressive income tax that you described....
Here is the the link that describes Ralph's Platform that was ratified at the Green Party National Convention.
They're appealing to the same voters--you and me--so of course, they're going to use similar rhetoric, even when holding opposite philosophies. Just look at the issues themselves: Gore is anti-gun, but he cloaks his view in the rhetoric of the NRA (protecting hunters and even law-abiding homeowners, etc.). Bush is anti-choice, but he cloaks his view in the rhetoric of liberals (protecting the quality of life, reducing the number of abortions without eliminating abortions, etc.). They're both insincere, but the time for holding strong beliefs was last year during the primaries; now they're fighting for the fuzzy middle.
And it's so sad, because this election really does matter. Whom we elect tomorrow will have an unmeasurable effect on all the things we take for granted; all the political philosophies we fight and die for; all the rights and privileges we take for granted. But you wouldn't know it from rhetoric of the candidates.
-- Anne Marie
Taken one way, this seems to indicate that Bush is not answering as many questions as Gore on technology issues. Also, Bush seems to be unwilling to get internet access to schools. So much for his education ideas. Of course, he has said in the past that it should be locally decided what federal school funds are used for, but I for one would like the Feds to at least lay down some guidelines. I'm fairly certain that the school system I came up through had some financial irregularities. Federal guidelines won't really stop that, but might prevent some of it.
Eric Gearman
--
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
In the local community library, I see students sit down and use the internet to do research that, IMHO, would be quicker and easier to conduct using non-internet sources. Want a brief overview of the civil war? Sure, the internet will give you plenty of material, but the wall of encyclopedias are better, IMHO, for the information, and for a detailed view, there are more then a few history books on the shelves, some dealing with only the civil war, or specialized aspects of it. I would use the internet to find civil war reinactments, or perhaps some specialized information, such as rare research papers done by scholars, but the internet should not be used as the sole source of information for many projects.
Which leads me to another point: The internet if full of misleading and often wrong information. Do schools educate students on authenticating sources? I just have the vision of a student turning in a report with "facts" cited from the Onion or Urbanlegends.com.
As repugnant and disgusting as I think this is, I don't think it should be illegal.
I own me, and thus I own my vote. If I want to enter into a contract with someone else so as to vote for them in exchange for some consideration, what difference does it make to anybody else where that consideration was "will uphold 2nd amendment rights" or "a pack of Camels"?
All he said was that he "took the initiative in Congress in creating the Internet" - ie he persuaded Congress to fund it. Which he did. Vint Cerf, who (if anyone did) really did invent the Internet, has backed Gore up on what he actually claimed.
I can't stand the man, and wouldn't vote even if I was a USan, but the dull repetition of an old lie still annoys me.
--
Xenu loves you!
CmdrTaco just told everyone "No matter what you believe, get out and vote tomorrow." WHY?
I'm sick of all these people making so-called 'public service' pleas for everyone to get out and vote, regardless of who you vote for! Screw that! If you don't agree with me, I don't want your sorry ass voting. Don't vote. Stay home!
I don't care if the representative I pick gets one vote or a million, just as long as he/she wins. All of the non-partisan encouragers can shut the hell up. If all the other sheeple are perfectly content to sit on their butts on November 7th (or whatever day your country holds elections), I say let 'em! I want my opinions, ideas, and views overrepresented in our government because I think they're better than any known alternatives. I'd drop them in a minute and adopt some other ideas if I didn't think mine were the best. If you think about it, unless you've got "not-invented-here" syndrome, you would do the same with yours, too. Since I think my political views are the best, I'm perfectly willing to drop the air of neutrality to say "If you don't agree, stay home!" because that's the only way my views get overrepresented in government. Overrepresentation is exactly what I want!
So let's all stop playing this silly game. Leave it up to the partisans to motivate their voters. That's what political parties are for! To hell with this whiny "go vote no matter who you vote for" civic duty crap. It's your RIGHT, not your obligation, just like it's your right to sit home and eat nachos with beans and cheese and hot salsa instead of going all the way across the neighborhood to cast a vote that you believe in so little that you have to be encouraged to cast it.
Stay home! I'll make political decisions for you when I cast my vote.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I've never seen a decent, well-thought-out argument for net access in the schools. Libraries, yes, but how does it improve mastery of classroom subjects ??? Will it teach little Johnny or Janie to read, or to do arithmetic, or explain why the Magna Carta is the first major precursor of American government ??? Kids need to master SOME knowledge before the Net can be a help. And just where IS that point ?????
No matter what you believe, get out and vote tomorrow.
Actually, for those who haven't heard, there's been a change in the scheduling. Due to the expected crunch at the polls, voters are being asked to stagger their voting times to allow for the additional capacity. Republicans should vote on Tuesday, November 7, Democrats and Independents on Wednesday, November 8.
I got more rhymes than Jamaica got Mangoes.
"they're all wrong on something important." True but of course that is going to be true no matter who is running. Anyone who is not you is going to disagree with you on at least one issue that you think is important. Ok maybe you and a couple of other people in the world. The point of the matter is not who is right or wrong on any one issue. The point is does the persons overall view of the world and the role of governemnt fit with yours in such a way that you can see them doing a pretty good job. This is why I support Browne. Simply put he *is* wrong on some issues. But overall his viewpoint is that government should be very small do for me those few things that I, my family and my friends can not do for ourselves and get out of the rest of my life. This is a overall viewpoint I can agree with. Now some might say he is "wrong" on the spam question. But given the freedom to do so I can take care of a spam problem and there is ,IMHO, no good way to write a antispam law without having other freedoms be limited. Therefore because I can agree with most points and because I can really get behind the overall worldview I will be voting Browne.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
recent news story out of Milwaukee, Gore supporters were caught, on tape, distributing cigaretts in exchange to homless for their absente vote. Story here.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Here
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Bush: N/A Gore: N/A"
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
While all of these issues are important, I feel sorry for the poor bastard who is so disconnected from the real world that s/he will actually choose who to vote for because of someone's stance of IP and the internet.
Abortion, murder or a woman's right to choose?
Gun Control, an issue of freedom or an issue of safety?
The budget, tax cut or more medicare spending?
I don't give a fuck as long as I get my napster!!!!
That's just sad.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Although I have selected and will vote very enthusiastically for one presidential candidate tomorrow, I think we are oversimplifying things. The President's technology policy making power is limited to veto and executive order. Although it is important to find out the views of presidential candidates, it is even more important to find out the views of your local congressional candidates.
Executive orders often signal the shape of policy to come, but the real power to create technology policy lies in congress. They make the laws, and the laws they're making about technology are not good. We should take the time to research our representatives stances on technology issues and send them our opinions, because it doesn't take many letters to start changing their minds, and if they know we are watching them, they'll be a lot more careful writing technology related laws.
Idol Star Astronomer
Instead of taking a few seconds to check the actual url, this fine person is trying to post early so that he gets modded up. This might be a decent post, had he: 1) checked which url actually works, and 2) taken a few seconds to make it into a real link.
For everyone else, here's the link.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
The executive does effectively make many laws these days. Besides the staggering growth in the number of Executive Orders inaugurated by Clinton, congress has abdicated its role in law-making by passing laws establishing broad-brush 'regulatory' agencies. These agencies (FCC, EPA, HUD, etc.) are given general direction by their enabling legislation, and then are free to pass 'regulations' that are effectively laws. A good example is the FCC, which, with absolutely no power in its charter to do so, is interfering with major media mergers. They use their licensing power to extract concessions from the parties involved, or completely quash some mergers. The executive has enormous power in a climate like this, since those agencies are under its control.
i don't like *any* of the candidates. low turn-outs should signal that people are apathetic about the choices we're given, and don't agree with anyone.
Urk. Completely.
I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.
How about if the Republican party ceased to be in the pocket of all sorts of religious organizations? And if the Democrats could actually allow a woman the right to chose without hugely inflating the debt?
How about some balance between the two?
So far, the two-partied system seems to work only by massive changes in equilibrium. It's frighteningly disorienting.
This time, the choice is a little more clear. Since a President Bush (yuck) would be appointing a whole bunch of Supreme Court judges - with the possible ability to therefore overturn Roe vs. Wade and a whole bunch of other important social issues, I'm alarmed that Bush has a good chance of getting the White House. (And please don't think that I think abortion is a good idea; it does devalue life and encourage people not to take responsibility for their actions, but to ban it outright is to ignore the fact that it will happen no matter what the policy.)
While many pundits will complain that Bush is the governer of maybe the worst-managed state in the Union, it's important to note that Governer William Jefferson Clinton of Arkansas was in about the same position when he took power. But, Clinton is Presidential. Not only did he clearly have fun in office (and some of that was even *without* Ms. Lewinsky), he was also a professional in all matters of foreign affairs. And, he was a thoroughly likeable individual for the world to see as the American leader.
Gore hasn't got the same joi-de-vivre as Clinton has, but at least he's an elegant and digified statesman, a boring but professional person.
Bush, however, is that amiable guy sitting over there at the end of the bar, spinning yarns; he's interesting and exciting. If you met him - probably in a dimly-lit sports bar in the backwoods of Texas - you'd think he was a tractor salesman. He will command the respect of the world not through dignity, but only through sheer power. This is not the best way to influence international or domestic diplomacy.
Bush is *no* statesman. The fact that he's leading in the polls arguably because more of the electorate things he'd be a more fun guy with whom to have a beer arguably proves the every dictator right: perhaps the people *aren't* smart enough to choose their own destiny after all.
And when you don't particularily care for either candidate's platform and yet you've resigned yourself to the fact that one or the other is going to be calling the shots, may as well not bother.
(not any of those third party buttfuckers like nader or browne either.)Nader is dangerous. Sure, he sounds noble enough on the surface, but he's a great way to:
drive businesses away through punishing regulations and embrace of a society where no one makes over $100,000/year
ensure that the Republicans (in this case, probably the greater of the two evils currently offered) are given the Presidency next.
While I don't like either Gore or Bush especially, I'd prefer to see Gore in power; I think he'll do a lot less damage than a Bush presidency.
But I also wish that truly interesting people were actually running. Liberman and Cheney are far more presidential than either one of their runningmates.
Now, having said all this, breathe easy. First off, moderate me down if I've said something false or off-topic, not because you disagree with the political views. As a Canadian citizen, I get to watch the foray without it affecting me in any huge way, I can only comiserate, as the Canadian federal elections are coming up on November 27th.
I assure you, the Canadian choices are every bit as bleak as in the US. Only, instead of two viable bleak choices, there are 5 up here.
I'd run for office in Canada myself, but I hope to be out of here long before whoever is about to be elected here calls the next election.
Until then, though, I've already registered with Elections Canada for an official Abstain Vote. It's my way of registering my displeasure with all the candidates offered, without it being assumed that I'm simply a case of voter apathy.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.