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.
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've still found his opinions to be based more on grand ideals than reality. Universal health care for all, down with business, guns are evil we must remove them all! These all sounds like great, well researched opinions, but since he (and the green) party have no idea how to actually do it, and arguably know as much about economics as your average undergrad (their policies prove this to me, an Econ major) they fall short. Having an ideal and something to rally for (or in their case against, it seems) is all well and good, but without a feasible plan they mean nothing.
Finkployd
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
Well sir, you certainly are a product of the Texas Education system. Perhaps you should do some reading on the War of 1812.
I belive if you go to the White house, and sneak your way onto one of the Balconies, they have left one single stone with the scorch marks.
Never underestimate the power of Snow, Good Beer, and Free Health Care!
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
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.