Using Copyright To Suppress Political Speech

MacDork writes "As most /.'ers know all to well, Copyright is increasingly being used as a means to suppress free speech these days. And the trend has not been lost on our 2004 US Presidential candidates. Both George and John are using copyright law to 'vaporize' information considered embarrassing or harmful to their campaigns. Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."

Comments

Democracy..

[dBLiSS]

Like in all great republics, democracy is but an illusion.

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this a troll? The fella speaks the truth. The best slaves are ones that think they are actually free.

Re:Democracy..

[ron_ivi]

So who would be for reasonable copyright use? Badnarik?

Just remember, unless the voting results in an exact tie, you're throwing your vote out anyway, so a vote for a third party candidate is as good as any.

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only an illusion if you *say* it is.

On one level it's that argument about philosophy stemming from Wittgenstien - things are what we call them there are no illusions seperate from "reality" because this *is* what we call reality. So regardless of there being another level of existence, the *name* of this one is "reality" so it cannot be "illusion".

This leads to the question of, if this is democracy it is only such because that is what democracy has come to mean.

And it's only that because people like you don't do shit, they just complain.

see?

I wish every cynical countercultural bullshit artist would pull their fingers out and start organised political parties and actually *do* something, because you are just confirming your own bullshit by lying there and doing nothing.

Bottom line, the definition of democracy is still up for grabs. And until the day we slip into facism, and even after it, people like me will fight for democracy. And no doubt people like you will say "it's not facism" it's just an illusion of facism.

Re:Democracy..

[techno-vampire]

Like in all great republics, democracy is but an illusion.

Lunchtime doubly so.

Re:Democracy..

[gilroy]

Blockquote the poster:

Just remember, unless the voting results in an exact tie, you're throwing your vote out anyway, so a vote for a third party candidate is as good as any.

What? Sure only the (50%+1)th vote is all that counts. Problem is, you don't know whose vote that is until the votes are all in.

Let's make it simple. Alice and Bob both love cookies; Charlene hates them but loves spinach for desert. They decide to hold an election to see what desert will be offered. Both Alice and Bob have read the parent comment and decided that, since the vote can't be split evenly (three people, after all), their votes must not count. They stay home from the polls. And bam! suddenly they're having spinach for desert -- even though a clear majority favors cookies.

It's an extreme example of course -- small numbers make it more dramatic -- but it's the reality. It's called the Paradox of the Infinitesimal: Each vote is such a small part of the total that its almost negligible... but together, in aggregate, they all count.

Re:Democracy..

[msaavedra]

Where does the link you provided state Badnarik's position on copyright? He has a good number of position papers at that site, but I don't see any mention of "intellectual property" (too use that poor catch-all phrase).

It is true that libertarians (except for the Ayn Rand fanatics) seem to be leaning toward the idea that IP laws are unjustified government intrusion that undermines physical property ownership. However, I'd like to see where Mr. Badnarik's opinion lies before voting for him.

Re:Democracy..

[illuminatedwax]

You mean exact tie +/- 5%. The votes are too numerous to be counted exactly. And sometimes these "ties" happen. Just ask a certain phallic state.

Politics is a game, and it's a pragmatic game at that. You can't get everything you want, so you try and maximize what you can get. It's pretty obvious that this year no one except a Democrat or a Republican will get into the White House. So you have to pick which one is in your better interest.
If you're going to get involved in politics, get involved and play the game. Otherwise, don't vote.

And really, your vote among ~300 million people means very little. If you are that interested in getting a 3rd party elected, speak out. Try and educate as many people as you can about it. Public discussion has a lot more power than your one little measly vote.

Re:Democracy..

[name773]

the thing you're forgetting is this: what does the public want for desert?

strawberries would have won... but there was no representative, because to qualify to become a representative (money, connections, law school) none of the strawberry lovers (who are common people) could have been representatives.

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. But here we have Spinach and Peas vs. Strawberries; and people are saying they'll vote for the vegetables so the other vegetable doesn't win.

Even this system works better if people vote their beliefs instead of voting the lesser of evils.

If the Democrats lose enough elections this way, perhaps some day they'll pick a decent candidate.

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

"obvious that this year no one except a Democrat or a Republican"

You're being short sighted.

If Democrats and Republicans get a vast majority of the votes, it'll be obvious either a Democrat or a Republican will win in 2008.

If third candidate party candidates get enough to matter, it won't be obvious in 2008.

Re:Democracy..

[BrodeCo]

Damn fine post. More-than-justified /. friend.

Re:Democracy..

[bretharder]

I agree 100%.
I've made a commitment with some of my friends that we will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils
but instead we will vote for who we really want to be in office.
My democrat friends all want to vote for Kerry because they hate Bush.
And my conservative friends all want to vote for Bush because they like Bush.
I hate them both.
To tell truth though I havn't seen any politician that I like.
It's sad...
I really want to contribute to a better world, but I don't see how I can.

Re:Democracy..

[Howl]

This whole toipic is a troll. Get real. In neither case is the candidate doing to copyright enforcment it's the owners of the IP that are enforcing their rights.

I was the staff photographer for Howard Dean's campaign and if anybody were to use one of my images without permission I'd be writing a DMCA letter too (they, even republicans, would however be free to buy an image and if I agreed with the cause I might donate it but I want the option to donate my work not have it stolen).

It's not about suppressing speech it's about paying people for their creative talent.

Copyright law is about balancing ownership rights and public interest. It's gone too far with the whole music thing but the examples cited here seem like reasonable enforcement of ownership rights.

Re:Democracy..

[Mycroft_VIII]

Exactly, wish I hadn't blown my mod points already.
The reason 'it's obvious' is because it's assumed so few will vote otherwise. Self fullfilling prophecy, or vicious circle. Take your pick.
The ONLY way to change things is STOP perpetuating them.
If one vote for a third party candidate is a 'wasted' vote, then it's just as 'wasted' on the republicrat, err democans. The value of one vote doesn't change because of who you vote for, it only changes if you cheapen it in your own eyes by voting for someone you don't like just to not vote for someone you despise.
I'd rather vote FOR someone than against someone.
A third party CAN get in, it wouldn't be the first time.

Mycroft

Re:Democracy..

[Wizord]

From those ~300 million people, only 105 million cast a vote on the last presidential election. Well, your vote is still very small, but at least it is three times bigger!

Re:Democracy..

[name773]

if many people started believing that many other people were voting third party as well, it would succeed. here we have people saying that third parties won't work now (perhaps because they're saying that?) but will later (once people are so disgusted with what their favourite party has become (think m.s. style we can do what we want and the fact that values and ideals change))
perhaps a more positive phrase would be: third parties will work if you vote for them

Re:Democracy..

[NoMercy]

Least in the UK we still have parties which are diferent, we have Bad, Worse, and Terrible :)

Re:Democracy..

[mewphobia]

Let's make it simple. Alice and Bob both love cookies; Charlene hates them but loves spinach for desert. They decide to hold an election to see what desert will be offered. Both Alice and Bob have read the parent comment and decided that, since the vote can't be split evenly (three people, after all), their votes must not count. They stay home from the polls. And bam! suddenly they're having spinach for desert -- even though a clear majority favors cookies.

You're obviously a spinach lover! How come out of all three, the spinach girl is the one who votes? If you are insisting that one person always votes, then it is more likely for them to get cookies! because there is a 66.66% chance of the right person voting.

I guess, what i'm really trying to say, is that unless the votes are rigged in some way, the most popular thing should win more times than not. regardless of how many people vote. Because the people not voting should be evenly distributed.

Or maybe i'm just being bias towards cookies.

Re:Democracy..

[SavingPrivateNawak]

Doesn't your elections in USA have two turns/ballots? (I don't-know-the-correct-term)

Many countries does this way so that people can vote for the party they like in the 1st turn/ballot and for the lesser of the two evils that stay in the 2nd turn/ballot...

Isn't this the right way??

Re:Democracy..

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It's pretty obvious that this year no one except a Democrat or a Republican will get into the White House. So you have to pick which one is in your better interest.
If you're going to get involved in politics, get involved and play the game. Otherwise, don't vote.


The opinion polls predict no one except a republican or democrat can win, and if your vote doesn't jive with the opinion poll, don't vote?

Actually, if Nader/Perot/whoever makes a strong third place (or hell, second for that matter), wouldn't that do more to publicize their party's movement than some local nutjob "speaking out" ?

Re:Democracy..

[Steve Franklin]

This is what happened with Ross Perot until he realized he was going to win and got cold feet.

Re:Democracy..

[Steve Franklin]

You'd do a lot more for "good" candidates by voting in the primary for them. That is the weak spot for the major parties, which is why they try to ignore them where they can. If enough people got together and voted for good candidates in the primaries, you wouldn't need third parties. You'd have Earl Environmentalist running against Sally Solar-Power.

Re:Democracy..

[Viceice]

RTFA. This guy wanted to use a short clip from NBC's Meet The Press in his documentary and offered to pay for a license to use it, just like all the other clips he paid for in his documentary.

NBC said no, not for any copyright related reason, but because it was "not very flattering to the president."

Re:Democracy..

[hyphz]

No, he's right.

The problem is that "democracy" means rule by the people - in other words, you'd have to have referenda on everything. Most folks agree that this would be pretty impractical.

But "representative democracy" changes the meaning of the word fundamentally. Now, it's no longer the case that the people have the power. Instead, the people decide who gets the power.

Yet this is a major distinction. Think about a plutocracy. Plutocracy is any form of government where the people who have the most money get the power. But here's the important point: the definition says nothing about *how* they get the power, or how the decision to give the power to them as made. If they happen to get the power through being voted for, that doesn't change the fact that it's still a plutocracy. If people are happening to vote for the people with the most money (and thus the most media coverage), they create a plutocracy.

Likewise, if people always vote for the party that their family has always voted for, they create an oligarchy.

The idea that "the people can rule in a representative democracy by forming parties and getting involved" is also a lie - the current system, whereby the party that has the most votes still gets in even if the majority of votes were for other parties (but not for the same other party), basically ensures that only the established parties ever have a hope of getting power. It makes it impossible to "work your way up" because, if you're not already at the top, you get nowhere.

Re:Democracy..

[cluckshot]

You have it right at first blush. Unfortunately the process is much more long and convoluted. We do have a party primary and it may even have a "Run Off" and then we have a General Election system.

Essentially the thumbnail sketch is that a candidate appears with interest and begins raising money. The money most often arises from some company who has a desire to manage some government function for some private reason. As it appears that support is appearing like a magnet this draws more support and so on. The actual process has pretty well eliminated the "Party" differences. There is only one political party in the USA at this time. It is the "Republicrat Party." The process for each office takes about 2 to 4 years prior to the actual voting. By the time voters even hear the names the choice has already been made. I was told for example by a Republican friend of mine that Bill Clinton (Democrat) would be the next president in 1990. He already knew which way the money was blowing.

The fact that the Americans have not insulated this money trail from foreign control has essentially moved the control of major US Races outside of the representation of US interests. As such we in the USA are becoming more and more hostile towards our government. This may come as a shock to some foreign persons but the things you hate in our government are most often the result of your corporate interests acting in our government.

We for example are a most peaceful people and are really sick of war. This is pretty universal! We are sick of our government doing unkind things that get us into wars. We are sick of the dishonesty. This is getting to the point that many of our members at national level in the US Congress are getting sick of what is going on. I have talked with several and even the Republicans are mad at George W. Bush over these issues. Frankly if it wasn't a matter of political suicide they would have thrown him to the wolves some time ago because of his disloyalty to the USA. Don't look to Mr. Kerry to solve this. He represents an evem more corporatized group. His position is not even cloked in this matter.

Re:Democracy..

[PeterPumpkin]

Funny you mention that. I was thinking about how the elections could be improved, and that was exactly what I thought of - a runoff for the two top people to compete in a second election.

Many people I talk to would like to vote for Nader, or Libertarian, but the constraints of the system make that a silly thing to do.

Since the current system favors the two existing parties, I doubt anything will change anytime soon.

Re:Democracy..

[Vindicator9000]

I believe that's called Instant Run-off Voting. No, we don't have it (at least not in Illinois).

Re:Democracy..

[SFBwian]

No, that's what happened with Ross Perot before people realized he was a total looney.

Re:Democracy..

[wde]

Actually, here in the US our individual votes are not even that meaningful. Most people forget we do not actually vote for the _candidate_ but rather for delegates to the "electoral college" who then pick our President for us (but alarmingly are not bound to cast their votes in the manner in which our votes indicated our preferences).

Re:Democracy..

[sabinm]

You sound like you might be familiar to a Parliamentary election. United states has an electoral college which was quite practical for its time. That way each state by itself could (through the will of it's people) voice its opinion regarding its favorite canditate. It is a compromise between pure democracy and representative democracy, which traditionally is always the case in the US. In a parliamentary democracy, you have the first round--they might be candidates or parties which win either a simple majority (fifty percent plus one) or a plurality (more votes than any other candidate) go to a second round. The second round is used form coalitions to shore up support from the other factions (therefore, theoretically forming a stronger more moderate and compromising legislature) and supporting a Prime Minister who is favored by the majority. In a parlimentary election, the person or party who wins in the first round of elections is not guaranteed to win the Prime Ministry in the second round. Although some countries have resolved this paradox by granting electoral power to the legislative body, and the party that has the most popular votes gets the most seats in the legislative/electoral body and so can chose the P.M of their choice.

In America, it's different. We've evolved into a two party system, which some theorize is more stable because the coalitions don't break apart over crisis and the leadership and government cannot be dissolved by parliament, but only by the electorate (except in extreme cases like criminal wrong doing) With less factions, there is also less chance of paralysis do to infighting (although a hefty part of our government is set up to paralyze the powers) Elections are handled by a general populace election. In EACH STATE not NATIONALLY the canditate must win a plurality of votes (more than any other candidate). If the candidate wins the popular vote IN THAT STATE then he can send his (or the party's) hand picked delegates (the electoral college) to chose him IN THAT STATE as the president. The person wins the most votes from the electoral college (the number go delegates to the e.c from each state is determined by population) wins the election. Therefore, Al Gore might have won more votes, but did not win more states and so lost the election. Very complicated. most Americans have a hard time explaining it to you.

It is also possible that the electoral college can chose some one other than the person who won the plurality of votes in the state. Eg. If Ross Perot ran for Florida but did not win the state, George Bush Sr. Delegates could theoretically vote for Ross Perot anyway: the delegates are not (theoretically) automatons although traditionally they have consistently voted according to the will of the people).

Re:Democracy..

[SFBwian]

I would agree that it would be a better system of voting for the USA, but it unfortunately is not the system we use. Basically, here's how it boils down: People vote for *A* candidate. The votes are counted up within the state they reside in. Whichever candidate has the most votes in that state recieves 'electoral votes', which is the sum of the number of senators and representatives that exist for that state in congress. The votes from each of the states are tallied and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins the election. Typically, the one with the most electoral votes is also the one with the highest percentage of the popular vote. In a very tight race such as this, a lot of voters in highly-conservative or highly-liberal states feel jaded because their states are almost guaranteed to vote for a certain candidate overall (and thus their vote not count toward electoral votes), and I assume as well that less people for the likely winner in the state simply don't vote because they know he'll win as well. Swing states (moderates that can change from year to year easily) have quite a bit of power, and have quite a bit of time devoted to them during campaigning.

Re:Democracy..

[Cro Magnon]

But 20-25% of the voters voted for the loon over the other bozos.

Re:Democracy..

[Orne]

What, so you could have something happen like what happened in France in 2002?

You have Chirac (right of center by French standards / left wing by US standards), Jospin (left / ultra-left wing) and LePen (far right / fascist) in the "first round". Chirac gets 20%, LePen gets 17%, Jospin gets 16%. Now suddenly the election is between Chirac and LePen, and Chirac is now the shoe-in even though the majority of the voters originally wanted "Anything but Chirac" (sound familiar?).

Re:Democracy..

[CrimsonAvenger]

No. Actually, some states do this for state/local elections, but they cannot be done for national elections, which are done in accordance with the Constitution.

Re:Democracy..

[bbc]

Copyright law is about balancing ownership rights and public interest.

Not in the USA. According to their constitution, copyright is a mere means (a 'carrot' to be dangled in front of authors' noses, if you wish) to ensure innovation. According to that constitution, there is no 'ownership right' of creative works.

Re:Democracy..

[Cro Magnon]

Basically, we have primary elections for the political parties. Since Bush was the incumbant, we didn't have one for the Republicans, but we got a bunch of candidates for the Democrats. They all sucked, so we tried to vote for the one who sucked least, and got the worst instead. Now, this candidate is going against Bush in the general election, and whoever wins, the American people still lose. :(

Re:Democracy..

[Fuzzle]

Regardless of their reasons, it's still their copyright, they don't have to give you or me or the documentarian any good reason. They can just say no. Not that I agree with their reasoning, but they don't actually have to provide any, since they own the clip.

Re:Democracy..

[Cro Magnon]

The problem is that there WERE no good candidates in the primary. They ALL sucked!

Re:Democracy..

[nvioli]

yeah here we only have worse and terrible

Re:Democracy..

[bonkedproducer]

It doesn't work this way. Alice, Bob, and Charlene are trying to convince 50 people to agree to their chosen deserts, and whoever wins get to pick all the deserts for 4 days, and then can "run again" to get to pick desert for 4 more days.

Everyone knows that Charlene will lose though, because she doesn't have as much pull as Alice or Bob with the diners. So no one in their right mind will vote for her, since they are throwing away their vote.

BUT, if you looked at it the way the actual elections in this country run. Try this on for size:

Alice wins with 40% of the vote, Bob gets 35% of the vote, and Charlene gets the remaining 25% of the vote. In four days when the diners vote again, Bob looks at what happened and says "hey, if I could have won over just 6% of those that voted for Charlene I could have won last time. Maybe I should listen to what it is they want and work it into my menu selections, and have a better chance at beating Alice."

That is the way a third-party vote is not thrown away. Even if you think the candidate you agree the most with will lose, you can influence the other parties by voting along with your beliefs - you show the big two parties that your views do mean something and, being the power hungry twats that they are they will try to coddle to you while in office to get your votes next time. If you vote based on actions and not the empty words of the politicians, then they will have to at least make an attempt to do "your will" while in office to gain those votes next time around.

Re:Democracy..

[SFBwian]

I guess, what i'm really trying to say, is that unless the votes are rigged in some way, the most popular thing should win more times than not. regardless of how many people vote. Because the people not voting should be evenly distributed.

Unfortunately, in the real world, should does not mean how it really is. Both situations happen, the most popular thing not winning, as well as voter turnout being representative of actual population intentions.

Re:Democracy..

[Fractal Dice]

It's not about suppressing speech it's about paying people for their creative talent. And here in a nutshell is where the fault line is between you and I. Are you suggesting you created something that wasn't there to begin with? My view is that images of public events should be public as well. (if you're speaking about images taken outside public events, I do consider those different, although I feel strongly that an aspiring politician should treat all photo-ops as public events) I think I need to call my job "Career Property" so that I can lobby to outlaw any technology or action which would eliminate the need to keep me.

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

And hence the title of the topic: "Using Copyright To Suppress Political Speech"...

Re:Democracy..

[Fuzzle]

Yes, but if you read what I was responding to, the person was attempting to make the case that NBC _had_ to present a better reason for not allowing the clip to be used than what they did, when in fact that simply isn't required.

Re:Democracy..

[bonkedproducer]

From his mailing list when I posted a this direct question:

Q: "...Does anyone know where Mr. Badnarik stands in regards to the issues I mentioned (DMCA, P2P/RIAA, ETC?) I think that in my little circle those would probably be some of the most persuading issues in the campaign, and they are being ignored by the big two."

A: I asked him about "Intellectual Property" last night on the conference call. He admitted that it was an issue he had not worked on much yet, and that he had more studying and thinking to do on it, and reserved the right to change his answer... but he said that one thing he believed was that copyright should be limited to the lifetime of the copyright holder.

He didn't really address patents, DMCA, etc. He did say that he fundamentally agrees with the concept of "IP" though, although he also said that it was "very abstract and hard to define."

Even within the Libertarian Party there is considerable debate about those issues, apparently. Hopefully by the time the /. interview happens, Mike will have come up with some solid positions on those issues.

Hope this helps, also Michael Badnarik has been told that he will be interviewed by /. editors in the month of September. He did state in his constitution class that I took that he is a firm supporter of the Government not being allowed to limit technology (he comes from a comp. geek background as weel) like encryption, etc. because they don't deserve to be handed the lock to your "papers" due to the fourth ammendment, I think of all the canditates, he is most in tune with the /. crowd's concerns.

Re:Democracy..

[nwbvt]

Well said, I am forced to agree with someone from the Howard Dean campaign. However, you miss one unavoidable fact. This is slashdot and certain political views are so prevalent here that they will show themselves no matter what (hell he even found a way to get a rant against offshoring in a summary about copyrights).

Now this can be an interesting topic. Copyrights being applied to work with a political nature. There are many different sides to this and an actual debate about it would be interesting. But the geniuses at the editing department submit a summary that is itself biased to the point where it is trying to prevent a balanced discussion (it even starts out "As most /.'ers know all to well...", meaning if you disagree you are not a true slashdotter). How hard would it be to instead use an objective summary (something along the lines of "Complaints arise over the use of copyrights in political campaigns"), and then leave the opinions for the comments?

That being said...

Hypothetical question, what if Sean Hannity wanted to make a film bashing Dean well beyond what is generally considered honest journalism and wanted to use some of your footage out of context? It would be one thing to allow the Wall Street Journal or Fox News to use it in a story about the former candidate, but you believe this will be just a load of crap featuring half-truths and outright lies. Would you let them use your work to support their accusations?

Re:Democracy..

[flyneye]

The whole topic isn't a troll.It's an outstanding reason to vote libertarian and encourage others to do the same.
Republicans bear no closer resemblance than Democrats to being similar to what their party was formed for.Instead we have two selfishly mentally retarded political philosophies battling it out every 4 years jerry springer style for your vote.
DON'T give it to them.
DO something that won't give the same results time after time.
Have some guts to stand up to the morons who say your vote wont count if you vote outside popular parties.How else will they ever get the message or we actually get someone USEFUL into office? What does it matter if your vote doesnt count when your vote only goes to a candidate that is NO BETTER or consequentially different than his opponent?
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the height of insanity.

Re:Democracy..

[utlemming]

It's not about suppressing speech it's about paying people for their creative talent.

The problem is that the the forms of speech that are being suppressed also fall in the creative realm. Just becuase the President used a private venue to make political statements does not mean that those that performed the "creative talent" should have exclusive rights to control who sees that political statement. In my opinion, commercialized political speech should not enjoy copyright protection -- creative talent or otherwise. Most people are not going to bootleg copies of the president, video or otherwise for personal gain. For the most part, those that would use copies of a the president would use it to persaude othes to reach a conclusion -- they would use it in support of their political speech. The only people that might use video or pictorial representations would be news media and the campaigns -- a very small portion of the country.

Copyright law is about balancing ownership rights and public interest. It's gone too far with the whole music thing but the examples cited here seem like reasonable enforcement of ownership rights.

How is this a case where the public interest is being preseved and protected? I am a republican, but I see no reason why Bush's statement on NBC should be allowed to hide behind a copyright law. As stated many times, the President own's neither his words nor his likeness when speaking on political ideas in a public forum. It is quite debatable that the TV (broadcast over publicly owned airways) could constitute a public forum. Further, the nature of the interview was quite political. There is very little creative talent involved. And what is there to protect? Presdient Bush can run about and say the same things over and over again, and it can be captured again and again. The problem is that the people that hold and control the copyright are not the orginator of the controversial or interesting arguments or the ideas. The only creative talent or innovation may be the way the interview happened, the filming, etc.

Political speech by an elected offical should not enjoy copyright protectection regardless of the forum if that speech is publicly displayed in any form. TV and radio included.

Re:Democracy..

[JavaLord]

one vote for a third party candidate is a 'wasted' vote, then it's just as 'wasted' on the republicrat, err democans. The value of one vote doesn't change because of who you vote for, it only changes if you cheapen it in your own eyes by voting for someone you don't like just to not vote for someone you despise.

The funny part is this theory of a "wasted" vote now ensures that a third party candidate will never even make it into the debates for the presidential election. After Ross Perot Made it in 1992, the Republicans and Democrats were scared shitless. They both conspired to keep third parties out of presidential elections Now you must poll at 15% in the polls to be included in the presidential debates. These polls aren't controlled by the government, they are run by private news organizations! Which really means they are controlled by money.

So, by simply enforcing the idea that "third party is throwing your vote away" people don't even get to hear from third party candidates since they don't even mention them in the polls. On top of that, by not voting for third party candidates you are ensuring that they never get federal funding. (I think you need 3 - 5% to get federal funding).

If you think the 15% mark is ok, consider that Jessie Ventura polled at 10% before the gubernatorial debates in Minnesota and won the election after the debates with 37% of the vote.

It's obvious that Kerry and Bush are very alike on key issues, they are both for bigger government (despite what bush may say), they are both pro illegal immigration, pro outsourcing, pro interventionism/war, pro globalization. America is often said to be the land of choices, but what exactly is the contrast here? Gay rights? Or some other domestic issue where the two parties can fracture our population and pit them against one another so they ignore the bigger picture that our government keeps growing and spending, and selling us out to globaliziation?

Our country is being taken away from us, and no one seems to care enough to see it.

Re:Democracy..

[quantaman]

What? Sure only the (50%+1)th vote is all that counts. Problem is, you don't know whose vote that is until the votes are all in.

I have a better reason than that. The fact that I don't think I'm completely unique. I feel that there is only a finite set of factors at work when I vote and a finite set of reactions, some specific to me, but many applicable to others as well, as well there are a lot of people, lets refer to them as my voting group, who respond very much the same way to these factors as I do. Therefore if there are enough factors to make me vote for party X then there are enough factors to make my voting group to vote for party X as well. In fact by the very fact I decide to vote for party X in a way I am affirming that these factors are enough to make me, and thus my voting group that to vote for party X as well. As a result I now have not only one vote but dozens, perhaps hundreds, a lot more influencial. Sure my logic is a little fuzzy but it's a great motivation to vote!

Re:Democracy..

[Zcar]

It wouldn't be unconstitutional to use something other than first-past-the-post. The sections relevent to elections are:

Article I Section 4: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

Article II Section 1: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

Ammendment XVII: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years"

No where does the US Constitution direct the means of election, generally leaving that up to the states. In fact, I can't find anything in the Constitution that would prohibit a state from choosing to have it's legislature or governor from choosing the electors in a presidential election, or awarding electors based on the paries of it's congressional delegates. So a traditional runoff, instant runoff, Condorcet, etc. would be allowed under the US Constitution.

Re:Democracy..

[JavaLord]

If enough people got together and voted for good candidates in the primaries, you wouldn't need third parties. You'd have Earl Environmentalist running against Sally Solar-Power.

It's more likely that you would end up with Neil Nazi vs Communist Clyde.

Re:Democracy..

[JavaLord]

The problem is that "democracy" means rule by the people - in other words, you'd have to have referenda on everything. Most folks agree that this would be pretty impractical.

It really wouldn't be nowadays. Sure, it would have been back in 1776 but is it that hard to get to your local school and vote, say 4 times a year on major issues? It also wouldn't be that hard if the government wasn't involved in EVERYTHING as it is now.

Re:Democracy..

[glsunder]

take one of these quizes:
Smallest Quiz or Polital Compass

then check out where this years candidates sit

I'm guessing that if you hate them both, you probably lean towards the libertarian end of the spectrum (vs the authoritarian end). The problem is, left or right, most candidates tend to be more authoritarian than many in the population.

Re:Democracy..

[flyneye]

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution,in
the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor atThe
University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian
Republic" some 2,000 years prior.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with
the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal
policy, (which is) always followed
by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of
history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations
always progressed through the following sequence:

>From Bondage to spiritual faith;
>From spiritual faith to great courage;
>From courage to liberty;
>From liberty to abundance;
>From abundance to complacency;
>From complacency to apathy;
>From apathy to dependence;
>From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the past
Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,2427,000

States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds:

"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned
by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.

Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owne
d tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "complacency and
apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40
percent of the nation's population already having reached the"governmental
dependency" phase.

Being an informed citizen and casting a rational vote is imperative to our
survival

Re:Democracy..

[CrimsonAvenger]

While it is true that an instant runoff might be legal, the traditional runoff is not. from the Constitution: Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Any system that allowed the possibility that one elector would be chosen at a different time than another would not fit that.

Note that Senators and House members are NOT voted on in National elections. Louisiana, which uses a run-off system, elects its Senators and Representatives in the same way as it does its Governor.

The only National Election is for Electors for the President.

n fact, I can't find anything in the Constitution that would prohibit a state from choosing to have it's legislature or governor from choosing the electors in a presidential election, or awarding electors based on the paries of it's congressional delegates.

From the Fourteenth Amendment:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Seems you'd lose your congressional delegation is you didn't allow people to vote for Electors...

Re:Democracy..

[bear_phillips]

Just out of curiosity who did you support during the primaries? How many political meetings did you attend? When you went door to door working for a candidate, what did you say?

To tell truth though I havn't seen any politician that I like. There are thousands of people that run for all kinds of office. You are telling me that you have never seen one you like? Are you just looking for someone that parrots your views 100%? T

I really want to contribute to a better world, but I don't see how I can. It is easy to contribute to a better world. But you have to get off your ass to do it.

I've made a commitment with some of my friends that we will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
This is a bullshit line. You should vote for whoever you think will help the country the most. If you think Bush is a dumbfuck who is leading us to hell, then vote for Kerry. Not because he is the lessor of two evils, but because he is better for the country. If you think Kerry would take us down the wrong path then vote for Bush. If you think they BOTH will do bad things for the country then vote third party.

Whining about the lessor of two evils is just an easy way to cop out of thinking for yourself.

Re:Democracy..

[Pig Hogger]

One word: FAIR USE

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

NBC said no, not for any copyright related reason, but because it was "not very flattering to the president."

As if that's NBC's call to make. What if Abraham Zapruder had said the same?

I remember watching this Meet The Press when it first aired. The reason it's "not very flattering to the president" is because he was being himself; smug yet clueless, telling off-topic lies with well written sound bites, then looking like a stammering idiot caught in the headlights when Russert refused to take the bait and asked the same questions two and three times.

"There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat" - apparently supporting them in Veterans Hospitals is a little trickier.

Re:Democracy..

[glenrm]

A vote for a 3rd party canidate can have a major impact, do you think Newt and Clinton worked to balance the budget just for the fun of it or did the amount of votes Perot get affect thinking on the matter, I would say that if any 3rd party canidate gets over 8% of the vote it will affect the thinking of at least one of the major parties.

Re:Democracy..

[Minna Kirai]

The problem is that "democracy" means rule by the people - in other words, you'd have to have referenda on everything. Most folks agree that this would be pretty impractical.

No, democracy does not mean that. You're repeating a fallacy occasionally trotted out by opponents to the Democratic party.

By your definition, Democracy is impossible unless we all get Borg implants to continually vote on thousands of little choices every day. (Or, total anarchy would also fit your criteria)

But "rule by the people" doesn't mean that the people consider every minor issue directly and never delegate authority. Same way "rule by the king" doesn't imply that the king is personally collecting every tax and investigating every crime- he gets people to do those things. In fact, he probably assigns a Prime Minister to run the nation from day to day, even though he is still the ruler.

In the same way, the citizens of the democratic USA assign one man to "preside", while they are still the rulers.

Re:Democracy..

[HerbanLegend]

With all this talk about how the government doesn't really represent the will of the people, doesn't it stand to reason that we have to clean house and change the power structure?

I think the largest reason that the US has become so corrupt is that plain old folks (read: the majority of the population) are not interested in participating in goverment. What kind of democracy only asks you to go to the polls once a year at most? What kind of a citizen is only willing to actually attend once every 4 years?

In ancient Greece, the democracy worked much better because people were required to fulfil their civic duties, and people took those duties seriously. Now, with our "representative" democracy, the power actually vested in the people is so limited as to be useless.

We need a system whereby everyone must participate in the vote very frequently - once a month, for instance, we could have a vote on important issues, the same as congress. With technology as advanced as it is, we could easily tally all those votes for each individual issue. Then, lobbyists would have the job of convincing people to vote their way, a much more difficult challenge than greasing a few career politicians with money.

For more involved issues, the community would elect a panel of randomly selected citizens to work on the budgets, specific complicated legislations, etc. It could be structured like a jury selection inquiry, with the populace opting-out certain unfit members of the panel. A side effect of structuring law this way would be to make legal documents transparent, since they wouldn't be written with obsfucation in mind.

The question now becomes how to get this system implemented. I fear there is no way except a bloody overthrow of the legislative branch of our goverment. Somehow I don't think the policitians would reneg their powers willingly.

Re:Democracy..

[Sloppy]

Let's make it simple. Alice and Bob both love cookies; Charlene hates them but loves spinach for desert. They decide to hold an election to see what desert will be offered.

The authoritarian bastards have already screwed up. There shouldn't be voting for what other people are going to have to eat for dessert. The referendum on the ballot should be, "Let's get government out of the dessert-picking business so everyone can just have whatever they want." All 3 should be very happy voting for that. If they vote in favor of that, Alice and Bob are going to have cookies and Charlene will have spinach. (Of course, they should all pay for their own desserts.)

And to everyone who hasn't been trying to vote that way: fuck you!

Re:Democracy..

[KarmaMB84]

I find it funny that we can't reuse previously broadcasted clips that are of a political nature without begging a corporate entity.

Re:Democracy..

[Fuzzle]

I do too. I didn't say that I necessarily agree with it on an ethical level, but it is within their legal scope.

Re:Democracy..

[burns210]

why couldn't he just properly site his source and use the clip? If I write an opinion or research paper, I can quote a corporation or news agency without consulting with them, why can't he?

Re:Democracy..

[KarmaMB84]

In many states, electors are bound by the laws of those states to vote for the candidate they were sent to vote for. Granted, if they were to vote for someone else, they probably couldn't stop the vote from going through, but the elector would likely face hefty legal action. This would be true especially if it was an election deciding vote. No elector has ever switched their vote and changed the course of an election. A few have actually only done it because they thought their vote wouldn't make a difference. The first time it does make a difference will probably be the time the electoral college system receives an overhaul via constitutional amendments.

Re:Democracy..

[Fuzzle]

That's two words, and since the person using this clip would be earning a profit off of the footage, I believe that oversteps fair use and necessitates the licensing fees. I could be wrong though.

Re:Democracy..

[jon787]

I though it was the sensible party, the sillly party, and the very silly party?

Re:Democracy..

[Zcar]

Yes, Congress may "determine the Time of chusing the Electors", but what if a state decided to have a traditional runoff style election, where the top two candidates for elector in a vote held, say the second Tuesday of October, were subject to a second vote on the national selection day of the second Tuesday in Novemeber? The elector would not have been chosen until the Congressionally determined time, would it?

Also, your 14th Ammendment argument is presupposing that there is an election held for the choice of electors. Read the ammenedment again, "But when the right to vote at any election...". If an election (per Article II Section 1) is not held for the office of elector, but is held for the other offices named, would this apply?

Re:Democracy..

[Saucepan]

Chirac gets 20%, LePen gets 17%, Jospin gets 16%. Now suddenly the election is between Chirac and LePen, and Chirac is now the shoe-in even though the majority of the voters originally wanted "Anything but Chirac"

That sounds like a reasonable outcome to me: you are describing a single-winner election, and from your vote breakdown it looks likely that Chirac was the Condorcet winner. What other outcome would have been better, given that set of voter preferences, in your view?

Re:Democracy..

[LocalH]

As others have said, this should not apply with the President. In fact, I'd go even further and say that ALL public appearances by ANY public servant should be PUBLIC DOMAIN, with no copyright at ALL. Whether it's on TV or not. That MtP with Bush? That segment should be PUBLIC DOMAIN. Butler's photograph? It should be PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Anything dealing with the likeness of any public servant should be public domain. I don't foresee this, alone, to be a full solution, but it's a start.

Re:Democracy..

[gfxguy]

So then that system is flawed, but I agree there must be a better way... How else are we going to get a viable third party?

I have voted third party in several elections (even when I didn't like the candidate) simply in hopes of them getting enough votes to get party status - if they get enough votes, they must be included in debates and so forth the next election, they must be included in primaries and so forth. So I threw away my vote hoping to create a viable third party, sacrificing the present for the future, and it was pretty much all for naught.

I won't do it again.

However, if we have instant run-offs, or some other system, I can happily vote third party without throwing my vote away. Even if it takes several rounds... I know apathetic people lose interest, but if that's the way we need to go... the final election should have two people.

Primaries don't count because you only select from a subset of all the candidates and only from one party. If I could vote in both primaries it wouldn't be so bad...

Re:Democracy..

[StarChamber]

You are trying to oversimplify the voting process. Most voters evaluate a candidate on a plethora of policy points, there ususally is no single overriding issue to steer them toward one candidate over another.

That is why US elections are referred to as "Beauty Contests". People vote for the candidate they find most appealling. So they are forced to make compromises when it comes to policy positions.

If your goal is to determine what the majority opinion of the populace truly is, then you would have to drop the "Beauty Contest" method and adopt preferential voting. Preferential voting requires that the voter rank the candidates in the order that the voter would like to see win (1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.).

The benefit of prefential voting is that you tally up all of the votes that a candidate receives (for example, 3 points for a 1st place vote, 2 points for 2nd, and 1 point for 3rd) and the person with the largest weighted vote total is the winner. The benefit is that you have quantified the preferences of the masses.

So in the 2000 US Presidential election for example, the average Ralph Nader voter would have ranked Al Gore 2nd and Goerge W Bush 3rd. This would mean that a vote for a 3rd Party candidate is no longer meaningless since they are now free to vote their conscious while still voicing their opinion on the mainstream candidates.

However, since most voters cannot grapple with a simple butterfly ballot, there is no way they could figure out a rank the candidates ballot.

Re:Democracy..

[E_elven]

No-one would bother to invent anything if they were not properly compensated for it, they suggest. Yay for capitalism and free-market economy.

Re:Democracy..

[E_elven]

You are trying to oversimplify the voting process. Most voters evaluate a candidate on a plethora of policy points, there ususally is no single overriding issue to steer them toward one candidate over another.

Hehe. You made milk spill out of my nostrils at work. Made my Wednesday.

Re:Democracy..

[Rei]

This whole topic is mode definitely a troll. It repeats the tired, *Wrong* axim that "both parties are the same!". Furthermore, it makes it worse by insisting that both parties are the same when it comes to civil liberties issues like IP.

Take a look at voting records. On your average vote, there is a *distinct* "taking of sides" by parties. Furthermore, these "taking of sides" are ideologically distinct - they don't take one side for one vote, and then when a similar vote comes up again, take the other side. This is because parties have an ideological base. Now, you may not *agree* with all of the points of this base, and your alliegences may be split on different issues, and you may want to see *sharper divisions*, but that doesn't change the fact that the parties are in general *distinct* and *consistant*.

Read the slashdot article on the "8 worst internet laws". Of the 93 worst offenders listed, 18 were Democrats. Of the top 25, only two were Democrats. Both parties the same? What BS!

Read the ACLU rankings. For 2001, the Democrats average 74%; the Republicans 14%. Sure, you can complain to high heaven when your Democratic rep votes on that other 26% against civil liberties - but for God's sake, its a choice between 26% and 86% votes against civil liberties! Don't trust the ACLU? Read the EFF archives - they'll tell you the same thing.

All of this "third parties are the answer!" stuff is tripe. People get enraged about the 26%, or more commonly, have an alignment that's mixed between both parties - and then they assume that the majority of the people in the country are not only mixed in alignments (which they are), but that they're mixed *In The Same Way*. Well, guess what? They're not. They're not even close. Deal with it.

If you can't accept politicians who aren't *completely* aligned with you, you must *expect* to be marginalized.

Re:Democracy..

[nanojath]

Holy overrated, Batman. That's "deep." Actually this statement is not only semantically empty, it's also a syntactically a really poorly constructed sentiment. I presume the person means "like in all great republics, in the USA democracy is but an illusion." Whatever that means... but at least its properly constructed and means something.

The point of this article is using copyright to suppress free speech in politics. Pity the article relies on two irrelevant and non-equivalent examples for the premise. In the first case, NBC refuses to sell a copyright on a segment of the show and the author takes the enormous stretch that this is George Bush's fault... I guess he should have looked into the future, determined they would refuse to sell the clip, and refused to appear on Meet the Press. In the second example, the individual in question, who is not John Kerry, is objecting to his copywrited images being used without permission. Is he politically motivated? Of course. Does he have the right to demand his images not be used without permission? Of course. Does his assertion of his copyright in any way prevent the individuals who violated his copyright without seeking or gaining permission from exercising their right to communicate what they want to? Absolutely not. So you are left with a basic argument that the fact of copyright law is a de facto violation of free speech. An interesting premise, pity the author of this post didn't state it. There is now officially no place on the internet I can go without having stupid ideas about politics shoved down my throat. But hey, like in all great moderated posting sites, real discussion is but an illusion.

Re:Democracy..

[E_elven]

How about you take the World's Smallest Political Quiz. It's by no means exhaustive -it's only of value to an US voter as most of the other Western countries have an entirely different political atmosphere- but a lot of my 'republican' and 'democrat' acquaintances have found themselves in a strange place with the test.

For the record, I'm a Left-liberal leaning towards Statist.

Re:Democracy..

[CrimsonAvenger]

Sounds like Louisiana. Except that we don't play that game with Presidential Electors.

You MIGHT be able to get away with that, if you could guarantee that the first election would ALWAYS matter (straw votes have problems), and that the runoff would ALWAYS occur. Since the runoff would not occur if one candidate got a simple majority in the first election (happens in LA as often as not), you'd have a problem. Not necessarily insurmountable, but a problem.

Hmm, you seem to be right that if there were no election used to choose Electors, then this could be an issue. I suspect that an attempt by a state to do this would be hit by a blizzard of 14th Amendment lawsuits, plus an ousting of the government in question at its next election, plus a new Constitutional Amendment specifying that Electors must be elected.

Note that it is possible that such a group of Electors would be challenged (it has happened in the past that states (ok, one state) have sent more than one group of Electors to Washington. It produced a bit of a problem, especially since the election in question was decided by the validation of the group of Electors so validated). Such a challenge would produce WAY more broohaha than the 2000 election....

Re:Democracy..

[E_elven]

It might be well worth noting that most European governments actually place much less power on the President; rather it's the Prime Minister who runs the show -and that person is selected by an equal distribution calculation the Parliamentary elections -even if a given party wins the majority of seats in the Parliament they may not be able to govern effectively without taking other parties in with them which lessens the one-winner effect.

Re:Democracy..

[poot_rootbeer]

That's why dessert choice should be a decision left to the family, and not mandated by the restaurant.

Sure, it takes money and/or connections to get a job in the House of Restaurantentatives, but almost anyone has the resources to run for a seat with the Family Freeholders.

Change starts locally.

Re:Democracy..

[illuminatedwax]

I realize that this is a vicious circle - but how do you intend to stop it? This two-party system has a lot of power, and guess what? Right now you're too late. In fact, ironically, gunning for third-party votes actually ended up hurting the cause because of last election. So, in fact, the third-party candidate DID get enough votes to matter last year - and guess what, it's very obvious this year that an R or D will win. Thus proving your statement false.

Hardly anyone will vote third-party this year because A) most liberals don't care who the President is this year as long as it's not Bush and B) there's a stigma now that third-party votes hurt causes.

I think last year's election set back breaking the Republican/Democrat system at least 8 to 12 years. Most of my point, anyway, was that your vote really doesn't count. What you have to do is learn how to play the game. And this year winning the game for a third-party is nigh impossible. I don't care if you're Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. The third-party cause is screwed.

Re:Democracy..

[Jadrano]

No, it's just called run-off voting (voting with two rounds). Instant run-off voting is when there is only one voting round, but a run-off is simulated (people can vote for several candidates, ordered by preference, if the candidate they want most has no chance of winning, the one they want second most is elected etc.).
In continental Europe, mostly (non-instant) run-off voting is used, instant run-off seems to be more widespread in Anglosaxon countries (Australia, special elections in Britain, such as London City Council).

Re:Democracy..

[illuminatedwax]

A local "nutjob" "speaking out" isn't playing the game right. That's why they're viewed as local nutjobs. It's pretty hard to break into the mainstream political world, but not impossible - look at Michael Moore. He was some fat putz that decided to make a documentary about political issues (Roger and Me) and now look - his opinions are worth a lot more than one vote. I'm not saying everyone can be big and famous like Moore, but you see my point. Granted, a lot of people still think Moore is a nutjob, but he's not a local nutjob anymore.

Local nutjobs can actually have an impact if they can reach a wide enough audience and are good at presenting their message. A lot of nutjobs just aren't good at public speaking (or writing).

--Stephen

Re:Democracy..

[gfxguy]

I don't hate both of them, but I do cross the line into libertarian... the problem is that I don't see how the ratings of the candidates can possibly be correct until I look at the date on it...

I think both candidate's positions now might show a very different perspective (based on what they are saying).

Re:Democracy..

[default luser]

The best solution to our "single-party" system in the US would be "preferential" voting.

Let's say you have five parties. When you vote, you rank all five parties in your order of preference.

You do a complete tally, and determine the last-place party. That party is removed from the race, and all votes indicating that party as their "first choice" are funneled off to their second choices.

You would continue dropping one candidate each time the votes are re-tallied, and redirecting that candidate's current votes based on the next preference.

In reality, we believe in some things from most parties involved, but we're afraid to show our true support because we are simultaneously afraid of wasting our vote. Unfortunately, those in power would never let such a system exist, as it would erode the very power base of the single-party system here in America.

THIS is why people don't vote. Most of them don't care anymore because they know that, no matter who gets elected, nothing will change at the core.

Re:Democracy..

[Jadrano]

Unfortunately, it doesn't always give a very good choice: if you google for the French Presidential Election results in 2002 you will see what I mean.
The system works on 2 rounds, the top 2 candidates from the first round (% of the vote) progress to the second round, where they go head-to-head.

There are different kinds of run-off voting, probably the one that is most widespread is where only the two candidates with the best result in the first round can run in the second round. But in Switzerland (for the kinds of elections that are not proportional), there are no restrictions as to who can run in the second round.
So, if no candidate gets more than 50% of the votes it the first round, it has no direct effect on the eventual outcome on the elections, it is more like a kind of official survey, and the second round is then just a plurality vote.
That way, something like in the 2002 elections in France cannot happen (Jospin could still have run in the second run, some minority candidates would probably not have run in the second round and others would have get fewer votes because of the results of the first round). On the other hand, candidates with little chances can still run in the first round without being spoilers.

Re:Democracy..

[koreth]

Primaries? Ha! In every presidential election I've been old enough for, all the primary candidates I would have wanted to vote for had already dropped out of the race by the time my state's primary happened. Unless you live in New Hampshire or Iowa or (sometimes) a Super Tuesday state, primaries are a useless exercise that serve no purpose other than giving a warm fuzzy to the de facto party nominee. Or maybe, if you're really lucky, you get to choose between two of the nominees you didn't care for.

Suggest that again when they change the primaries to all happen on the same day, which is the only way to ensure that everyone's vote actually counts equally.

Re:Democracy..

[cpt kangarooski]

You are wrong. Profits aren't an issue for fair use, though the effect on the market for the original work are. Take a look at the 'Pretty Woman' case that went to the Supreme Court back in the 90's.

Re:Democracy..

[PeterPumpkin]

The problem with that approach is that Election Day will turn into Election Month or Election Quarter. There are craptons of candidates that never make it to the ballot. The current method of weeding out candidates is the "petition to get on the ballot" method. We'd have to work through every party, serious or not, till all the "Gallager for President" types fall by the wayside.

Re:Democracy..

[|/|/|||]

I don't know if I agree with your politics, but we're both fighting the same uphill battle - I'm consistently forced to vote for someone other than the candidate I want to vote for. Why? Because of the way our electoral system works. When it's winner take all, voting for someone who has little chance of winning means sacrificing your vote.

The only solution to this problem is electoral reform. Instant runoff voting or something. No, I'm not an expert on electoral systems and the tradeoffs between them, but experts do exist. I suggest that we, as a democracy, use the information gathered by these experts to refine our system a bit.

There was a great article comparing different systems in a recent Scientific American, but unfortunately it's not available electronically without paying for it. I read the print version and it looks like we have a lot of options - I suggest we try them out. The only reasonable place to start is at a local level, so if you're really concerned about the issue then push for change in your local government's voting system!

Re:Democracy..

[Peldor]

Like in all great republics, democracy is but an illusion.

Lunchtime doubly so.

I think you meant:

Election-time doubly so.

Re:Democracy..

[bonkedproducer]

So, to not be a nutjob I only need to be an easily debunked, lying, wind-bag of nonsense. Then people will take me seriously (because it takes all of two or three minutes to debunk most of Moore's allegations, and most of America will not put that kind of effort into choosing the leader of the free world.)

Gee, I love this fucking country.

Re:Democracy..

[stry_cat]

Alice and Bob both love cookies; Charlene hates them but loves spinach for desert. They decide to hold an election to see what desert will be offered.

No it is more like this:

Alice and Bob want cookies. Charlene wants spinach. All three vote to take (aka tax) what they want from Tom who is the one who baked the cookies and cooked the spinach and wanted both. Tom doesn't vote b/c he is too busy being a productive member of society.

Re:Democracy..

[techno-vampire]

No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Obviously the reference to HHGTTG went right over your head.

Re:Democracy..

[Fuzzle]

Ah, you do have a point. However, according to this primer from Stanford, the owner of the copyright can challenge you on the "fairness" of your use, no matter what. Something scary to be sure, because of how deep their litigious pockets can be.

Re:Democracy..

[name773]

they could handle it.
nice points by the way, some good ideas; thanks.

Re:Democracy..

[illuminatedwax]

You've missed the point. You need to be charismatic and persuasive.

Re:Democracy..

[gfxguy]

You're right... but the current method - I think a candidate needs to get ... I don't know, 25? 30%? of the vote? I don't know... but that method is obviously not working.

Re:Democracy..

[ArtAesthete]

I agree. As a gay person, I'm terrified of what reactionary measures the republicans could do in the coming four years.

Anyone who would deny gay men the right to a big wedding is just cruel ;)

Kerry supports the employment non-discrimination act. I don't get why republicans want quasi-religious issues to get in the way of the best choice for the most solid economy. He supports the family medical leave act, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, gay and lesbian adoption rights, the appeal of 'don't ask don't tell', and finally, supports civil unions.

forget the ideological side of things. lets talk practical.

bush still holds a platform that allows hospitals the legal right to deny gays and lesbians the right to visit, say, their partner in the hospital on their deathbed. or to file join taxes. or to bereavement / sick leave to care for a partner. or to decide if a deceased partner should be cremated or buried.

and there is hundreds more such issues.........

Re:Democracy..

[Lodragandraoidh]

You do have a third option if you are not satisfied - get involved, work within the parties to change the ideological dogma/zealousness of the party - or perhaps even the mind of a politician or two. Eventually, you might be in a position to pursue public office and put your ideas into play.

This is precisely why I came to the conclusion that it is better to put your energies into effecting change within either party (Dem/Rep) - than going the third party route.

As long as moderates (for want of a better word) continue to court third parties, or sit in apathy on the sidelines, both major parties will continue to further radicalize.

You would think that the more radical elements would be marginalized, but our history is showing that the middle - potentially the most numerous source of voters - is instead losing influence - while politicians continue to pander to them during elections - and like sheep we continue to vote for the radicals in both parties.

So I urge everyone interested in political involvement to join either the Democratic or Republican party, and start the long hard task of pulling them back to the middle ground where logic, reason, and compromise prevail.

Get out the Vote in November!

Re:Democracy..

[Merk]

Well said. I think it's pretty obvious that right now, the United States is a relatively benevolent plutocracy, and has a large number of oligarchical tendencies.

Elections are there more to appease people than to make any significant change. The two main candidates have very similar views on most things, and it's only the differences that are at issue. One opposes gay marriage enough to try to have a constitutional ban (although it would never pass and he knows it). The other opposes gay marriage, but doesn't think it is important enough to have a constitutional amendment. He's content to let states decide. Both supported the war in Iraq, both support "the war on Terror". Both support the USAPATRIOT act.

That's not where the differences end though. Both spent a lot of their youth in New England, and were educated at Yale, and both are reputed to be members of the Skull and Bones society.

There are certainly worse forms of government, but it is an illusion to think that what we have now bears any strong resemblance to a true Greek-style democracy. While there would be significant differences in how each of them ran the country, one thing is virtually guaranteed, they wouldn't mess with the plutocracy. They may slightly increase or decrease taxes on the plutocrats. They may (given enough pressure) write laws trying to reform the election process so money plays less of a role, but they'll always leave loopholes.

I just wish more people would accept that the United States isn't a democracy. Even the CIA World Factbook doesn't claim it is. They only tag it as having "a strong democratic tradition". Really, the only hope to really change what the US is is to become one of the plutocrats and then try to make changes.

Re:Democracy..

[internic]

"While it is true that an instant runoff might be legal, the traditional runoff is not. from the Constitution: Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. Any system that allowed the possibility that one elector would be chosen at a different time than another would not fit that."

Read the above again carefully: "...the Day on which [the Electors] give their vote..." It would seem that this refers to the day on which the electors cast their votes for President not the general elections in which the residents of each state select their electors. Quoting from Wikipedia, "These electors in turn cast the official votes for President. Federal law says that each state's electors meet in their state capitals on the Monday following the second Wednesday of December. There, they cast their electoral votes for President and Vice President."

As to the question of states not holding a popular vote at all, they didn't in the beginning. Originally, electors were chosen by the state legislature, and only later did they switch to using a popular vote, so legally they could go back if the public wouldn't vote them all out of office.

Re:Democracy..

[starX]

It's important to remember that this system was chosen because the Foundaing Fathers knew that the new American people were largely uneducated, and were afraid of the uneducated masses being duped by a charismatic charlitan who would be emperor (like in 2000). District electors are supposed to be comprised of the most respected (which was often synonomous with wealthy and educated) members of the voting district. Even if THEY were duped, there are still the state electors, who were definitely members of the American Aristocracy, to fool. In theory the electoral college creates a thick buffer of supposedly educated people who would never allow a tyrrant to come to power in the event of the unwashed masses being seduced into electing a tyrant.

Before I say that this system is completely unfounded, the parliamentary system has historically produced its share of dictators. The president of the United States still can't make law, and even though he is the civilian authority in command of the military, both the commissioned and non-commissioned officers in the armed services swear oaths to uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; by defying the constitution the president makes himself a domestic enemy and the armed services are thus no longer bound to obey him. Basically, this means that Bush couldn't legally use the military to stop protesters from burning the flag, and even if he tried, any military personel involved could not legally follow that order.

Basically the worst we have to fear is someone like Bush getting into office, but there are some things that he cannot do: anyone who thinks that Bush wouldn't have burned the constition years ago if he thought he would be able to get away with it, raise your hand. Most likely, if Bush ever did try to realize his Hitlerian ambitions, he would wind up being placed under arrest by at least one of the supreme commanders of the armed services. Pretending that the Vice President didn't oppose such actions, the line of succession draws the next president and vice president from the legislature, which have been elected by the people. In a parliamentary system, the disololution of the government would prevent such a buffer. The checks and balances that we all learned about in grade school were very much designed to maintain the new status quo. Even if Bush is as evil as some of us fear, if he ever tried to really, and I mean not in the legally ambiguous lets all file our supreme court briefs sense of the words, but if he ever really tried to overstep the bounds of his office, he would find himself in prison faster than you could say "High Treason."

The US Consitution is really a brilliant legal document; it creates a government that is not un-doable by a gullible electorate, and at the same time allows for an electorate that doesn't have to trust the government (which most people in the late 18th and early 19th centuries weren't inclined to do beyond their county government and their district representative to the House of Representatives). Basically, it creates checks and ballances for and against everything, even the American People.

Re:Democracy..

[Rei]

On gay rights, these "both parties are the same!" people often point out that Clinton signed the DOMA. What they don't mention is that the Democrats voted against the DOMA by a 2:1 ratio, while the Republicans supported it by an unbelievable *20:1* ratio.

Oh, and Kerry was among the "2" who opposed the DOMA. :)

Re: Democracy..

[jdbolick]

Imagine you're the CEO of NBC and have a responsibility to your shareholders, or even that you're one of those shareholders whose theoretical wealth is all tied up in NBC stock. Sure, on some level you understand and agree with the idea that the media has some larger responsibility to serve society by providing it a variety of seemingly accurate information. But on a more direct level, your most immediate responsibility is to protect the company.

What would NBC gain out of being involved with Greenwald?

What would NBC stand to lose?


In a political climate where the level of hostility is unprecedented, it's no surprise that a network would want to keep itself separate from any individual's partisan rant, no matter how justified or unjustified it might be. Let's be perfectly clear that no one is denying Greenwald or the Swift Boat Veterans the right to speak out. That's where free speech ends, although few people seem to grasp that boundary. Free speech never has and hopefully never will be about being immune from consequences of that speech or legally binding others to support and disseminate your expression. Nor is NBC hiding the material. Anyone can look at a written transcript of the interview online right now, and anyone can order a video copy of it. The only thing they're doing is choosing not to surrender control of that property to a third party, one that will clearly use it to attack a very visible figure who has around half the country supporting him. How does avoiding that situation amount to anything more than the only reasonable thing to do?


I simply don't understand how hatred of an individual, be it Bush or Clinton or whoever, can be allowed to overwhelm individual rights. NBC should have the right to keep itself separate from someone else's vendettas just as you might not want articles or footage or some form of your intellectual property being used by a person or organization you don't want to support. Wasn't it wrong for Michael Moore to run roughshod over Ray Bradbury after Bradbury had specifically told Moore that he did not grant permission for the movie's title? Is that any more wrong because Bradbury is an old man and not a corporation, or are none of these things wrong because they attack Bush and not you or your mother or someone you actually like?


If NBC had never aired its interview because it wanted Bush to be re-elected, that would be a huge problem.

If NBC refused access to the material now for private viewing, that would be a problem.

NBC choosing to stay out of something that the creator clearly hopes will get vicious and ugly is not a threat to democracy or free speech or anything else. In fact, it's an expression of NBC's freedom to choose with whom it associates. Forcing them to participate would actually be the un-American thing.

Re:Democracy..

[ArcherB]

As a Republican, I agree that you should be allowed to have a big wedding. Hell, I'll even bring a gift! However, I do not believe that marriage should be recognized by the government. That said, you should be given all the rights a "spouse" would get, like visiting a sick partner, transfer of property, sharing health insurance or whatever. I guess you could say I'm for "unions" that hold all the rights and privelages of marriage, but I'm against gay marriage. To me, marriage is a sacred institution and should be protected. Not necessarily from gays, but from the two college room mates that are not gay who are just looking for a tax cut. Or maybe the legal immegrant who wants to bring in an illegal immegrant and uses marriage as a way to do so. Or the redneck in Arkansas that wants to marry his kid sister... Whatever.

Just like pro abortion people say that any limits on abortion in any way will lead to the repeal of a woman's right to vote, I feel that any incursion on the sanctity of marriage will lead to the fall of the family. Neither is really justified.

I guess my biggest beef is the fact that a state judge in another state can tell me what the laws should be in my state. That's probably what I find most offensive.

I'm for all the marriage rights, but please, just don't call it marriage and you'll have my vote.

Re:Democracy..

[UnknownSoldier]

> No-one would bother to invent anything if they were not properly compensated for it, they suggest.

So BEFORE copyright, absolutely NO-ONE invented anything, ever?!

Digressing slightly...
Why do people climb mountains? Because the are their, and they think it's fun.

And regressing...
People sometimes invent things to help them do what they enjoy doing. i.e. better rope, stronger clips, etc...

Not every invention was for money. Heaven forbid fun had anything to do with!

Peace

Re:Democracy..

[ArcherB]

If everyone pulls both parties to the middle, won't they both just be the same? Remember the Futurama episode where John Jackson was running against Jack Johnson?

I feel the only answer is a run off election. While a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, it does take away a vote from whoever you second choice may be.

Re:Democracy..

[uucp]

Political speech by an elected offical should not enjoy copyright protectection regardless of the forum if that speech is publicly displayed in any form.

Balls yeah. Now let's go one further by suggesting this: Elected officials must be constantly monitored, and audiovisual recordings of all things that the person does during the course of his job should be presrved in an archive for posterity.

No, I don't like that yet. How about this: Elected officials must do what I say at all times, and make their daughters available to me at my command.

That's better, but it's not proactive enough. OK: Elected officials will enslave all of humanity except for me, and then force all the rest of the people to be my slave, so that the men will give me their money and the women will give me head, forever and ever. Amen.

Better. Real close. Hmmmm.. OK, this has got to be it: All people will spontaneously love me and give me everything that I could ever want or need before I've even thought to ask for it.

That's it. That's what I want. That's MY political system, right there.

Re:Democracy..

[Sj0]

VOTE. I don't care who for.

This is a dangerous attitude. An uninformed voting population is even more dangerous than a non-voting population. Sure, the number of voters is high, but it degrades the importance of issues, as people who don't know what's going on will vote on notions which may or may not be based on reality. Think: "Wow, that kerry guy has really nice eyes! I should vote for him!".

Re:Democracy..

[DeadChobi]

You know, that's how a lot of presidents are chosen. Most people dont take the time to get properly informed. Instead, they choose the guy who "looks like he's the better president." Looks are important to a lot of people, whether you're at a job interview, or running for president, a lot of people will allow their "notions which may or may not be based on reality" to guide their hand. Get two identical twins with identical credentials, and the one the people-stripminer (read HR person) thinks looks better will probably get the job.

Re:Democracy..

[Sj0]

Well I'll be damned. I'm a centrist libertarian.

I've always thought of Freedom and fiscal responsibility as a conservative value(and I've always thought that a lot of "conservatives" thought it was synonymous with "we step on anyone we don't like"). Guess not. :)

Re:Democracy..

[mrchaotica]

If the law is unethical, doesn't that make it wrong?

Re:Democracy..

[Fuzzle]

Not necessarily. Lots of people find the death penalty to be immoral and unethical but it is still legal in some places in the US to execute someone as the punishment for a crime.

Re:Democracy..

[Rei]

> like visiting a sick partner, transfer of property, sharing health insurance, etc

It goes a lot further than that. A legally recognised marriage goes a lot further than just federal benefits. For example, private benefits (such as "family discounts" in club memberships) and business benefits (such as unemployment when your partner/spouse gets transferred and you have to move, etc). You'd never guess how widespread it is until you live through it.

> I'm for "unions" ... I'm against gay marriage

I understand your perspective on this - I really do. And I hope that you can understand - even try to see from our own eyes - our perspective: what it means to be given "secondary compensation" that's "partly as good", "almost as good", or whatnot.

> To me, marriage is a sacred institution and should be protected.

That's the exact thing that people said to defend the various marriage practices in the past. To defend the treatment of women as chattel in a marriage. To defend the ban on black marriage. To defend the bans on interracial marriages. Etc. Each time, it was presented as an "unbendable sacred institution" that was under attack.

> Not necessarily from gays, but from the two college room mates

Do you see straight men and women - who already could get married - abusing this all the time? To the degree that you should ban straight marriage? If not, why do you think that it would be more common with gay marriage?

The reason why it's not abused very often is that it bears a lot of legal penalties, too, and costs upon dissolution. The same would hold true here.

> Or maybe the legal immegrant who wants to bring in an illegal immegrant and uses marriage

Like already happens with straight immigrants? Should we ban straight marriage? Again, what makes you think it would be more common with gay marriage? Due to the fact that the cultures of most nations that we are at risk of illegal immigration from are more conservative than our own, it would seem that they would be even less likely to use this route.

> Or the redneck in Aransas that wants to marry his kid sister

???
Did you just compare gay couples who have been together for years, with a deep relationship, and in cases raised children together, with an incestous pedophilic relationship, which is typically borderline rape?

> I guess my biggest beef is the fact that a state judge in another state can tell me what the laws should be in my state

The fact that we didn't initially have the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Articles of Confederation is probably the biggest reason why it failed. Or is your problem the fact that it was due a judge, and not the legislature?

> just don't call it marriage

How about this proposal: The government get out of the "marriage" business all together, and leave it to the churches. The government should recognize "unions", and a marriage is a union. This is how some countries deal with it. Consequently, my Unitarian church would recognize my marriage to my partner of 5 years (as well as your marriage if you're married, from whatever church you attend), but your church wouldn't have to recognize mine, and we'd both get equal treatment under the law.

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

How does two people of the same sex who are in love with each other, and affirm their love in public so that they receive legal protection and legal privleges that are given to other couples, effect your marriage in the least? If you believe marriage is a religious matter, then legal gay marriage does nothing to change that, your church will continue to discriminate. As it is a man and a woman can simply get married for a tax break, so why shouldn't two man or two women be able to do the same? How can gay marriage cheapen marriage in any way?

Admit it, you are uncomfortable around gay people.

BTW I'm straight.

Re:Democracy..

[geekanarchy]

In regards to third parties, it follows Gandhi's quote "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." As of right now the dem/rep majority are still in the 'ignore' stage with a little bit of 'ridicule' (ridicule = "you're just throwing away your vote"). And they'd like to keep it that way.

The U.S. was formed on rebellion from tradition, but now tradition has become our weakness. We stick to the antiquated "winner takes all" style of voting, which keeps third parties at bay. And there is no reason for the legislative branch to try to fix it - they like the 50/50 balance act and won't change it because that's how the founding fathers set it up to be. Well, guess what? The founding fathers were a rebellious bunch and wouldn't stand by for a locked two party system.

I won't be voting for Kerry, nor Bush this election. It's my vote, I'm going to choose a candidate I want to be president, and I don't give a shit about what others think about my choice.

Re:Democracy..

[schmaltz]

"Fair Use" isn't defined by whether you plan to make a profit from it or not. If that were the case, then none of the profitable newspapers nor broadcast outlets would be able to use footage or quotage from other outlets.

Re:Democracy..

[metalslinger]

I meant to post the previous post logged in. Sorry. It was me.

Re:Democracy..

[Bedevere]

Even more scenario fun to demonstrate Arrow's Paradox. A group of people go to a deli to decide on meats for a picnic. The man behind the counter tells them that they have Turkey and Ham. The group huddles together and votes and return to tell the man they voted in favor of Ham. Before they tell him their decision however, the man tells them he just realized they have Pork too! So the group goes and votes again, this time between Turkey, Pork, and Ham. They return to tell the man that they've voted in favor of the Turkey!

Re:Democracy..

[Veridium]

It's my vote, I'm going to choose a candidate I want to be president, and I don't give a shit about what others think about my choice.

DAMN STRAIGHT!

Re:Democracy..

[E_elven]

VOTE. I don't care who for.

This is a dangerous attitude. An uninformed voting population is even more dangerous than a non-voting population. Sure, the number of voters is high, but it degrades the importance of issues, as people who don't know what's going on will vote on notions which may or may not be based on reality. Think: "Wow, that kerry guy has really nice eyes! I should vote for him!".

As an outsider in the US political culture, I've observed it for a while. This may surprise you but it seems that most people who vote this year will vote for one of these reasons:

1. I've always voted republican
2. I've always voted democrat
3. 'Values' (i.e. right-wing christian bigotry)
4. "Anyone but Bush"

Many of the more 'thoughtful' people won't vote at all in their cynicism, which is sad. Just vote for the Communist party if nothing else -if any minority party got more than 3% of the vote, the US would be changed forever.

Re:Democracy..

[Captain DaFt]

Just to back up the parent with a little info, a list of actual candidates running for president can be found here. Take a look, vote FOR a candidate instead of against. If your man/woman loses, at least you'll know you actually did The Right Thing(TM). (And BTW, Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is actually one of the DEFINITIONS of insanity!) };->

Re:Democracy..

[Mycroft_VIII]

Slight correction here. Perot never 'made it' into the debates, he was invited by the two candidates while someone who qualified, at least twice after the criterion were changed to exclude him, was simply barred from attendance.
I say at least twice because the third time it was 'we'll tell you if you qualify, no we can't tell you what the criterion are unless you qualify'.
I was there outside Wash. U. when that debate was held between Bush sr. and Clinton and Perot, and got to briefly meet the Libertarian candidate for president who was excluded despite having twice qualified.
The ONLY way to get into a presidential debate is to be a)the Republican candidate b)The Democratic candidate c) somone they can't just brush aside because of wealth or fame.
This kind of crooked bs is why I consider both parties due for replacement, the sooner the better.
The libertarians are usually the third biggest party.
The only reason we hear about others when thier rich like Perot and can buy tv time (or actually afford to sue if denied) or to well known (like Nader) to be ignored.

Mycroft

Re:Democracy..

[Mycroft_VIII]

?!?!? Which independants or third party candidates where in the republican or democratic primaries?
Both parties are despicable pits of coruption for the most part. I do realise some good people join one or the other in hopes of making a difference, but they don't get far if they don't 'get with the program'.
To get far enough to get on a primary ballot for eigther of the two big parties pretty much guarantees a corrupt, or at least co-opted, candidate.

Mycroft

Re:Democracy..

[Thomas Shaddack]

Balls yeah. Now let's go one further by suggesting this: Elected officials must be constantly monitored, and audiovisual recordings of all things that the person does during the course of his job should be presrved in an archive for posterity.

In other words, do to them like they do to us with the "security cameras" metastasing all over the streets and data retention of telco logs.

But back to the original issue. Their political speeches can be considered a "work for hire", where the hiring party is the People. Hence the speech should automatically go to public domain.

If the corporation can own the products of its employees, why shouldn't the people own the products of their politicians?

Re:Democracy..

[flyneye]

|/|/||| said" When it's winner take all, voting for someone who has little chance of winning means sacrificing your vote.
flyneye says "without the next system in place,voting for the usual candidates simply on the merit that one is worse than the other,is less effective than showing where their support dissappeared to.Certainly no waste of a vote."

Re:Democracy..

[Eccles]

As a Republican [..]

...you agree almost completely with the position John Kerry has expressed.
I'm for all the marriage rights, but please, just don't call it marriage and you'll have my vote.

So Kerry has your vote then?

Re:Democracy..

[Lodragandraoidh]

No - because the people in the middle will hold the core ideology while willing to negotiate and find compromises on more radical issues. If everyone is polarized, the differences will be too significant to find any middle ground. The problem with that is when one side or the other gets control (controlling the Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court) there will be no consideration for finding any middle ground and thought will only be for pursuing the most radical actions.

On the other hand, with moderates in both parties being a significant influence, more consideration would be given to not running rough shod over everyone.

Senator John McCaine is an example of the type of people I am talking about. We need more folks who are willing to negotiate - rather than run off and do their own thing because they can.

Re:Democracy..

[Brandybuck]

Lucky you, we only have Terrible and Terrible, with a couple of minor Worse and Worse parties. Oh how we wish we had a choice of "Bad".

Re:Democracy..

[Brandybuck]

Very complicated. most Americans have a hard time explaining it to you.

Actually it's very easy to explain. You just have to look at it from the right perspective.

The United States of America is just what its name says: united states. There are fifty distinct and sovereign nations here. While the states did in the past collectively vote via a civil war that none of them could seceed, the fact remains that they are still states and not provinces or districts.

Now from that perspective the electoral college makes sense. It isn't the individual voters who are electing a president, but the states instead. As a resident of California I have no business or right deciding who gets to rule Iowa.

Re:Democracy..

[|/|/|||]

Notice that I didn't say "wasting" your vote - I chose the word "sacrificing" on purpose. The sacrifice is not worthless, but it does cost you something. With other election systems, like an instant runoff, you can pick who you want and also pick your second choice. Far superior, in my opinion.

As for what strategy to employ under the current system, I'm not quite sure what is optimal. For the next Presidential election, I'm going to vote for the mainstream candidate because I think the alternative is particularly dangerous. In the last Presidential election I voted for a third party candidate, and I certainly didn't regret it, even though it cost me the ability to have a say in the "real" election (between the lesser of two evils).

Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

John Kerry's friend, George Butler, a New Hampshire filmmaker who has known Kerry for more than three decades is threatening legal action against Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.Com. Butler is claiming ownership of two photographs pertaining to Kerry's radical pro-Hanoi days.
One is the cover picture that appeared on Kerry's book, The New Soldier which Kerry tried to suppress in 1972. It depicts several unkempt demonstrators crudely handling an upside down American flag to mock the famous photo of the U.S. Marines at Iwo Jima.

Read letter below:

March 5, 2004
By Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
and By Email usveterandispatch@earthlink.net

Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
P.O. Box 246
Kinston, N.C. 28502
Re: vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com

Dear Mr. Sampley:

Please be advised that this office represents the professional photographer George Butler. The above-referenced website is currently hyperlinking to a website which displays an infringing photograph, and is making false statements about this law firm. This must be remedied, or our client and this firm will be forced to commence legal action against you.

Your online service provider, EastLink, was contacted by this office regarding two photographs taken by Mr. Butler that were being used without permission on your website. To ensure compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 United States Code 1200 et seq.), EastLink removed the infringing photographs on March 4, 2004.
In response, you posted the above-referenced statements and hyperlink to http://www.grunt.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9531 , a site displaying one of the infringing photographs. It is well-settled that "a party may be liable for contributory copyright infringement where knowledge of the infringing activity, it induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing activity of another." A&M Records v. Napster, Inc. 114 F. Supp.2d 869 (N. Cal. 2000). Accordingly, you are still liable under federal copyright law for posting the hyperlink.
Moreover, the statement that "lawyers representing John Kerry's interest threatened our Internet server with legal action unless the picture was removed" is a false statement of fact. As stated above, this firm represents George Butler. John Kerry is not, and has never been, a client of this firm. In addition, we did not threaten your Internet server, EastLink, with legal action. Rather, our letter and phone calls were required by law to afford EastLink the opportunity to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA that protect the interests of online service providers before commencing an action against any of the websites they host.
Thus, you remain in violation of copyright law by continuing to link to the above referenced website and have published false statements of fact on your website, which is actionable as well. You must immediately remove the hyperlink and the false statements from your website.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Nancy E. Wolff
cc: George Butler

Re:Mirror

[Space Coyote]

"pro hanoi" is quite a charge. Do you honestly think questioning the US's actions in Vietnam automatically means "pro hanoi"? If so, there are very very few voting Americans who would agree with you.

Re: Mirror

[Jeremi]

VVAW wanted the U.S. to pull out of Vietnam and hand it over to the communists in Hanoi. Kerry was one of the higher-up leaders and organizers for VVAW. How much more pro-Hanoi, pro-communist does he need to be?

By your reasoning, anyone who is against a US invasion of Cuba must be pro-Castro. Honestly, this whole "if you're not with us, you're against us" logic is just idiotic -- the real world is much more complicated than that. There were plenty of valid reasons to pull out of Vietnam that had nothing to do with "supporting Hanoi".

Re: Mirror

[macdaddy]

Agreed. Mod the parent up some more. Cryptnotic's comments reak of Bushisms. You don't have to be pro-communist to be in favor of the US pulling out of Vietnam. That's one place we never should have gotten involved in to begin with. To say that anyone in favor of pulling out of Vietnam and letting it be is in favor of Communism is absurd. That's like Bush saying that anyone not supporting him invading Iraq is unpatriotic and in support of terrorism. Kerry may not be perfect but he's not a fan of communism. Bush sure as hell isn't perfect and he may very well be in favor of communism if his little family is at the top of the food chain. Unfortunately we'll probably never know Bush's true thoughts on that topic because quite frankly Junior can't possibly form logical sentences that spins^H^H^H^Hums up his family's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpersonal thoughts on the matter.

Re: Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

So by your reasoning we should have just launched nuclear missiles at the soviet union and been done with it. I mean obviously peaceful coexistance is impossible. Seriously if we couldn't have peaceful coexistance with them you wouldn't be alive today so I suggest you shut the fuck up.

Re: Mirror

[ScooterBill]

Hey, that's how you control the people. Seed fear and uncertainty and make sure to divide the people into good and evil groups.

This is a time tested strategy. Honestly, if everyone would read a little bit of history they'd see the pattern. Some leaders are altruistic yet succumb to the whispers(and $$) of the lobbyists. Others, like our fearless leader Bush, have an agenda and will do what ever is necessary to make it happen. Then there are a small minority of leaders with integrity. Sadly, they don't stand much chance usually.

Actually, although I don't like Kerry that much more than Bush, I think he is the lesser of two evils. A government which has trouble passing bills because there's no clear majority is also less likely to infringe on the constitution. Bush has too much power and is willing to wield it to further his administration's own goals. He believe's he's more a benevolent king than a public servant.

Re: Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth noting that if Rossevelt hadn't died, we might have seen a peaceful end to French colonialism. The US war in Vietnam wasn't about our freedom or anyone's freedom in particular, it was about preserving the status quo. Rather than seeking to learn from the mistakes of the Korean conflict, the leadership at the time made the unbelievable and calculated move to attempt to repeat its mistakes.

The tragedy for the US, particularly those who served over there, was tremendous. They paid dearly in blood for the hubris of callous cowards like Bush and Cheney. What men like Max Cleland, John McCain suffered is bound inexorably to adjectives like "unspeakable" "horrific" "unimaginable," but they would likely count themselves amoung the lucky. And the price that the Vietnamese paid for their ignorance of American politics was nothing short of awesome (the bad kind).

That John Kerry saw his youthful idealism for what it was, and used an obscure by the book regulation to try and correct what he saw as the problem at its source (poor leadership an ocean away) is a mark of what might well be the early onset of his wisdom. It's a far cry from how Cheney avoided his draft board, of how Bush Jr. used his father's influence to insure another man took his place.

I suppose we shouldn't be so supprised that it's the cowards in positions of power who stand between the dead and the country that dearly wished to make amends with the inequities of past and present by honoring them. Or maybe they're terrified that people will remember honor, duty, sacrifice, and dignity when they see it, and find them lacking.

Re: Mirror

[dekeji]

VVAW wanted the U.S. to pull out of Vietnam and hand it over to the communists in Hanoi.

Yes, and your point is what exactly? Vietnam cost nearly 60000 US soldiers their lives. Another 4 million Vietnamese civilians died. The most pro-military stance anybody could take was to pull out as quickly as possible.

And that's not even counting the damage that the Vietnam war has done to the standing of the US in the world.

Not only that, but in the 1980's, Kerry was in favor of peaceful coexistance with the communist Soviet Union.

Well, imagine that: a leader that prefers peaceful co-existence to a global nuclear holocaust. And I think that defines the difference between Kerry and Bush.

So, if you want the US to go off causing the deaths of untold more millions and sacrificing hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in the name of ideology and political gain, vote for Bush. If you want a leader that values human life and peace, vote for Kerry.

Re: Mirror

[Lumpy]

Exactly! I feel we need to get all our troops out of Iraq right now...

I guess I'm going to be called pro-terrorist now.

I'm against having our men and women killed for no reason, and worse... when WE ARE NOT WANTED THERE.

So yes, I guess I'm one of those damned unamerican, unpatriotic (I refuse to join in on the rampant nationalism) evil people. I violate copyright every day, I beat puppies and I dare to not agree with the president of my country.

How about a decleration of war should require 2 of the 3 government bodies, instead of the foolish thing congress did in giving it to bush???

I guess that makes me even more unamerican.

and if that put's me in league with Kerry, then I guess I'm in good company.

Note: I think kerry is certianly not the man for the job, but he's better than Bush and Nader.

It's sad to say that the best president of the past 15 years has been Bill Clinton.

Re: Mirror

[kwoff]

because quite frankly Junior can't possibly form logical sentences that spins^H^H^H^Hums up his family's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpersonal thoughts on the matter.

Like^H^H^H^HAs if that sentence^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hphrase was without stupid ^H characters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlogical.

Re: Mirror

[the_mad_poster]

How about a decleration of war should require 2 of the 3 government bodies, instead of the foolish thing congress did in giving it to bush???

.....?

Ever try thinking before you type? Think about it for a minute: TWO out of three bodies. CONGRESS gave the BUSH administration....

Therefore, how many out of three were instrumental in moving the war effort forward? I'm sure if you think hard enough it will come to you...

Re: Mirror

[iceperson]

You're right. Kennedy should have been shot for getting us into Vietnam! Uhhh.. wait. nevermind.

Re:Mirror

[Archibald Buttle]

There is of course the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Bush doesn't understand that.

In Bush-logic if you don't agree with him you must therefore completely disagree, therefore you are the enemy. Unfortunately it seems that much of the country is this simplistic too.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 any country that expressed an opinion against the actions of the USA was villified, and some branded as terrorist states. Honestly, renaming "French fries" as "freedom fries" was the most rediculous thing I had ever heard and the general hatred of the French truly demonstrated mass idiocy. If people were more aware that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France they would have been calling for it to be ripped down too.

Re:Mirror

[MarkPNeyer]

There's a difference between 'questioning the US's actions in Vietnam' and accusing your fellow soldiers of raping and mudering innocent civilians. The Viet Cong had no chance of defeating the US - we were just a far superior fighting force, and if the war was being fought by the generals instead of the politicians, it would have been over very quickly. Unfortunately, control of the war was highly politicized. The US eventually pulled out, not because it was being defeated but because the war became unpopular. Thanks in part to people like John Kerry, making unsubstantiated claims that our soldiers were all war criminals.

You can lament the simplistic worldview present in the "you're either with us or you're against us" idea all you want, but the facts are quite clear. Ho Chi Minh said in his memoirs that at some points in the war, the only thing that gave them hope of a US withdrawal were all the westerners protesting the war. People like Noam Chomsky and Jane Fonda would go to hanoi and have interviews with the NVA and talk about how horrible they felt the war was. Such actions are most definately pro-hanoi. You might not like the ramifications of this line of thought, and you may not like the fact that it's such a simple idea. But if you're in a fight, any sort of fight, if you don't throw all of your support behind your side in the fight, you most definately provide a service to your enemies.

I know most liberals detest the idea of fighting, and this is perfectly understandable. Once a fight is started, however, you want to finish it quickly and effectively. Getting into a war and then backing out out of it is a total waste of lives - the only thing that's going to be accomplished is that you'll lose your credibility in the face of other nations of the world, who'll take that as a license to start pushing you around. Look at that situation in Iraq right now. The other day there was a firefight in Najaf, where the Insurgents lost 300 men, while the Coalition suffered 'minimal casualties.' A 300:0 kill ration is just outstanding. There's absolutely no way the US army can be defeated militarily. The only way we're going to lose a war is if public opinion turns strongly against it. If everoyne in the US threw their full, unconditional support behind the war in Iraq, the insurgency would die down once they realized they weren't going to get us to leave. There isn't a doubt in my mind that guys like Howard Dean and Paul Krugman are giving hope to the insurgents over there. I really don't think that's their intention by any means, but I think it's one result of their actions.

I know it sounds like I'm some big facist. I'm not - I hate government as much if not more than the next guy. I do, however, realize the necessity of supporting your side in a fight. If your side is fighting a war you don't agree with, it's better to support the fight untill it's over, and then question reasoning the led up to the fight. Questioning before and after a fight is important. Questioning the fight while it's going on is only going to make things worse, and will most likely result in more deaths.

Re:Mirror

[Warpedcow]

"pro hanoi" is quite a charge. Do you honestly think questioning the US's actions in Vietnam automatically means "pro hanoi"? If so, there are very very few voting Americans who would agree with you.

No, but I think that being honored by the communists to the point of having your photo in their museum does qualify as "pro hanoi":
See here.

That's why...

[Three Headed Man]

You vote for a third party. Really, people, it's not that hard.

Republicans, Democrats... All the same.

Re:That's why...

[timothv]

We're gonna need to be taken over by another country and liberated before our voting system can possibly be changed to accomodate third parties.

Re:That's why...

[Three Headed Man]

You say changed to accomodate third parties. I think you mean "changed back to how it was, which accomodated third parties."

Re:That's why...

[killjoe]

"Republicans, Democrats... All the same."

Bullshit. Similar maybe but not the same. Do you really think there is no difference between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration?

Kerry and Bush have similar positions but only the dumbest of the dumb would claim that "letting the states decide if gay people should get married" == "let's amend amend our most sacred document to make sure gay people never get married".

The editor is a dumbass for thinking those two positions are identical.

Re:That's why...

[JVert]

The invasion is the election, the other invading country is the third party. The country would be very different if a third party was elected.
I'm Ross Perot and I aprove this message.

Re:That's why...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I think you mean "changed back to how it was, which accomodated third parties."

Hmm, no, he/she probably didn't mean that, since there hasn't ever been such a time. Under Washington, there weren't really parties at all -- primarily because he unified the political scene by sheer gravitas. Under Adams, there were two parties (Federalist and anti-Federalist) -- and it's been that way ever since. There have been periods of one-party ascendancy but never a viable three- or more- party system. Even when third parties have done non-negligibly in the polls, their role has been as spoiler between the two dominant parties.

Re:That's why...

[Moofie]

When was that?

Yes, there have been a very few "third party" candidates (Teddy Roosevelt the most prominent) but they only won the Presidency because their party did not nominate the incumbent office holder. That's not likely to happen again, and it's the only way a "third party" candidate will get anywhere until we get a different vote counting algorithm.

Re:That's why...

[demachina]

"It's not that hard"

Well actually it is. The two major parties have created countless hurdles in most states that are designed to prevent a third party or independent from ever gaining traction. Iowa officially disbanded the Green Party because they couldn't muster 2 percent of the vote in the 2002 governor's race at which point the party ceased to exist, it was disallowed a primary this year and candidates have to petition to get on the ballot. Of course since its disbanded its even harder to garner the 2% this year to regain party status.

It takes enormous effort just to get on the ballots in most states if you aren't in the two major parties, and of course a 3rd party presidential candidate has a very slim chance of participating in televised debates.

If there was ever a cause for an addition to the Bill of Rights it should be an amendment to allow unfettered formation of political parties and to forbid the parties in power from suppressing formation of opposition parties. It is something you expect from a totalitarian state, not the worlds "Greatest Democracy".

Another problem is both the Reform and Green parties have deteriorated in to a complete shambles on their own, they simply lack a coherent organization and appear to have fallen in to chaos which is killing them without all the barriers the Dems and Republicans are throwing in front of them.

And finally most people who would opt for Nader or other third parties are so keen to see George W. go down they will vote for Kerry, even though he is a truly pathetic candidate. Fact is in the current system voting 3rd party really is throwing away your vote and the two major parties don't really care if you do it. They'd like your vote but as long as you don't for the other major candidate its the same as if you don't vote at all.

The two copyright issues cited here really aren't the most serious things in the world. Like it or not Meet the Press is copyrighted and NBC can do with it what they will. It is a little lame holding back something unflattering to the President but there is a wealth of other video and transcripts available that will do that.

There are other things about both candidates that I'm amazed the press doesn't cover though.

President Bush's cocaine use and the fact that he apparently refused his national guard flight physical when they instituted drug testing, and that he was apparently convicted in Texas for something, probably Cocaine possession, should disqualify him as President but the press almost never touches this, possibly because the Bush family did such a great job of disposing of all the proof. Its a near certainty Bush political operatives were given unsupervised access to George W.'s Guard records and amazingly the Army recently admitted some of his records, probably the embarrassing ones have in fact been destroyed.

Kerry has his skeletons too that the press never touches. His Vietnam record and the ease with which he racked up medals cetainly does deserve scrutiny. For some reason the press lets everyone think Kerry is a Kennedyesque Irish Catholic when his paternal grand parents were actually Austro/Hungarian and Jewish. His name would be John Kohn if they hadn't changed their name to Kerry when the immigrated to the U.S. in 1902. When you are electing a President these little things are good to know, since they may color his decision making on Isreal in particular, but for some reason today's Press only fillets candidates like Dean they want to drive out of contention because they aren't pro establishment enough. Dean was toast the day he had the audacity to suggest the U.S. treat Israel and the Palastinians equally. You want to get elected in the U.S. you always side with Israel all the way or you are going down.

Re:That's why...

[ArcherB]

Well, there is a bigger difference than what you think. You see, if I get married in one state, any state at all, all of the other 49 states have to recognize that marriage. So, if it's legal to marry a goat in California, then that marriage becomes legal in Rhode Island. That's how it works.

So, by saying "let the states decide", you are saying, "if any judge in any state thinks it's OK, then that becomes the law of the land."

Therefor, the ONLY way to stop some way-too-liberal judge in California from making laws in Texas is to pass a Constitutional ammendment.... period!

True, the two positions are anything but identical, but you have to understand both positions to know what the difference is. In your example, you clearly miss the point that these judges are going against the will of people they don't even represent. The only way to protect state's rights from foreign judges in this matter is to pass a constitutional ammendment.

Re:That's why...

[Uebergeek]

You're actually incorrect. The individual states do *not* have to recognize the marriages of other states. Each state is free to recognize or not recognize marriages performed in other states, since (barring an amendment) marriages are a state function, and there is no hard-and-fast requirement to recognize marriages from other states. *Usually* states will recognize marriages performed in other states, but they do have the option to not do so.

Re:That's why...

[killjoe]

" In your example, you clearly miss the point that these judges are going against the will of people they don't even represent."

That's what judges are for. The judicial system is a counter to the legislative branch. It exists to assure liberty for people who are in the minority. America is a republic and not a democracy. Do you know what the difference is? A democracy is five wolves and a sheep arguing about what's for dinner. In a democracy the sheep dies, in a republic the sheep lives.

Of course the 95% of the people who are straight don't want the 5% of the people who are gay to have the same rights as they do. Just like the 95% of the people who are white at one time didn't want the 5% of the blacks to have the same rights. In that case judges ruled that the majority was wrong and that the rights of the minority were guaranteed by the constitution. If the judges rule the same way for homosexuals then it's incumbent on the states to let them marry.

The judicial system exists solely to balance the the other two branches of govt. Our forefathers accurately predicted that the majority would seek to opress the minority and set in place not only a constitution and a bill of rights but an entire branch of govt to make sure those documents held up and were the law of the land.

Re:That's why...

[Ricdude]

Another problem is both the Reform and Green parties have deteriorated in to a complete shambles on their own, they simply lack a coherent organization and appear to have fallen in to chaos...

From http://www.greens.org/elections/ (the Greens In Office frame)

Green Party members holding elected office in the United States:
At least 209 Greens in 27 states
hold elected office as of July 2004

This is a shambles? They're on the ballot for many offices in 39 states this year. That's a lot of ballots they've been able to gain access to. They're trying to turn the system upside down from the roots. That takes time. They are gaining positions at the City and County level (even a few at the State level). This takes time.

The internet moves much faster than politics. If you agree with their views, support them as best you can. Hell, if you are mote aligned with the Libertarians, or the Reform, or even the Constitution Party (not that they seem to get the gist of Amendment #1), vote for them...

Re:That's why...

[matthewn]

NO. That is NOT how it works. Throughout America's history, states have refused to recognize certain marriages allowed in other states. Some states allow cousins to marry; others don't recognize such marriages. Some states allow you to get married at a younger age than other states; if your state doesn't want to recognize the marriage of a 14-year-old, it does not have to. This is how the courts have ruled in the past, so anyone who says the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution necessarily applies to gay marriage is simply ignoring decades of jurisprudence. At the very least, it is an open legal question, not a fait accompli.

Re:That's why...

[wass]

You vote for a third party. Really, people, it's not that hard.

Interestingly enough, many republicans have been trolling various blog sites lately, under the guise of being bush-hating left-wingers, encouraging others to vote 3rd party strictly to take votes away from Kerry.

I'm not blaming you of being a republican troll, but I'd like people reading your post to be aware of this possibility.

Republicans, Democrats... All the same.

If you really think this you are either entirely oblivious to history and politics, or under the hypnotic spell of radical leftist or rightist propaganda.

Re:That's why...

[tehdaemon]

One wants to drive off the cliff on one side, the other wants to drive into the cliff on the other side. (I intentionally did not say right and left :) )

Both parties are hell-bent on destroying this nation and it's freedoms. They have different methods of doing so, and these methods have big consequences for various special interest groups (gun lobby, pro-{life,choice}, {MP,RI}AA, big business, minorites, you get the picture!)

So which side wins matters a lot to you if any one of these special interests are more important to you than liberty. But if you value living in the land of the free and the home of the brave, there is no difference.

P.S. gay marriage is an oxymoron, and ammending the constitution is the right way to do it, specifically, ditch the 14th amendment (replace if necessary with a non-broken version) Most if not all court decisions affecting gay marriage etc at the federal level depend on the 14th amendment. (as well as abortion, the texas sodemy case, religion in schools, ten commandments in court, etc) Without that, the federal government has no jurisdiction over them.

An amendment mentioning marriage, is both a bad idea and a bad precedent. (Shall we define 'person' next?)

Re:That's why...

[demachina]

"At least 209 Greens in 27 states hold elected office as of July 2004."

Uh, those are city council, a few mayors, school boards etc, mostly in very liberal cities, mostly in California. I think I saw one state legislator in the whole list. Give me a ring when they have a contingent at a state house large enough to influence legistlation or elect some one to governor or the House of Representatives.

Here is a write up by one of their own on their recent presidential nominating fiasco to balance the rosy picture from their web site. I can dig up some more on what a mess they are on the national level. I'll give you they have some successful local efforts in very left enclaves scattered around the country but that isn't going to take them anywhere on a national stage.

In my heart I really wish they could compete on the national stage but its really just not very realistic unless they find some extremely charismatic and powerful candidate that will attract attention at a state or national level and overcome the fact that the media is going to ignore anyone other than Jesse, Ralph or Ross.

Re:That's why...

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

'matthewn' is flat out wrong on the "full faith and credit" clause. States *always* recognize marriages granted by other states. Even if the relationship exclusions are different; even if the age requirements are different; even if the waiting periods or medical exams are different. That's why the meme about "going to [other state] to get married" is so prevalent, after all!

It *is* true that there is some precedent for non-compliance with the Constitutions mandate of full faith and credit: anti-miscegenation laws. Back before Loving vs. Virginia, some states indeed excluded marriages valid in other states. What a surprise that many of the very same people who are today's homophobes grew up as yesteryears' racists.... well, they were homophobes then too, and mostly they're still racists now. But it's a matter of priorities. :-(

Re:That's why...

[DirkBalognapantz]

Really? In what way, beyond the vague generalization that all politicians are out for the same thing? I really want to know because I think this myth that they're all alike so what's the point is extremely dangerous. You suggest voting for a third party, but there are greater things at stake here than saying, "well don't blame me, I voted for Nader!" at the dinner table. C'mon people! There are bigger things at stake in this election than even DVD fair use, all due respect to the Slashdot audience. Ask the family of a soldier who hasn't seen the end of his tour of duty in Iraq, or a member of their family. Ask a couple who are in love, but are continuously discriminated against publicly because they happen to be of the same sex and it happens to be any easy wedge issue to get Bible thumpers to perk their ears up to. Ask anyone who doesn't like the way the wind has been blowing in this country since 9/11--some good people crippled in the head because they've started to believe that any voice of discent might seem un-American. Ask a muslim child what it's like to go to public school in middle America in this day and age. Or at least ask yourself if you have done a reasonable job yourself looking at the wrecklessness of misguided flag-waving and the folly of playing Coyboys and Indians in the world theatre. Please. Let's move beyond this all politicians are alike myth and take a stand for change in this desperate time. I am begging you. And if you think I am a crazy asshole fuck up too late trying to fix his wife's laptop who's off on a tirade, fine. Sure, that sounds like me. Write me off. But before you do, download Barack Obamma's Democratic convention keynote from the iTunes music store (free), then tell me that is the same voice of the Republican party. Man, that guy makes me proud to be a Democrat. I used to subscribe to that, "i'm really an independent Anti-Republican" bullshit. Never again, folks.

Re:That's why...

[Gsus411]

Oh really? You must not read the Constitution much. I shall quote Article IV Section 1. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Re:That's why...

[quixotic411]

wrong...

in a democracy, the sheep dies.
In a republic, the sheep and a wolf die, and the others pay tax on the meal. They also cannot shag afterward.

Judges are for determining fact and applying the law. Writing law by decision was never their purpose.

And so, i must CALL BULLSHIT!

Re:That's why...

[EvanED]

Both parties are hell-bent on destroying this nation and it's freedoms.

As would any third party that managed to get into the presidency after it spent a couple terms there.

Re:That's why...

[Phleg]

As I see it, a vote for a third party carries far more weight than a vote for one of the primary parties. When you vote, for instance, Libertarian, your vote gives them proportionally more media coverage, funding, and ballot access than either of the established parties receive. As recent example, both Greens and Libertarians received enormously disproportional amounts of coverage (the Greens in particular) after the 2000 election. Why? The percentage of their votes, in many states, was well above the margin between the two primary candidates. Most political analysts believed that the Green Party significantly swung the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, and as a result, they gained more media coverage than anyone could have predicted.

Third parties also gain in less inflammatory ways when they receive more votes. It helps them receive campaign funding from the federal government, for one. A few more votes one year, in many cases, will allow the party to run several more candidates the next. All thanks to more funding. Even more importantly, in many states, more votes are the precursor to ballot access, which in turn helps the party concentrate on campaigning rather than petitioning. Today, ballot access is one of the most pressuring obstacles facing third parties; in states like Georgia, only one third party candidate has ever been on the ballot for the United States House of Representatives.

How does this happen? In Georgia, third parties must submit a petition signed by over 5% of the number of registered voters in the district in order to get on the ballot for any office. When the voter roles haven't been purged in a decade, leaving both dead voters and invalidated voters still listed, the true number in many cases exceeds 10%. Even worse, due to gerrymandering, many third parties have no clue about the final geographical layout of districts, until a month or two prior to the petition deadlines. When the district lines are changed again and again, many petition signatures which were once valid are no longer, since the signatory no longer lives within the correct district. I am digressing substantially from my original purpose, but there is plenty to read regarding ballot access, for those who are interested.

Back to the original topic. We've covered voting for third parties, but if you look closely, does it really matter if we have a Republican or a Democrat president? It's a toss-up to how much they will suck, and it's usually irrelevant what party they're from. Bush hasn't been the best president ever, but Clinton was pretty poor, too. And now, it seems like the two parties are converging. Republicans are creating bureaucracy and spending like crazy. Democrats are opposing gay marriage and won't stop the drug war. As far as I'm concerned, it's two heads of the same hydra.

So go ahead, throw away that vote of yours. I insist.

Re:That's why...

[tehdaemon]

So, it is hopeless then? Give up and go home?

I'll admit, what you suggest is likely. Especially if this third party absorbs a good deal of the party leaders that were running whichever party it replaced. (That would be little more than a name change, and needs to be guarded against)

However, if this third party could educate enough of the public, so that it's power-base has a clue, it stands a good chance of doing a lot of good.

I guess what I am saying is what Jefferson said, A nation who wants to be ignorant and free . . . wants what never was and never will be. I am afraid that we (as a nation) are pretty ignorant, and unless this changes, we will lose what little freedom is left. The Republicrats will not educate the ignorant, though, so don't look to them to save this nation.

Re:That's why...

[ThatWeasel]

Here Here. Righty O.

Re:That's why...

[The_Hun]

...his paternal grand parents were actually Austro/Hungarian and Jewish OFF There is/was no such a person as Austro/Hungarian. There was a state with such a name though 100 years ago. There are Hungarians and Austrians and Jews among both of them (however complicated it is to be a Jew and a patriot of the land she/he is living in inthe same time). /OFF

Re:That's why...

[Gooba42]

I'm still not sure I understand the 95% straight vs. 5% gay thing. These are not cases of mutually exclusive goals nor are they necessarily opposed viewpoints.

I wouldn't suggest that the straight population shows any particular unity on this matter either. In some people's minds it might be "Us vs. Them" but for some of us it's just that little "...all men are created equal..." bit of our national heritage that gets to be the sticking point.

The founding fathers set forth their vision of a nation and of freedom without any exceptions. Maybe we should proceed as though we believed what they wrote.

Re:That's why...

[Uebergeek]

I'm fully aware of the full faith and credit clause. I'm also aware that the Supreme Court, which has the duty of interpreting the constitution, has allowed states in the past to refuse to recognize marriages. In particular, look at cases until 1960 or so - some states were allowed to refuse to recognize inter-racial marriages.

Re:That's why...

[paxmark1]

Amen. When you get right down to it, they have very little difference between them in the way they speak. And the corporations do not have much to fear from either of them. So Kerry might ameliorate some of the corporate rapaciousness.

There are war crimes being committed in Iraq - specifically the usage of depleted Uranium in Iraq and other countries. It is in aniti-tank ammo,bunker buster bombs and recently also added to those little bundles of joy called cluster bombs. This depleted Uranium is contaminated with trans-uranics since it comes from military and not commercial waste stream fuel.

Is slightly fewer war crimes and not as egregious raping of the environment all that important?

I may be a us citizen, but I am very, very happy to be living in Canada.

About the only difference I can relate to after having sheltered homeless veterans for six years back in the 1980's (after I left the lab job) is that I believe that Kerry will take better care of the walking wounded that come back home after the nightmare that is present day Iraq. I'll be voting via mail in Iowa, I don't think I will vote for either.

Shalom

Re:That's why...

[ptudor]

Fact is in the current system voting 3rd party really is throwing away your vote and the two major parties don't really care if you do it.

That's not fact. Don't tell that to the 12% who preferred the Libertarian candidate in Mass to Ted Kennedy. And the 40% who could vote for anyone in the approaching Hoosier gubernatorial election.

immigrated to the U.S. in 1902.

That's 1905 according a page on Kerry's bloodlines. And you're glossing over his maternal roots, to my eyes deep in Mass and England.

The Green Party bothers me more than the Big Two combined. The Green Party is the closest you'll come to the complete opposite of my political principles.

Re:That's why...

[Dausha]

In a true common law judical system, precedence (not jurisprudence) is hard to dislodge. It requires incremental changes that slowly adjust the course of the original decision. In common law, precedence reigns supreme.

In a constitutional republic, precedence (not jurisprudence) can be destroyed in one decision. The overarching foundation is not precedence, but the Constitution. All that need be done to change a precedence is to declare that the previous judge grossly misunderstood what the original writers of the Constitution/applicable Amendment meant. Examples of that are legion, but include decisions allowing desegregation (where prior precedent held that you could have separate-but-equal, but the Court reversed nearly a century later).

So, to respond to your comment. The prior decision of the Court to not balk allowing states to limit the Full Faith & Credit clause regarding marriage can be reversed by an activist court in one ruling. Game. Set. Match. The whole reason why there's a fear of allowing too many Anti-abortion judges on the Supreme Court is that they could chose to hear a case that challenges Roe v. Wade, and whip out the prior ruling.

(Definition, an activist court is one that decides to set public policy. It choses to deny the Legislative Branch its power to establish public policy (which is done by legislation), which is (IMO) a violation of the separation of powers.)

Re:That's why...

[Lumpy]

Bullshit. Similar maybe but not the same. Do you really think there is no difference between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration?

Of course! Clintion got a bunch more tail than Bush ever could. Hell, He even has a trophy wife that allows him to go skirt chasing as long as it doesn't interfere with her career.

Clintion = a man who has had sex in the past 8-12 hours.

Bush = sexual frustration lashing out at the world.

There's a hell-of-a difference between them!

Re:That's why...

[jagapen]

Republicans, Democrats... All the same.

Predictably, THM, a number of other posters have tried to take you to task for this assertion. Personally, I think both this statement and the outcry from the other posters miss the truth, which is more nuanced.

The trouble is not that the Democrats and Republicans are the same, but that the political climate in this country is changing entirely in the wrong direction -- towards fascism and empire -- and that the Republicans are leading the charge, with the Democrats following closely behind. The Democrats' schtick is that awful lesser evilism: Hey, we're slightly better than the Republicans! (Funny, Kerry's position is that he'd do the same thing in Iraq as Bush, only better!) They're not trying to change the political climate back toward Constitutional, representative democracy, increasing civil rights and away from the imperial Presidency.

Basically, both parties are taking the USA in the wrong direction, the Republicans a little more quickly, and the Democrats a little more slowly.

To see how things have changed, consider a thought experiment. Who would you vote for if the race were between Democrat John Kerry and Republican Dwight Eisenhower?

Re:That's why...

[Tim C]

The only things I care about politically are the things that affect me and the things that affect my principles., and whether Adam and Steve get to file a joint tax return just isn't one of those things.

So, your principles don't extend to all people being treated equally? I'm stupid because mine do, and that might influence my vote?

To each their own, I suppose, but personally I care about more than just myself...

Re:That's why...

[igaborf]

the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Yes, and Congress did just that when they passed the Defense of Marriage act in 1996:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

So as regards gay marriage, Uebergek is correct not by interpretation but by the specific language of the law.

Re:That's why...

[Prof.Phreak]

You vote for a third party. Really, people, it's not that hard.

Hahaha. Go ahead, throw away your vote! Hahaha. ---Kang.

Re:That's why...

[InsaneGeek]

You know you might be right...

The Bush administration did take Clinton's copy of the Patriot Act ease up on it a bit and it hasn't been struck down unconstitutional twice like Clinton's 1994 & 1996 "Antiterrorism Act" with all the lovely shiney secret courts, wiretaps, warrants, death penaly as the current one does only more so. So Bush is different he eased up a bit so it wasn't wholey ruled unconstitutional.

Re:That's why...

[Jeremy Erwin]

His name would be John Kohn if they hadn't changed their name to Kerry when the immigrated to the U.S. in 1902.

Most parents choose a more mellifluous combination of names for their children. Perhaps "William Kohn". Perhaps "Jonathan Kohn". Not "John Kohn"

Re:That's why...

[srussell]

You vote for a third party. Really, people, it's not that hard.

That's how we ended up in this mess in the first place. A large number of people voted for third parties in 2000. We still ended up with a major party in charge, but we ended up with the greater of two evils. It is going to continue this way until we get an alternate voting system, like runoff or approval voting.

It is clear that most of the people who voted for Nader would have preferred Gore to Bush, and the Green party was the leading third party 2000. In voting for Nader, Green voters sabotaged the system (from their own point of views) and cost Gore the election, thus proving -- for those people -- that the American election system does not work. I'd go further and propose that many people who did vote for Gore or Bush would have preferred somebody else, but knew that a vote for a third party in the USA is a waste of a vote. Not only the Greens are disenfranchised by our existing system; Buchanan voters got their preferred second choice this time around, but only because they got lucky that there was massive voting fraud in Florida. Libertarians have been consistently disenfranchised for -- well, forever. The last time we had a third party president elected was in 1860, when Lincoln was elected.

Admittedly, I was part of the problem in 2000; I voted for a third party, too. I won't make that mistake this time around, though. I don't know if Kerry will make a bad president, but I know Bush is a bad one, and I'll take a chance on someone who hasn't proven himself to be incompetent.

Re:That's why...

[Enry]

Back before Loving vs. Virginia, some states indeed excluded marriages valid in other states.

MA has a law that says a couple can't get married if their marriage would not be legal in the state they reside in or do not plan on moving to MA. Thus, a gay couple from Texas not moving to MA could not come here, get married, move back to TX, and demand their marriage be recognized. Their marriage in MA would be illegal to begin with.

Re:That's why...

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

I believe in the bible.

I also believe that the bible exists. But I don't necessarily believe every word in it to be the 'word of god' or something.

I don't remember seeing any gay people in the bible.

Either you haven't read the bible (which I have) or you have a poor memory. Genesis 19 (the story of Sodom), Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and in the "new testament" I Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27.

This is why Christians are either bigots or hypocrites. They would be bigots (in my opinion) to hate someone because of whom that person is attracted to; and they would be hypocrites not to.

Re:That's why...

[CrimsonAvenger]

No. The Constitution requires that they recognize other state's marriages, just as it required they recognize divorces performed in Nevada back before divorce became cheap and easy everywhere.

It can be argued that the "Defense of Marriage Act" supersedes that. Unfortunately, it takes only one Federal Judge declaring the Act unconstitutional to undo that particular "protection". And since it is cleary unconstitutional, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a Judge who will say so.

Re:That's why...

[CrimsonAvenger]

So, your principles don't extend to all people being treated equally? I'm stupid because mine do, and that might influence my vote?

Interesting. And here I thought having ONE (1) set of rules that apply to everyone was "all people being treated equally". And current marriage laws do that. One man + one woman = marriage.

It could be argued that one (wo)man + one (wo)man = marriage is justifiable. If so, why isn't one woman + one woman + one man = marriage justifiable? How about 12 woman and 18 men? Three men, five women, two goats? The possibilities are endless.

Note that I still haven't made up my mind on the issue. I'm kind of leaning toward allowing gay marriage, just to use that as leverage to force polygamy/polyandry/polygny into legality. On the other hand, monkeying with key institutions (last time we made major changes to marriage was when we made divorce free and easy - look what became of that) is hazardous.

Just out of curiousity, how many people who want us to be liked by the rest of the world think that legalizing gay marriage will make the Muslim world more friendly?

Re:That's why...

[demachina]

I think his grandfather was Austrian and his grandmather Hungarian. I was just being terse. Chill.

Re:That's why...

[syrinx]

Yes, and Bush and Kerry probably like different foods, too.

Maybe they supposedly differ on gay marraige (though I think they're probably just saying what their party expects them to), but frankly I don't give a shit. In all *important* ways, they're the same.

Re:That's why...

[still cynical]

Absolutely. There are no differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Except for abortion, gun control, gay marriage, civil rights, affirmative action, offshoring, states' rights, the environment, education, civil liberties, free speech, relationships with other countries, preservation of national parks, endangered species, pollution cleanup, corporate accountability, international treaties...and a few others.

Other than that, no difference at all.

Re:That's why...

[The Conductor]

it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a Judge who will say so.

Not as easy as you think. Missouri, by popular vote, amended its state constitution to exclude gay marriage. Sure, the 9th Circuit would overturn that just for kicks (if they had jurisdiction there), but with legally enforced segregation pretty much dead, the Supreme Court has been establishing case law that defends federalism. You don't overturn a popular mandate as stong as that unless (as happened with segregation) you have the police beating up peaceful crowds on TV. Not if you value independence in the judiciary.

It looks to me like gay marriage will end up a perpetual mish-mash, much like adoption law, which varies from, "Here, have this kid," in Arkansas, to stacks of paperwork, 6 months of profiling and divining-the-future-that-you-will-never-become-abu sive in the Northeast. Some states permit non-resident adoptions and some don't (though all recognize adoptions once finalized).

Re:That's why...

[killjoe]

God is unequivical on this manner. He states quite clearly and forcefully that homosexuals should be immeditately put to death. He does not state any legal protections such as trials or verdicts either. He simply says that you should kill homosexuals when you see them.

Advocating anything else is against the will of god.

Re:That's why...

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

Our truly despicable Massachusetts Governor (but not resident) Romney has tried to resurrect this old law from the early 20th Century (I forget, maybe 1914 or something). The law has not been used since Loving vs. Virginia, and is almost certainly unconstitutional under Loving. The point of the law, after all, was to enforce anti-miscegenation laws... even though MA wasn't quite so bad as to have them itself.

I am confident that the old anti-miscegenation will be explicitly overturned by the current appeals. And on the plus side, I don't know of a single Massachusetts town clerk who is going along with Romney's homophobic putsch.

Re:That's why...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Bad example. 14th Amendment trumps State Constitutions every time.

Segregation is a wondeful example of the counterpoint, though. It fell when Federal Judges started to enforce the 14th Amendment. The "police beating up peaceful crowds" mostly came after the Judges started to overturn state laws.

As to overturning a popular mandate, isn't it odd that MOST of the population of Massachusetts is opposed to gay marriage, and yet their Courts have declared it not just legal, but necessary?

Gay marriage will be decided by the US Supreme Court one of these days. All it takes is a good test case (get married in MA, move to someplace opposed to gay marriage, talk to ACLU, bring suit under "mutual faith and credence" clause, under 14th Amendment, wait for ruling. NO opinion on how the current Supremes would vote on the issue (I would assume 5-4, with O'Connor casting the deciding vote) right now. But unless the Supremes rule that gay marriage IS a Right, there'll be a new test case every time a Justice is replaced - so, sooner or later, it'll be declared Constitutional, barring an Amendment to same

Re:That's why...

[Warpedcow]

Of course the 95% of the people who are straight don't want the 5% of the people who are gay to have the same rights as they do. Just like the 95% of the people who are white at one time didn't want the 5% of the blacks to have the same rights.

This is not at all the same thing. Gays have the same rights as straight people. Anyone, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nobody, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the same sex. Gays are asking for "extra" rights that are an abomination to the natural order of things.

There is no "unfairness" going on here at all.

Re:That's why...

[zericm]

This is not at all the same thing. Gays have the same rights as straight people. Anyone, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nobody, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the same sex. Gays are asking for "extra" rights. . .

Um, no. Straights have the right to marry the person they love. Gays do not. All gay folk want -- and deserve, and will finaly get -- is the same rights that straights have.

Gays are asking for "extra" rights that are an abomination to the natural order of things.

You think so? Check out this article from the National Geographic:

"But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom."

thx,
Eric

Re:That's why...

[demachina]

Thanks to the Reg here is another example of George W. making an ass out of himself. Its something film makers can use to poke fun at him, or maybe it will be the source of another copyright fight.

The guy really is embarrassing when he has to ad lib on something unexpected, something his handlers haven't trained him to respond to like a parrot... Polly want a war on terror....

Re:That's why...

[Warpedcow]

Um, no. Straights have the right to marry the person they love. Gays do not. All gay folk want -- and deserve, and will finaly get -- is the same rights that straights have.

IS all that is required for marriage in your mind be that it be to a person you love? Does that mean you should be allowed to marry your dad or your brother because you love him? Your argument that "straights can marry people they love but gays can't" is ludicrous. There's much more to it than that.

Also, your Nat'l Geographic link is irrelevant. We are talking about people not animals. (There are differences between the two, dontcha know!) If National Geographic reported that incest was "not unknown" in the animal kingdom, would you support that as well? Again, you have made another ridiculous argument.

Re:That's why...

[NetCynicism]

States *always* recognize marriages granted by other states. Which does not mean that states are *required* to recognize marriages granted by other states. States are required to recognize one another's judicial proceedings (ironically including divorces) but not one another's licenses (fishing, driver's, concealed handgun, marriage). Most states recognize each other's marriages as a courtesy; but if a state has a public policy against something (first cousins marrying, or homosexual marriage) they can and do refuse. This has been well established in federal court. Loving v. Virginia created a narrow exception that requires states to recognize other states interracial marriages, and only those. Last I checked, homosexuality wasn't a race, so this is going back to the Supreme Court. Where I hope the gay couples win, but it's far from guaranteed.

Re:That's why...

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

Advocating anything else is against the will of god.

Exactly. Advocate what you want, just stop calling yourselves by a religion you obvoiusly don't agree with -- choose another religion!

Re:That's why...

[Warpedcow]

And you are being willfuly obtuse. Fine, try this on for size: Straight folks are allowd to marry another consenting adult, as long as it is a non-incestous relationship. Gay folks are denied the same right by hateful bigots.

You missed a detail: Straight folks are allowed to marry another consenting adult, as long as it is a non-incestous relationship, and THE ADULT IS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. Gays allowed to do EXACTLY the same thing. But this is what I said in my original argument.

Irrelevant? You made the argument that Gays are asking for "extra" rights that are an abomination to the natural order of things. I provided a link demonstrating that homosexuality does occur in nature. Myabe I'm missing something here. Perhaps you can give a explanation of what you mean by "natural order of things."

Animals, for the most part, have sex to reproduce and create offspring, which is how species exist for more than one generation. This is what I mean by the "natural order of things". Homosexuality obviously does not fit into that picture.

Last time I checked people are animails. You know, hairless apes with big brains who walk upright. Wasn't this covered in your high school biology class?

Yes, people are animals, but not all animals are people. Animals in nature routinely fight and/or kill each other over attracting the opposite sex. By your argument, humans should be allowed to do the same just because "it is not unknown in nature". Your argument is ridiculous. Animals in nature are not part of a nation or a "people". Humans live to a higher standard than "animals". And BTW, I never took biology in high school, I took two years of chem and two of physics.

Are you honestly suggesting that homosexuality and incest are the same?

I never said they are the same, I'm simply drawing parallels between the two to show how ridiculous your arguments are since all your arguments could be applied to supporting incest in the same way that they support homosexuality. Personally, I think both are equally wrong and immoral.

As an aside, I'm glad we could have this little discussion without resorting to the flaming that often occurs on slashdot. Thanks!

Re:That's why...

[matthewn]

The prior decision of the Court to not balk allowing states to limit the Full Faith & Credit clause regarding marriage can be reversed by an activist court in one ruling.

Note the words "can be." That's the whole deal, right there. It *could* happen. Any attempt to head such a decision off at the pass via a constitutional amendment would be pre-emptive. And pre-emptive changes to the Constitution are about as good an idea as pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations. [ducks]

Further, your definition of an activist court is about as biased as it could be. Not wrong, just biased. You could just as easily say that an activist court is one that is willing to apply the law -- as created by the legislature -- equally to all citizens, even when the legislature itself is too chickenshit to do so on its own. See the unfolding of the civil rights movement for plenty of examples. I don't think that courts integrating schools was a violation of separation of powers at all. I think it was the judicial branch stepping up to the plate in a historic fashion.

Re:That's why...

[Dausha]

It's not my definition, it is the definition of a former appellate judge/law professor. My opinion of his writing is that he does not think that is a bad thing. I added my assessment that, were that definition true, it might construe a Separation of Powers issue.

So, let's assume the right to set public policy belongs to the People, either directly or via their representatives in the Legislative Branch, and not the Judiciary. Setting policy affects future behavior (since, according to the Constitution, laws cannot be retroactive). If the Judicial Branch (via activist jurists) is usurping that role (the *could* happen), then why shouldn't the People *not* be more proactive?

The Fourteenth Amendment was a similar "heading off at the pass." Unionists realized that Southern states could label former slaves as non-US citizens and export them, or otherwise deny them citizen's rights. Thus, Congress pushed through an amendment stating that all US-born people are citizens, regardless of their pedigree. The act of denying rights was not yet in play, but the leaning was very obvious.

In fact, many of the Amendments could easily be construed to be proactive.

Finally, you made an interestingly neutral quote " . . . pre-emptive changes to the Constitution are about as good an idea as pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations." There are many citizens who see both as perfectly valid, and others who don't. If you knew that Canada were about to unleash a weapon that would kill everybody in the US (including yourself), and the only way to stop it was to invade, would you?

Re:That's why...

[The Conductor]

Well, the "beating up crowds on TV" comment is an oversimplification, but nevertheless, Brown v. Board came after a long line cases dating back to the 19-teens that chipped away at the legality of segregation. Those cases arguably got their popular impetus from well-publicized lynchings that date as far back 1899. And the abuses of segregation were precisely the sort of thing that the equal protection clause was supposed to prevent, so the legal arguments were easy.

Not that the court never surprises us with a sweeping ruling. That's what Roe v. Wade was. But it doesn't happen very often.

And no, you won't see a new case everytime a justice is replaced. The Supreme court takes only the cases it wants (except for the rare cases where it has original jurisdiction). They listen to a case once and then refuse similar cases for decades. They have bigger fish to fry.

Irony

[cortez]

First 4 times I clicked on the link (before I tried de-fuglifying it) all that loaded was:


Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

There is one major thing that sets them apart

[Anonymous Coward]

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

Re:There is one major thing that sets them apart

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point, but I think the polling place would look at me weirdly if I voted for Kodos...

Might be fun to tell any exit pollsters...

Re:There is one major thing that sets them apart

[Hoplite3]

Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Kodos. (Best commentary on American politics ever.)

go ahead

[Triumph The Insult C]

get a copyright on this, mr. lowry mays

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

after all, that's important 'intellectual' property of your buddy

The Coveted First Post...

[Anonymous Coward]

...will be censored for:

It is a two party system - you can vote for a coward hiding behind unfair application of copyright law - or a coward with no accountability who feels no need to hide his own stupidity.

Seriously though - it sucks. What about freedom of information - whoops - if information is free the terrorists will kill us all! / there will be more immigration. / more abortions.

Hail to our nanny-state overlords

Yes it is

[foreverdisillusioned]

In a system without runoff voting, yes it most certainly is. How do you expect people to rally around a worthy third candidate (out of the hundreds out there) when there is such a compelling motivation to vote "NOTKerry" or "NOTBush"? Maybe when they truly are identical someone else can challenege them, but right now there are just too many people willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

There are only 16 swing states. Residents of the other states can vote third-party until their fingers drop off, and it won't affect the outcome in any way.

By election day, there will only be 4 or 5 swing states. For example, if you live in California, voting for Kerry or Bush is useless. Kerry will win the state. It's a done deal. You might as well show support for someone you really want.

Re:Yes it is

[DAldredge]

Well, what reasons are their to vote for Kerry or Bush?

Re:Yes it is

[HeghmoH]

Why I'm voting for Kerry: his administration didn't get us into an insane war in the middle east, his administration didn't write the PATRIOT act, and his administration wasn't instrumental in creating the largest federal budget deficit ever seen.

Those reasons really suck, and I'd love to vote for somebody I could actually like voting for, but there's just too much at stake this time.

Re:Yes it is

[Minna Kirai]

and his administration wasn't instrumental in creating the largest federal budget deficit ever seen.

Neither was Bush. He's still only achieved 85% of Reagan's deficit.

Re:Yes it is

[Veridium]

There will always appear to be too much at stake. That's the trap. Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act? Do you think he will pull us out of Iraq?

I'm not trying to trash kerry either. If I had to vote for one or the other, it would be Kerry over Bush. But I don't have to, so I'm not going to.

Re:Yes it is

[Coryoth]

but right now there are just too many people willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Why choose the lesser evil? Vote Cthulhu!

Jedidiah.

Re:Yes it is

[DAldredge]

Kerry voted for the damn patriot act.
Kerry has said the WoT will continue.
Kerry hasn't introduced any bills in the past 2 years to cut goverment programs.

Re:Yes it is

[Unregistered]

But if you're not in a swing stae, then vote third party. As a Southerner, Bush is either gonna win my state or if we're swing, Kerry will win in a landslide. That way, my votte for Kerry really wouldn't matter for getting Bush out of office. So i'm gonna vote for Nader. If he can get 5% of the popular vote he will get federal funding. That would go a long way towards establishing a multi-party system.

Re:Yes it is

[greenskyx]

You are right, but until we take measures to end the two party cartel which has a stranglehold on our democracy our only choices will continue to be the lesser of two evils.

Re:Yes it is

[kfg]

. . .right now there are just too many people willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

When one votes for the lesser of two evils it is difficult to admit to one's self that one voted for evil.

KFG

Re:Yes it is

[Paul Jakma]

What you want is a Proportional Representation voting system. Then you could could give your first preference vote to $3rd_party preference and give $mainstream-lesser-evil your second preference vote.

Re:Yes it is

[sumdumass]

HaHa.. first kerry voted to go inot the insane war in the middle east . he has even publicly stated that knowing what he knows now, even without WMDs he still would have voted to give the press the authority to go into iraq. Kerry also had full opertunity to review and change the patriot act. Did he? Did he e ven make an attemp? well if he did take the time then the current patriiot act is because of his doings. After all, he is a senator and it is his responcability to make and aprove laws before they even get to the president.

And you even wrong on the budget deficite. Have you looked inot anythign relatyed to what you spewing out of your mouth? Or are you just repeating what the pupet master has said? Bush and Kerry are almost identicle except if elected, Kerry will screw the econimy up give the country to terrorist and probably suck fances dick.

Your best bet is to see if your guy is favored in your state and if so, vote for a third party canidate so we can get some real choice in the future. A vote for Nader is more of a statment on the shortcummings of the present powers to be as well as the hopefulls then it is a vote for the other guy. today we are presented with the lessor of 2 evils that are likly to win the election. The system needs real choice and alternatives to voting for who is going to be ther lesser jackass.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

as someone outside of america I would ask:

do you think kerry has an unrevealed plan pre-election to invade another country and will do so at the drop of a hat? (ala neo-con hawks)

Do you think that kerry is going to gut welfare and give tax cuts to the rich?

They might not be all to different, but the devil is in the details.

Standing outside of america looking in, I can see a gulf seperating kerry and bush in relation to right and left re: public services, a huge gulf. And I can see that the democrats understand the policy process better than revolving door bullshit lobbyists.

There ARE differences, and you DO have a choice between one or the other in a non-run-off-voting method.

You would be better off not casting your vote if you vote for Nader or the like.

I'll tell you what should be done, Nader should pull out of the race (basically handing it to kerry) on the condition that a constitutional proposal goes to the people for run-off voting. In that one act Nader could accoplish more than he ever dreamed for the future of american poltics, because from there on in. Minor parties would have a voice in their negotions with major parties (at the least) and at the best there could be whole new parties and paradigms.

NADER PULL OUT IN RETURN FOR RUN-OFF VOTING.

Because he, or anyone else, isn't going to impact SHIT otherwise.

Please, as a non-american, I beg you to vote against bush. And the only way to do that (currently) is to vote in kerry. You don't understand what Bush has done to america in the eyes of the world.

How can you go from havnig everyone sending in condolences and offering support after 9/11 and everyone hating your fucking guts in so short a time? BUSH.

He has already damaged the UN to the point where nothing is being done in Darfur. That's genocide there, on mass scale, but the undermined multi-lateral system can't respond because Bush and the chicken-hawk neo-cons have fucked it up. The international order affects everyone, but only Americans really get a vote.

FOR PITYS SAKE GET HIM OUT THE WHITEHOUSE.

Re:Yes it is

[ArcherB]

Yes, I remember what Nader did to Gore. I also remember what Perot did GHWBush. If it were not for Perot, Clinton would not have won the first time. That would've really hurt his REelection chances.

It's all good. What we really need is for Perot AND Nader to run. Then everything would be ballanced.

Re:Yes it is

[Veridium]

The Bush club seems to think in Black and White. Please don't do the same thing and keep saying "we got to pull out of Iraq NOW!". People like you, voting for a 3rd party, have voted Bush in last time. We have troops in Iraq because people like you voted for a 3rd party, and now you don't like it? That is not too much at stake? Just a trap? Please, learn from the mistakes of the past and try to fix them, not repeat them.

Yeah, people like ME are to blame for having the audacity to vote for who I think is the best person for the job? Why don't you blame your party(assuming you're a democrat) for nominating a candidate I didn't want to vote for? Did ya think about that? Why is it my fault that your party gives me such an unappealing option? Clean up your own political house before you going pointing fingers at me and blaming me for not wanting to vote for a candidate who I do not believe will do a good job. I have to live with myself.

Re:Yes it is

[Ricdude]

Don't forget proportional representation. I.e. if a party gets 5% of the vote, they get 5% of the seats.

As Noam Chomsky put it (paraphrasing), The difference between two evils is greatly amplified by the power of the office held. In these circumstances, even minute differences between the candidates will result in major differences in the results of their tenure in office.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Though it's "only" 85%, I'm left wondering if this includes inflation since Regan's orfice.

Re:Yes it is

[neurojab]

>Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act? Do you think he will pull us out of Iraq?

No, but I believe he will make better, more rational decisions in future situations. He will think about the consequences of his actions instead of just doing what Dick Cheney says.

Imagine what would happen if Bush were re-elected. We'd have four more years of the same. We'd have more curtailed freedom, more war based on "faulty intelligence" (w North Korea?), more hatred of Americans abroad (remember that hatred causes terrorism). We'll have four more years of Wolfowitz's "empire building" through "direct intervention". The idea scares me, and should scare the entire world.

There IS a better way. Maybe Kerry's not perfect, but compared to Bush, he's the freaking Messiah. Give the guy a chance.

Re:Yes it is

[cammoblammo]

That's what we have in Australia. It works well, but people don't understand it too well, and I know many who consider that a vote for an alternative party is a wasted vote.

People actually follow the 'How-to-Vote' card party volunteers give them at the polling booth, and then get upset that their party has done preference deals with other parties.

You can lead a horse to water...

Re:Yes it is

[16K Ram Pack]

The french pres. election deals with this issue quite well.

You vote once, and from that vote the top 2 candidates go through to round 2, where people vote again.

People can choose who they really want, hope they get through, and then throw in the "negative vote" if they want later.

Really, PR is the only effective system. We have first-past-the-post in the UK and I know some seats are going to be a joke next election. Someone will win by getting something like 25% of the vote with other people getting 23% or something.

Re:Yes it is

[Veridium]

do you think kerry has an unrevealed plan pre-election to invade another country and will do so at the drop of a hat? (ala neo-con hawks)

Yes I do actually. Ala, clinton hawks(think yugoslavia).

Do you think that kerry is going to gut welfare and give tax cuts to the rich?

I have more important things to worry about than taxes and welfare. My and everyone elses freedom and rights are on the line. If you're concerned about welfare, you ought to study what happened to it under Clinton.

And I can see that the democrats understand the policy process better than revolving door bullshit lobbyists.

What are you talking about? You don't think democrats have lobbiests or that they succumb to lobbiests? Do you know who was president when the DMCA passed? To name but one of the more well known examples. Do you think that was done as pure good policy, with no influence by lobbiests?

You would be better off not casting your vote if you vote for Nader or the like

Please explain your logic here. If I don't vote at all, kerry doesn't get my vote. If I vote for my candidate(not nader), kerry doesn't get my vote. How is one any different than the other?

You don't understand what Bush has done to america in the eyes of the world.

I do understand. I just don't think you understand that the democrats and republicans have been in on moving us in this direction for years. Google for the pentagon papers for an interesting read on relatively recent American history. Two different parties, two different goals presented to the American people in public, but behind the scenes the same goals being worked towards. Nothing has changed, except the names and dates.

He has already damaged the UN to the point where nothing is being done in Darfur.

Why do WE have to do something about it? Where is the rest of the world? Why is darfur Americas fault? What do you want us to do there, invade? How do you know there's genocide going on there? We were told there was genocide going on in Yugoslavia, 100,000 dead we were told. The largest mass grave they found was a few hundred people. We shot that country up with depleted uranium, destroyed civilian infrastructure, and killed thousands, over a few hundred people. I don't want be the world police anymore. Why can't the UN and it's member parties that aren't the US grow some balls and take care of things? Sorry if that sounds selfish, but I think enough American lives have been lost in other countries, only to have us hated and ridiculed by other countries. Forget it. World police is a thankless job and I don't think my country should have to do it anymore.

Don't worry, China is going to be the next world power, very shortly. Few see it coming, but it's coming.

Re:Yes it is

[neurojab]

>But if you're not in a swing stae, then vote third party. As a Southerner, Bush is either gonna win my state or if we're swing, Kerry will win in a landslide. That way, my votte for Kerry really wouldn't matter for getting Bush out of office.

But what if your state comes down to a few votes (a la Florida)? Sure the pundits like to categorize states as "swing", but you can't predict a landslide when you don't even know which candidate will win.

Every vote counts.

Re:Yes it is

[CompSurfer]

Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act?

I believe he has specifically mentioned putting a sunset provision on it, so a few years down the road it will expire unless it's reinstated by congress.

Re:Yes it is

[Veridium]

Ask Serbia if they felt Clinton practiced direct intervention or not. Then ask them how they feel having had their country shot up with depleted Uranium.

And I'll never forget Waco, ever. Democrats seem to think it's a crime worthy of a paramilitary assault to be part of a cult. Democrats seem to think they know how people should act, should live, and should believe and they aren't above force in seeing people comply. Yeah, I remember that spell of political correctness. There's a certain justice that the new political correctness makes the democrats the target. I'd laugh at it, except that people like me get hit with the PC of both sides. Forget it man. Read the pentagon papers. Learn from history.

Re:Yes it is

[Veridium]

I believe he has specifically mentioned putting a sunset provision on it, so a few years down the road it will expire unless it's reinstated by congress.

Why not just get rid of it altogether if he thinks it's bad? That's just it, that promise is smoke. It allows him to give the illusion of having one stance, without having to do anything meaningful to back that stance up. That's the political game of the republicans and democrats. Image over substance. People vote for the image, and ignore the substance, THE SAME SUBSTANCE, behind the image. Read the pentagon papers.

Re:Yes it is

[jvv62]

Someone will win by getting something like 25% of the vote with other people getting 23% or something.

But with Proportional Representation doesn't exactly the same thing happen? You will get representatives of some pretty wacky groups. Just look at the power of the extreme right in Israel, or look at the mess that Italy's political system has been for most of the past 50 years.

First past the post is not great, but I think the other methods can also generate some pretty unwelcome and unexpected results.

Re:Yes it is

[UserGoogol]

Proportional Representation (I like Single-Transferrable Vote) only works for stuff like Congress where you're electing more than one seat. When you're awarding only one seat, (like with the President) you have to do something like Condorcet Method or Instant Runoff Voting.

Re:Yes it is

[wass]

Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act?

Well, I'm not sure about that, but I think it's likely, at least for now, he'll undo some of the really controversial clauses of the Act. Also, Bush is looking to expand the Patriot Act even further. I think Kerry would be much less likely to do this.

Do you think he will pull us out of Iraq?

Frankly, if Kerry is elected today he cannot pull us out of Iraq right now, he's obligated to Iraq. We totally destroyed that country's infrastructure, it's chaos and almost a political vacuum. Pulling out now would be just as irresponsible as attacking in the first place.

The efforts shouldn't be in immediately pulling out but restoring order and a 'fair' government in Iraq. I have no friggin' clue how to do that now, but we made our bed there, and now we have to sleep in it. The only way to bring dignity back to our foreign policy and our colleagues UN would be to 'fix' Iraq, not run away from it.

Re:Yes it is

[ThaReetLad]

Clinton hardly invaded yugoslavia at the drop of a hat. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to war by Europe after several months of umming and ahhing. Once there was clear evidence of genocide taking place he was really forced to act because of treaty obligations. I think there are really very few people who didn't think that something drastic needed to be done in kosovo

Re:Yes it is

[corian]

Why I'm voting for Kerry

Which Kerry are you thinking of, exactly?

...his administration didn't get us into an insane war in the middle east...

H.J. Res 114: To authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
ref

...his administration didn't write the PATRIOT act...

"But in reality Kerry is not so far from Bush in his views on the Patriot Act. The Massachusetts senator claims he not only stands by his vote for the legislation, but that he authored most of the law's money-laundering provisions and thinks some aspects of the act actually need strengthening (like improving intelligence information sharing)."
ref

You may see a lot at stake, but there is NO benefit to voting for Kerry over Bush. There is no substantial difference in their policies. If you want something different, vote third party.

Re:Yes it is

[grahamm]

I still think that all elections should have a 'none of the above' option. That would avoid the problem of people voting for "the lesser of 2 evils" and the winner claiming the positive support of of all those voting against the other candidate(s).

Re:Yes it is

[corian]

What's the compelling motivation to not vote for Kerry?

He opposes the idea tha loving people should be allowed to marry, merely because of their gender?

He thinks its okay to go to a foreign country and start killing its citizens?

He thinks only Americans deserve jobs?

Re:Yes it is

[Ian Bell]

Hmmm. Tho' that doesn't always work. Remember the last French Presidential election? In the second round the advice was "Vote for the crook, not the nazi"

Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jacques Chirrac got through to the second round, largely because turnout was so low in the first. Lionel Jospin's supporters must have thought "I can just vote for him in the second round"

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Why I'm voting for Bush: Because every liberal's answer to voting for Kerry is either myopic or a lame, double-ass standard; including all of yours. That, and Kerry just sucks!

Liberals LOVE Bill Clinton, and they LOVED the fact that he took us into an insane military action because it was for "human rights".

Liberals HATE the PATRIOT act because it "takes away our freedoms", but they LOVED Clinton's laws on Gun Control (lose guns and your freedoms are as good as gone!)

Military efforts cost money. Regan spent during the Cold War, and Bush is having to spend BECAUSE WE WERE ATTACKED!

Liberals are all for human rights, and even going to war for them, but when we remove a torturous, murderous, raping dictator under a "conservatives" watch, then we're the bad guy and the "war" is insane.

I'm voting for Bush because liberals like Kerry are flip-flopping, wind-driven, short-term memory, opportunistic, propaganda sponges without a plan, without an ounce of logic and without even the smallest trace of integrity.

Perhaps Bush is no better, but at least he's consistent and he obviously has a plan, whether you like it or not, and because of his plan, you haven't been killed by a terrorist during the last 3 years.

People make fun of Bush's lack of public speaking ability, but at least he doesn't say moronic things like "I actually voted for the whatever billion before I voted against it."

Nope, no Kerry for me. I'm voting Bush for four more years.

Re:Yes it is

[Veridium]

http://www.unknownnews.net/fis020603.html
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/rape/nan ag/
http://english.pravda.ru/diplomatic/2001/12/21/241 41.html
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/517 99a.html
http://www.michaelparenti.org/MediaAtrocities.html
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/mandel_canada.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/sinclair/why. htm

If you can provide links to websites that actually can provide hard evidence of the things that required something drastic to be done, I'd love to read them. I'd also love to read any websites you have that explain how the US was dragged kicking and screaming. Thanks.

Re:Yes it is

[Crazy Eight]

Kerry will screw the econimy up give the country to terrorist ...

I knew Dubya had a /. account.

Re:Yes it is

[torpor]

Why can't the UN and it's member parties that aren't the US grow some balls and take care of things?

Because U.S. Intelligence prevents them from doing exactly that. Thats the job of U.S. Intelligence; maintain U.S. military supremacy.

This means, not letting anyone else be the good cop.

Re:Yes it is

[Nestafo]

Another good system is the one that we have in Finland and many other European countries. If none of the candidates gets 50% of the votes at the first round of voting, there will be another round with only the two most popular candidates.

It means that first you can vote the canditate you like the most, and at second round the one you hate the least. In US it could fix the Bush/Kerry problem, because you could first vote for the one you really like without helping the bad guy getting into office.

Re:Yes it is

[Hittite Creosote]

Um. Those links you cited - that's like citing Fox News to back up a right wing viewpoint. So frankly, I'd trust them about as much as I'd trust Fox. They're nice if you merely want to back up the view you've formed already, but if you are capable of viewing things in colours other than black and white, not exactly helpful. But, if you'd like a website, try The Guardian - it has quite a lot in its archives on Kosovo.

Re:Yes it is

[greenrd]

H.J. Res 114: To authorize the use of force in Iraq. Kerry (D-MA), Yea Edwards (D-NC), Yea

That's true - but that was with privosos. However, you're probably right in implying that Kerry's foreign policy wouldn't be that different - that's what Kerry's advisors have said.

he authored most of the law's money-laundering provisions

WTF is wrong with being opposed to money-laundering - a prime means of funding terrorist and criminal activity? Just because something is in the PATRIOT ACT means it must be satanic and Un-American???

and thinks some aspects of the act actually need strengthening (like improving intelligence information sharing).

Yes... so what? That doesn't sound so bad at all.

Re:Yes it is

[dave420]

I have no idea where to start with that rant. Wow.

You say your "freedom and rights are on the line", but by who? Certainly not the terrorists, but most definitely Bush. He's done more to errode your quality of life and freedom than Osama ever dreamt possible.

America is the world police, because of World War 2. During that war, the US used its money and material wealth to buy military bases from its allies around the world, and to steal technology from the defeated Germans. That boost has made the US the most wide-spread military force in the world, and one of the most technologically advanced out there. That is reason alone why the US is the world police. Also, waltzing into Saudi Arabia and not leaving extended your empire (and also pissed off a lot of rich arabs, namely. Mr. Bin Laden and a bunch of others). Basically, America is the world police, because America wants to be the world police. Bush has outlined American foreign policy as follows: Do what ever is necessary to spread the American form of democracy around the world, starting with areas of specific financial interest and importance to the US. If you're fed up with America having the piss taken out of it every day by every single nation on the face of the earth, take it up with your government. They aren't acting to help the people of the countries they "liberate" or "help", but to help the US. That's the sort of false altruism that the rest of the world despises, and is so much clearer outside the US propaganda machine that is US media. People who stand up for America's foreign policy or who ask to not help in foreign crises are selfish, plain and simple. They're the reason America is hated, and they're the reason America will continue to be hated until something very serious happens.

America has the power, and must decide to use it for good or evil. Sitting by and watching people get hurt when you can stop it certainly isn't good.

Re:Yes it is

[philbert26]

He has already damaged the UN to the point where nothing is being done in Darfur

Yes, it's all Bush's fault. Before he came along, the UN would have taken decisive action to stop the genocide in Darfur. Just like the UN stopped the genocide in Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

Re:Yes it is

[geirhe]

Why do WE have to do something about it? Where is the rest of the world? Why is darfur Americas fault? What do you want us to do there, invade? How do you know there's genocide going on there?

We are. A friend is working for an aid agency in Darfur right now. As far as I know, the french have sent about 1000 soldiers there to help quieten things down.

If you doubt the fact that there is severe malnourishment and military problems in and around Darfur, you need to go to other news sources. I won't point the finger at any one party as a cause of the conflict. That solution is too easy and moronic.

Norway gives in excess of 1.5 billion NOK (divide by eight or so to get euros or dollars) each year to aid programmes. Strangely, most of this money ends up in areas where there are no alleged weapons of mass destruction or oil, and therefore, no CNN either. I can give you the exact figures if you want. The US is, by the way, considered a poor contributor to aid programmes since promises come cheaply, but the money to go with them doesn't show up.

You may feel hard done by when people criticize the US for their foreign policy, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree when you are stating that the US is the only nation that tries to take steps to solve problems in other parts of the world. From my point of view, that is just plain wrong.

The UN _is_ doing something, by the way. They have just bent the arms of the sudanese government by way of a resolution. There is also a local variant akin to the UN on the african continent that is heavily involved in Sudan right now.

So get off your high horse, please. You are making a fool of yourself up there.

Re:Yes it is

[Hittite Creosote]

Well, since your link is the translation of a Mr Milosevic's testimony to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, I'd suggest he may not be the most impartial of commentators...

Re:Yes it is

[CaptJay]

Why do WE have to do something about it? Where is the rest of the world? Why can't the UN and it's member parties that aren't the US grow some balls and take care of things?

In large part because the US does not want it to. It undermines (at the least, or vetoes at the worst) those initiatives almost systematically. For an example, check for the UN's many resolutions to do something about the "situation" in Israel, and what the United States did to make sure absolutely nothing happenned.

Sorry if that sounds selfish, but I think enough American lives have been lost in other countries, only to have us hated and ridiculed by other countries. Forget it. World police is a thankless job and I don't think my country should have to do it anymore.

No, you may not want your country to send soldiers to be killed in other countries, but the arrogance of the US's administrations (note the plural), and its desire to leave absolutely no doubt that they are the world's strongest country is rooted deeper than just one president. It's just gotten a lot worse since 2000.

Re:Yes it is

[www www www]

Which Kerry are you thinking of, exactly?

I know this is the number one attack, Kerry is flip-flopping, but can you actually give me an example? I say this because I know of several examples of Bush flip-flopping.

H.J. Res 114: To authorize the use of force in Iraq. Kerry (D-MA), Yea Edwards (D-NC), Yea

The problem for Kerry and many less ideology driven (may I say single minded) politicians are that today even the most complex policy is supposed to be summarized in a few words, preferably in a slogan to be repeated in a TV commercial. Why not see for yourself what Kerry said at the Senate floor, October 9, 2002, when Kerry cast that vote? Some quotes that I found relevant:

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

But you are right, it all ends up into one "yea" that is supposed to say it all...

You may see a lot at stake, but there is NO benefit to voting for Kerry over Bush. There is no substantial difference in their policies.

Read the quotes I gave above once more and ask yourself if Bush would ever be caught saying something similar. Then ask once more if there is any difference between Kerry and Bush.

Re:Yes it is

[Paul Jakma]

I'm not 100% sure, but iirc we use PR-STV for our presidential election here in Ireland (as we do for our dail (parliament), county council and EU elections). So PR-STV can be used for single-winner elections, AFAIK.

Re:Yes it is

[The Conductor]

First past the post acts as a stabilizer. For one candidate to get a majority is a high hurdle, so a strong vetting process evolves, which in the US is the two-party system. More extreme parties (like the European Fascist & Communist parties) can't make it past that hurdle. But on the minus side, exceptionally good candidates can't either.

On balance I would say the US system comes out ahead. The US system perpetuated slavery for way too long and that brought on a war that killed 600,000. But that pales next to the poorly vetted European fascists that brought us WWII.

Re:Yes it is

[Erwos]

"That's true - but that was with provisios."

I'm getting so damn tired of this "having reservations" excuse whenever Kerry voted for something that went flat-out against what he's campaigning with now.

I'd feel better about him if he just had a voting record I disagreed with, and actually tried to justify it to me. This "I'm anti-war today, better make up an excuse about voting for war" thing is just the biggest turn-off ever. He did this just the other day with the Yucca nuclear reserve, in fact. Take responsibility for your actions. I can't vote for a guy in good conscience who says one thing when he's done another so often.

People ask why I'm writing in McCain/Lieberman on my ballot: it's because I'd prefer honest, intelligent, honorable men who I sometimes disagree with, but have the country's best interests in mind. I honestly believe those two do, even if they each have stands that I would disagree with (Lieberman's videogame policy coming to mind).

-Erwos

Re:Yes it is

[CrimsonAvenger]

He has already damaged the UN to the point where nothing is being done in Darfur.

Interestingly enough, the USA and UK are the ONLY people calling for action in Darfur. Everyone else is ignoring the issue as much as they can get away with.

You have this interesting idea that the UN has always been gung-ho for stopping genocide/crimes-against-humanity/whatever-you-disl ike. Check some history - the UN has done something when the USA has pushed it into doing something.

The UN intervention in Korea only happened because the Soviets walked out of the Security Council and the vote happened while they were gone.

Cambodia. Ever notice that the genocide there started under Ford, and continued under Carter? And the UN did nothing.

Rwanda - nice bit of genocide. Did you notice the Clinton White House trying to stop it?

The UN, alas, is a toothless tiger. Until the UN has its own military, this will continue. And the UN will have its own military only when EVERY country in the world is willing to give up enough national sovereignty to allow it. Which will be...hmm...never.

Re:Yes it is

[Steve525]

Well, I don't know about you personally, but a lot of people in the last election voted for Nader who otherwise would of voted for Gore. These people were effectively giving half a vote to Bush. (Same could be said in reverse for those who would of voted for Bush, but I don't think Nader stole too many people from the Bush camp).

In your case, maybe you wouldn't have voted for either of the two main candidates? If this was the case, then it doesn't really matter what you do as far as the election is concerned. Go ahead and make a statement with your vote - it doesn't really count anyway.

As far as blaming the party, that's a great idea, but the fact of the matter is that the party wants to win. To win, the party needs to go after the majority of the people, who on average have views close to center. If the party tries to do anything too radical, or even just too different from the status quo, they'll loose a huge chunk of the center. There's no way they'll win doing this.

A third candidate like Perot, Buchanan, or Nader essentially traps the party in a catch-22. If they go too off center to recapture the votes taken away by by these candidates, they loose huge numbers of moderate voters. If they don't go off center, they don't appear to be differentiating themselves enough from the other party. They then loose just enough of their extreme elements to loose the election.

I agree, I haven't been too impressed by any of the large partys' canditates recently. However, I don't see anyway for a change with the current system. So, I vote pragmatically for the one I prefer out of the two who can actually win. This election it's all about damage control.

Re:Yes it is

[jez9999]

But Ross Perot got 18.91% of the popular vote in the 1992 election and 8.40% in 1996, where he was running for the Reform party (see http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/. How far has that gone towards establishing a multi-party system??

Re:Yes it is

[LaCosaNostradamus]

You neglected to mention to your parent poster that it wasn't the ~2 million Nader voters in 2000 that brought Bush the Presidency ... it was instead the ~50 million voters who voted for Bush such that he achieved 270 electoral votes. 2 million compared to 50 million. It sure is funny how people ignore that 50. We must bring the battle back to the people who are truly responsible for the Bush election: half of voting America.

Re:Yes it is

[Guuge]

There will always appear to be too much at stake. That's the trap.

Yes, it's a trap. But it's also a trap to believe that a third-party vote (or abstaining) is the most honest way to vote. Never underestimate the power of kicking out an incumbent - it's a powerful way of saying "stop it". I look forward to kicking Kerry out in 2008 if he doesn't significantly improve the Iraq situation and get rid of the Patriot Act.

Re:Yes it is

[lemon031]

Don't worry, China is going to be the next world power, very shortly. Few see it coming, but it's coming.

Few see it coming? Nonsense. A simple Google search will turn up numbers on China's recent economic growth that makes this ridiculously obvious. Anyone who has taken any time whatsoever to think about which nation will be the next world power has almost certainly come to the same conclusion that you have regarding China.

Re:Yes it is

[Guuge]

Why I'm voting for Bush: [anti-liberal hate speech]

This supports a conjecture of mine: that Bush lovers just aren't informed enough to choose their own leader. Seriously, do some basic research. It will take only a few minutes of your time and you will learn a LOT.

For example:

Military efforts cost money. Regan spent during the Cold War, and Bush is having to spend BECAUSE WE WERE ATTACKED!

Wrong. The main reasons for the deficit are the tax cuts for the wealthy and the Iraq war. Response to 9/11 and homeland security aren't getting the funding they need. This has been in the news several times.

Liberals are all for human rights, and even going to war for them, but when we remove a torturous, murderous, raping dictator under a "conservatives" watch, then we're the bad guy and the "war" is insane.

You apparently aren't aware that Kerry voted for the resolution to go to war! But, as you should know, the prosecution of this war has become the biggest government fiasco of our time. It was for retaliation... no, security... no, human rights... the flip-flops continue. All this from someone who opposes nation building.

Perhaps Bush is no better, but at least he's consistent and he obviously has a plan

Actually, it is widely believed that a lack of planning created the mess in Iraq. And I don't see how someone can take both sides of so many issues (nation building, 9/11 commission, dept of homeland security, states' rights) and be considered "consistent" at all. "Incoherent" is more like it.

Re:Yes it is

[neurojab]

> why didn't Cheney run for president?

Cheney is not charismatic enough to win over the electorate. Bush Jr was picked as a patsy. Cheney doesn't call all the shots. Some are clearly made by Rumsfeld.

>What freedoms of yours have been curtailed?

Well, I never used to have to worry about being declared an "enemy combatant" and put in prison without a hearing or access to a lawyer.

I never used to worry about my ability to listen to the radio broadcasts I enjoy.

>You are moronic if you actually believe the US is into empire building.

Go read some of the literature produced by the "Project for a new american century" then read the author list. Empire building is definately the goal. Search for the phrase "direct intervention".

>The key to stopping radical islam is ... killing as many of them as possible.

Nope. Bloodshed causes more hatred which causes more terrorism. That's exactly the wrong thing to do.

>What scares me more is Americans like you who don't realize we are at war.

"War" and terrorism are completly diferent things. You can't "fight terrorism" by sending in tanks. Terrorism is caused by hatred... sending in tanks fuels the fire. Why do americans need to declare "WAR" on everything? Why not look at the root of the problem and try to solve it? Yes, we need to hold those who have commited terrorism accountable, but to go around invading every country (killing thousands of civillians) because we think they might someday attack us is WRONG. The civillians in those countries (that are still alive) now have a reason to join a terrorist group that they didn't have before.

Re:Yes it is

[dbc001]

Residents of the other states can vote third-party until their fingers drop off, and it won't affect the outcome in any way.

Unless, of course, a majority of people vote for the third-party candidate, in which case the third party candidate may actually cause Kerry to lose the election.

Re:Yes it is

[JavaLord]

Cheney is not charismatic enough to win over the electorate. Bush Jr was picked as a patsy. Cheney doesn't call all the shots. Some are clearly made by Rumsfeld.

So Cheney is a super smart evil mastermind who isn't charismatic enough to win over the electorate? Really, you are reaching here.

Well, I never used to have to worry about being declared an "enemy combatant" and put in prison without a hearing or access to a lawyer.

Are you really worried about this? That is a bit silly. Somehow I doubt this is keeping you up at nights.

I never used to worry about my ability to listen to the radio broadcasts I enjoy.

Which ones are you missing exactly? Last I checked Howard Stern is still on the air. Bush has bigger fish to fry than worrying about shock radio and parents who can't curb their children. Radio stations are free to air whoever they want. If someone is a problem for the reputation of their company they are free to drop them. It's a free country.

If standards were implemented to protect children from public radio broadcasts that detail sexual encounters would that really be that much of a damper on your freedoms? Wow, you have to buy XM radio just like you need cable TV to get sexual content (although less so recently). Oh, they are oppressing you! The Nazis!

Go read some of the literature produced by the "Project for a new american century" then read the author list. Empire building is definately the goal. Search for the phrase "direct intervention".

The goal is simply to reform the middle east so we can work twards a true world peace.

The key to stopping radical islam is ... killing as many of them as possible. Nope. Bloodshed causes more hatred which causes more terrorism. That's exactly the wrong thing to do.

Thanks for taking my quote out of context. No, Bloodshed doesn't cause more hatred or terrorism. Where are the Nazi's today if war doesn't solve anything?

"War" and terrorism are completly diferent things. You can't "fight terrorism" by sending in tanks.

Killing terrorists and bringing down leaders who support terrorism is fighting it.

Terrorism is caused by hatred... sending in tanks fuels the fire.

Then what exactly do you propose should be done? Do you really think everyone that hates us is willing to kill themselves to kill us, or even go to war with us?

Why do americans need to declare "WAR" on everything? Why not look at the root of the problem and try to solve it?

What do you think the "root" of the problem is? This I have to hear.

Yes, we need to hold those who have commited terrorism accountable, but to go around invading every country (killing thousands of civillians) because we think they might someday attack us is WRONG.

So, you think that Putin lied about Iraq planning to attack the US? How about them trying to assassinate George HW Bush? Aren't those acts of war? We aren't invading every country that might attack us, but we are going to go after governments that sponsor terrorism (like Iraq did, and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea DONT). I'm not willing to let innocent people in the US die before we have to take action. Maybe you are.

The civillians in those countries (that are still alive)

What kind of statement is that? You act like half their population has been wiped out. Where do you come up with these ideas?

now have a reason to join a terrorist group that they didn't have before.

Bullshit, they have no reason to. You act like everyone who doesn't like America is willing to strap a bomb to their chest and kill innocent people. That sort of idealism is fueled by islam, not simply hatred of America.

Re:Yes it is

[neurojab]

>So Cheney is a super smart evil mastermind

I never used the word "smart", or "mastermind".

>Where are the Nazi's today if war doesn't solve anything?

The Nazis were not terrorists. The were a political organization in control of a country. They were an agressive, millitaristic regime, who invaded other countries based on weak excuses.

>What do you think the "root" of the problem is? This I have to hear.

The root of the problem is economics (as is nearly all violence), and revenge for other violence. Religion is just an excuse. We are using the natural resources of the middle east, (but many of them are still poor) and supporting Israel (who many claim stole Palestinian land). They see the United States as being an evil agressor, throwing our troops around at will. I don't know exactly how to solve that, but invading more countries is the wrong thing to do.

>What kind of statement is that? You act like half their population has been wiped out

We did kill about 11 thousand iraqi civillians. http://iraqbodycount.net. It's not half the population, but it's many more than died in the 9/11 attacks. It's certainly enough make them want to kill us.

>That sort of idealism is fueled by islam, not simply hatred of America.

That's naive. Islam teaches peace (just like christianity). If it were not Islam, it would be some other religion. The religion is just an excuse to act on feelings caused by secular issues.

Re:Yes it is

[JavaLord]

I never used the word "smart", or "mastermind".

He would have to be pretty bright to pull off what you suggest. You make him out to be Cobra commander or something.

The Nazis were not terrorists. The were a political organization in control of a country. They were an agressive, millitaristic regime, who invaded other countries based on weak excuses.

They could have continued to exist, and terrorize people if it weren't for us killing them, and exposing them for the fraud they were.

The root of the problem is economics (as is nearly all violence),

Why don't poor people in the US become suicide bombers then? Why is Osama who was very rich a terrorist? That pretty much destroys your theory.

Religion is just an excuse.

I seriously doubt that, do you believe if those that are truely devout radical islamists bent on Jihad on America were given a million dollars each they would stop attacking the US?

We are using the natural resources of the middle east, (but many of them are still poor)

Their governments are rich, and many of these countries are dealing with reform (see Iran). Iraq would have NEVER reformed because Saddam would just kill the reformers.

and supporting Israel (who many claim stole Palestinian land).

This is the real problem, and it's focused on religion. The palestinians don't just want any land, they want ALL of the holy land. Osama's main beef with the US (and he has stated this before) is that they support Isreal. Osama's goal is to destablize the US and force them to not aid Isreal and get out of the middle east. He has stated this before(pre 9/11...might have been on 60 minutes?), he doesn't think he can destroy the US but he does think he can cause a civil war, or divide the citizens so much that action in the middle east is impossible.

This man doesn't care about economics like you said, he cares about his religion and driving people who have a different religion from his holy land.

They see the United States as being an evil agressor, throwing our troops around at will.

Evil Aggressor? No that is what europe thinks because they have been poisoned by their leftist media. Most jihadists believe the US is an Isreali puppet.

Re:Yes it is

[epcraig]

Remember there are lesser offices on every state's ballot, and your state races for both Congress and the State House are certainly more influential on issues more immediately important to you than what puppet is President.

Re:Yes it is

[robbkidd]

neurojab: "Maybe Kerry's not perfect, but compared to Bush, he's the freaking Messiah."

JavaLord: "Jesus never flip flopped"

Well, there was that whole "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Mt 10:24) and "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Mt 26:52).

Re:Yes it is

[neurojab]

>They could have continued to exist, and terrorize people if it weren't for us killing them, and exposing them for the fraud they were.

That's very true, but these terrorists have very little in common with the Nazis. The nazis had a real millitary and a real organizational structure. That sort of a power can be overcome with overt millitary force. A grassroots geurilla war (i.e. terrorism) cannot. History has shown that time and time again.

>Why don't poor people in the US become suicide bombers then? Why is Osama who was very rich a terrorist? That pretty much destroys your theory.

I don't think it does. Sure there some folks at the bottom of any organization that swear by a certain pseudo-religious ideology, but there's always someone at the top with an economic agenda. There's always some wealth, be it money, land, or otherwise at the root of the issue. Look at any war where "religion" is the supposed cause, and you'll find a leader that uses religion to meet a political end.

Osama is a rich terrorist, but he would like Saudi Arabia to be richer. He probably thinks the United States is keeping Saudi Arabia from being a power on the world scene. His motives are not religious. The Koran condemns murder.

The reason we don't have poor people in the US being suicide bombers... they act out in other ways that are just as violent. They rob banks, commit drive-by shootings, etc. The difference is that no one has pointed them to a clear enemy to act out against(except "terrorism"). If we had a foriegn power occupying our soil, I'd wager that we'd have just as many bombings.

Re:Yes it is

[fling93]

Instant runoff, while a big improvement over Plurality, sometimes gets rid of viable candidates with broad (but not intense) support in the first round.

Better systems for single-seat races are Approval or Condorcet (which you can find more about at ElectionMethods.org) and Proportional Representation would be great for Congress (our checks and balances work pretty well, so there's no need to move to a Parliamentary system). Another informative site (albeit somewhat confusing to navigate) is Accurate Democracy.

This is not something either party wants, so it will be a long, uphill battle. But neither party wanted campaign finance reform either, so enough popular support can get anything done (although 527s are bad, they're not as bad as soft money, and indeed, at least they help pull power away from the two big parties).

Re:Yes it is

[16K Ram Pack]

Well, more fool Jospin's supporters, because the system is designed to allow a very free choice in round 1.

The system proved itself because Le Pen didn't win. The anti-tory vote in the UK was frequently split. If we had seats done like the French, people would be more involved in the democracy.

Re:Yes it is

[16K Ram Pack]

By "unwelcome results", do you mean that people that you don't like much get power.

I have objections to certain political groups, but I'd like them to be represented. The argument is always "but fascists will get in", but then people who support green or libertarian views also don't get a say.

It also disenfranchises people. Why vote in somewhere like Henley if you are a Labour supporter when your vote makes no difference?

Re:Yes it is

[Veridium]

They're nice if you merely want to back up the view you've formed already, but if you are capable of viewing things in colours other than black and white, not exactly helpful. But, if you'd like a website, try The Guardian - it has quite a lot in its archives on Kosovo

Then by your same reasoning, I must reject the guardian because they are a media outlet of one of the major players in the assault and as such, their impartiality is questionable. Further, I note the article you linked to was dated before we even started bombing and it really doesn't offer any thing in the lines of hard evidence. Next, the things it reports aren't really so hard to swallow, when taken in the context of the fact that that country was engaged in a civil war. How many children have died by allied bombings in Iraq? How man civilians? The Allies can't keep from targeting civilians in a war, who the hell are we to expect others to keep from targeting them?

Ask yourself those questions. Is there something magic about our bullets that make them just? Is there something magical about our targeting techniques that make them humane? Do you even know the history of the civil war there? Are you aware that before NATO started it's sword rattling about all that, that the US had the KLA listed as a terrorist organisation up to just a few months before the war started? The same KLA who we ended up "liberating" and giving Kosovo to?

Perhaps you'll find this less biased, maybe you won't...
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew22.HTM

Re:Yes it is

[HeghmoH]

Don't worry, China is going to be the next world power, very shortly. Few see it coming, but it's coming.

They must all be on Slashdot, then, because I see this idea repeated all the time here.

Re:Yes it is

[Hittite Creosote]

I wasn't talking about the Americans in Iraq, I was talking about Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo. The question was whether something needed to be done about Kosovo in 1999, or whether people should just wring their hands and ask the Serbs if they'd nicely mind not wiping out the male populations of entire towns this time (you're not going to deny Srebenica are you?). The fact that the KLA weren't exactly cuddly bunnies doesn't justify attacks on civilians. So something had to be done. I didn't say that what was done was necessarily the best way to do it, or done well (it patently wasn't, and they're still not doing as good a job as they should do) but what else was there to do? Sanctions were already applied to the hilt anyway. And the Serbs didn't exactly have a reputation for restraint at that time. OK, the number of civilian dead turned out to be lower than feared - but that's hindsight. It could have topped Srebenica for all the west knew at the time. The mass graves might be small, but they .

And as for 'handing it to the KLA' - they held an election. The party that formed from the KLA won enough votes that it had to have a share in government. Are you in favour of banning people who were members of an organisation you don't like from standing for election? Those who can be shown to have commited illegal acts should of course be punished, but if they haven't - they should be allowed to stand. Your signature applies both ways you know.

FreeCulture.org is working to improve copyright

[chatooya]

If you're on a college campus and want to work to make copyright law more sane, join FreeCulture.org.

Colleges and universities have a huge amount of power to influence this debate and reasonable copyright law is perfectly inline with the mission of a public education and research institution. So go get linux in the campus computer labs and work up from there!

Re:FreeCulture.org is working to improve copyright

[csguy314]

Colleges and universities have a huge amount of power to influence this debate

Perhaps you mean individuals or groups in colleges or universities. The actual institutions are generally heavily funded by private corporations looking for research and patents. And so these institutes of higher learning are normally more than happy to comply with big business.
Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but the difference between an institute, and an individual at that institute can be stark.

Re:FreeCulture.org is working to improve copyright

[chatooya]

I was summarizing, but I agree that there's an important difference between the individual and the institution. In this case, I think that the institutions have enourmour weight in the society for good or bad. And I think that individuals such as students, porfessors, and alumni have disproportionate influence over the direction that the institution takes-- much more than they have as private citizens. A small group of dedicated students could get a linux lab on campus, could change the filesharing policy, and could lead discussions of copyright. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and schools really like to keep their students (future donors) happy.

Yeah, right...

[Aardpig]

Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry (the website pointed to by the 'Kerry' link) is the organization running attack ads on US television, attempting to besmirch Kerry's war record. The adverts include the catchphrase 'I served with Kerry', which is stretching the truth a bit -- not a single vet in the adverts actually served alongside Kerry, they were merely in Vietnam at the same time.

This brought to you by the Republican party, the political group led by an imbecile cokehead who didn't even have the balls to turn up to his cushy National Guard posting. I have little sympathy for their copyright complaint...

Re:Yeah, right...

[killjoe]

What's weird is their claim.

They don't dispute John Kerry served in vietnam. They don't dispute John Kerry saved a man's life. The only dispute they have is that people were not firing at John Kerry as he was saving some guys life. Oh and they don't dispute his other purple hearts either.

If I was john kerry I too would keep comparing my record during the war to GW too. They both came from privledged families and yet one volunteered to go fight for his country the other pulled strings to get into the guard so he would not.

Re:Yeah, right...

[BCW2]

I hope you didn't sprain anything with that kneejerk reaction.

Serving "with" does not have to mean in the same boat. Swift boats always operated in pairs or more to provide covering fire if needed. Just like every other type of boat involved in the riverine warfare in Vietnam.

One man, that actually served in Kerry's boat has put out a book that points out Kerry's lies about being in Cambodia during Christmas of '68. The campaign has not been able to answer this because Kerry's words are in the congressional record and a letter to the Boston newspaper. The title of the book is Unfit for Command, just published in the last few days.

Don't forget, Clinton signed the DMCA.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Kierthos]

Ah, so you watched that episode of "The Daily Show" as well?

Yeah, none of the veterans served on the same boat as Kerry. The doctor they have talking about his first Purple Heart apparently didn't treat him at all for the wound, so that doctor commenting on whether it was a minor wound or not is irrelevant.

Where are the "I went to Harvard with GWB ads", I ask you?

Kierthos

Re:Yeah, right...

[Anonymous Coward]

They all served as part of the Swiftboats. It was a relatively small group of only three hundred soldiers including Kerry. Of those three hundred 280 of them have signed onto the book. Many of them have photos standing next to Kerry. Many of them were in missions with Kerry. They are first hand accounts by poeple close enough to see Kerry. They were not serving on his boat of a few people but were on the boats just yards away from his. Including the person who had to take over the boat when Kerry left. Kerry is trying to paint it like they didn't know him but it won't fly.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. Don't look now, but ... Bush went to Yale.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Aardpig]

Do you foam at the mouth and masturbate whenever you type something against Republicans? Get a life, loser.

No, I fondle the huge wads of money littering my desk, a mere fraction of my immense wealth, as I conjure up new ways to diss the poor old GOP. I'm so phenomenally successful, and good looking to boot, that I don't need to get a life -- life just presents itself to me, pre-wrapped and lightly perfumed, ready for me to pick and choose my delights.

Your point...?

Re:Yeah, right...

[Aardpig]

Volunteered ... hm ... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long? Over a year, yeah. Okay, I understand now.

Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.

How long were you there, my friend?

Re:Yeah, right...

[YrWrstNtmr]

not a single vet in the adverts actually served alongside Kerry, they were merely in Vietnam at the same time.

I suppose this this picture has escaped your view?

Re:Yeah, right...

[killjoe]

"Volunteered ... hm ... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long?"

I don't know about most people but George Bush was there for zero months. Too bad the air national guard was not handing out purple hearts for falling down drunk or visiting the dentist.

Re:Yeah, right...

[techno-vampire]

How long were you there, my friend?

Over seven months. Not in-country, not close inshore, but on a DE doing shore bombardments among other things. And, I once saw six inch shells landing within 30 yards of my ship. Nice, neat, cone-shaped splashes about 18 inches tall. Weird, really, it was so like an effect in a good movie that it was hard to be scared. I don't know what happened the day Kerry saved that man's life and I'm not going to guess. All I do know is that when he claimed that everybody in Vietnam was a war criminal he was slandering me and everybody on my ship.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Aardpig]

Since all those in the photo were the commanders of other swift boats, it would appear logical to conclude that none of them served on the same boat as Kerry. I suppose reading the caption of a picture has escpaed your capabilities?

Re:Yeah, right...

[YrWrstNtmr]

'Serving alongside' does not have to mean in the same boat. They're all in the same unit. You know how your peers operate. Usually, swift boats operate in pairs. I'd imagine that the crew of a sister boat would have a little more of an idea than someone who was just in Vietnam at the same time.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Aardpig]

I don't know what happened the day Kerry saved that man's life and I'm not going to guess.

Well, nor do I, so will have to leave it at that. But there's got to be a better way to run a political campaign than muckracking over somebody's war record? Especially when the one leading the much rakers (Bush) himself dogdged Vietnam.

All I do know is that when he claimed that everybody in Vietnam was a war criminal he was slandering me and everybody on my ship.

Are you sure that's what he said? Or is that what you've been told he said -- or would like to believe he said? As I understand it, he believed the whole war to be a criminal act, which from a certain standpoint it was. But that's different that labelling all individuals who served -- including yourself -- as criminals.

Re:Yeah, right...

[techno-vampire]

Actually, I'd much rather the campaign was run on the two of them talking about what they're going to do rather than what they did or didn't do thirty years ago. Fair or not, Kerry's pounding on his Vietnam record makes it sound like it's the only thing he ever did.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is simply not true, and you are an ignorant loudmouth.

The veterans against Kerry's campaign are here and they most certainly did serve along side Kerry. Steve Gardner was his machine gunner.

At least know what you're talking about if your're going to run your gob ...

Re:Yeah, right...

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Actually, there's probably no better way. I bet if you dug up the stuff from 1836 there's all kinds of shit in there about how Jackson was a loser coward SOB blah blah blah.

Dirty campaigns are nothing new. If we had a clean campaign I'd leave the country quick, just in case it was a sign of the end times.

Re:Yeah, right...

[sumdumass]

well there is at least one person there that actually served with kerry in his squad. I saw him on some news show last night. All he said about why he don't think Kerry was qualified to be president is because he is a liar.

The guy claimed he lied about several events and the way the went down to either further his standing or to take the glory from someone else. In other words he is an opertunist. He did say the Kerry did his job as he was supposed to but on more then one ocassion, he falsified the fact to gain some advantage. First statment i remeber was about a gun fight with a sanpan were they were stoping a boat to check for weapons and the drive grabed a ak-47. After the deal was over they found a 5 year old boy dead in the bottom of the boat. i guess kerry refused to report the little boy as a casualty and increased the number of combatentsd to make the fight look worse then it was. The only reason the report was know to be false was because the rest of the people in the squad was expecting to see an inquiry about the 5year old being killed and when it didn't happen they started looking for the reports filed.

The next thing was somethign about christmas '68 were Kerry testified in front of a senate hearing saying he was in one place when we weren't supposed to have been there. He did this in an attemp to further the anti war sediment that was sweeping congress as well as the rest of the nation. evedently this was a complete lie because later in and review of some movie Kerry did for a news paper he said he was somewere else completly different durring christmas of that year. Again the story about were he was at was being used to advance a goal he was working towards.

I guess we are about to see monica/witewater/whatthefuckever gate all over again.

Re:Yeah, right...

[killjoe]

Holy shit you actually believe all that? Man you got to stop listening to talk radio.

Re:Yeah, right...

[killjoe]

"All I do know is that when he claimed that everybody in Vietnam was a war criminal he was slandering me and everybody on my ship."

He said no such thing. You disgrace all military personell when you lie like that.

Re:Yeah, right...

[quixotic411]

How the hell is this a troll? Since when is telling the truth trolldom?

Re:Yeah, right...

[veg_all]

when he claimed that everybody in Vietnam was a war criminal

Show me that.

He claimed he had been told of atrocities. Do you deny that any such were committed by US troops? Hello? Mai Lai?

He claimed that that war was debasing the character of the country and costing the lives of its sons. Do you disagree?

So if he didn't say that, he didn't slander you. So what's your beef?

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

"Especially when the one leading the much rakers (Bush) himself dogdged Vietnam."

No one seemed to mind that Clinton dodged Vietnam. Why is it such a big deal now.

IMO, when Kerry started answering every question with "When I was in Vietnam...", he made his record fair game. However, he has not fully released that record. I wonder why not? There can't be much there for just four months.

Oh, and a few John Kerry quotes since you don't believe that he called soldier's criminals. This is from VIETNAM WAR VETERAN JOHN KERRY'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971 (http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKer ryTestimony.html)

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Re:Yeah, right...

[abionnnn]

In Soviet Russia, mods troll you!

I was going to (uselessly) mod it up. Then I realised that I used up my last mod point on yet another comment which had been suppressed because it was true.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Do you have sources for your allegations?

sri

Re:Yeah, right...

[quixotic411]

Get your facts right before you call someone a liar.

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

You disgrace idiots when you talk like that. I'm a Veteran "techno vampire" did not disgrace me at all. Here, let me give you a John Kerry quote from when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 (from www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestim ony.html

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Re:Yeah, right...

[quixotic411]

it's the only thing he claims to have done.

in 20 years in the Senate, he did nothing.

He marries wealthy women and uses their money.

the only thing he mentions is "When I was in Vietnam...."

Re:Yeah, right...

[Uebergeek]

Ok, time to cut through the lies.

The best link is here. That site, FactCheck.org, is a fair, non-partisan research group solely devoted to debunking false claims in politics and the media.

In short: One purple heart was for a contusion to the arm and shrapnel taken during the explosion of a nearby swiftboat. He *also* recieved shrapnel shortly before this in the buttock from a too-close toss of a handgrenade at a stockpile of rice to deny the VC foodstuffs. One of the silver stars being falsely questioned was for charging his swiftboat into an ambush and routing an entrenched VC force. Regardless, go read the analysis by factcheck, and you'll better understand exactly how fraudulent these slanders of John Kerry are.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

He did say "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command..." In other words, these these were happening all the time and everyone knew about it. He's not so stupid to sit there during a Senate hearing and say "everyone committed war crimes but me." He's a backstabber, but not a moron!

There, you've now been shown something like that anyway.

Re:Yeah, right...

[quixotic411]

thanks.... /. is beginning to look like the USSR version of /. ....

in America, the imperialist pigs mod you evil troll.

But really, this is more if timothy's bullshit about losing rights already lost.

Re:Yeah, right...

[NiceGeek]

Well, if they did those things...sounds like they are criminals...point please?

Re:Yeah, right...

[DaZedAdAm]

However, they were not under enemy fire and the reason Kerry's boat was there first was because Kerry ran when they came under fire.

So they were not under enemy fire but yet they were under enemy fire, eh? Sorry, you can't have both.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

By saying they served with Kerry, they meant that they served close to Kerry, but not on the same boat. I served on a tank. This is similar to what the swift boat guys did in the sense that we all had our own tanks and did our own thing. However, when we were deployed, or bunked down or received orders, or marched, or trained, or did anything at all that was not on the tank, we all did it together. While I did not serve on SGT Carpenter's tank in '91, I know that he would not make a good president. I know that he was coward, liar and backstabber. But because I was not ON HIS TANK, does that mean I don't know him? Also, not everyone on Kerry's boat supports him. There are a total of at least 60 Swift boat Vets that are against Kerry. There about 9 that are for him. You studied in school, right?

And, um, no. Vietnam Vets Against Kerry is not brought to you by the Republican Party. Just like Fahrenheit-911 was not brought to you by the Democratic party. (However, the Vietnam Vet guy is giving all him procedes from his book to charity... You can't say the same for McMoore)

Oh, and I thought Clinton held the copyright for cokeheads that avoided service in Vietnam. Why is it such a big deal now. No one cared when Clinton was running against Dole. I can see how Dole got his Purple Heart!

Re:Yeah, right...

[scooviduvoctagon]

"He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home."

"...engagements that earned him bronze and silver stars"???!

Do you really know the circumstances under which he received those awards? ( leave alone the very idea of getting rewarded in a situation/environment in which you are there to _kill_ people. )

What Kerry Really Did in Vietnam

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html

"How long were you there, my friend?"

Is that supposed to be some sort of indolent sarcasm??

Well, golly - because it's probable that the poster didn't spend any time in vietnam - he surely has no business disparaging Kerry's time there... That Kerry chose to go. That Kerry chooses to shamelessly politicize (i.e. whore out ) his time there. That Kerry quite likely didn't earn a damn thing while there, regardless of what he was handed.

As far as the topic as the two so called "candidates" being mostly the same, I believe Chomsky stated it quite well recently:

In the forthcoming presidential elections in the US, there is a choice: between two candidates who were born to wealth and political power, attended the same elite university, joined the same secret society that instructs members in the style and manners of the rulers, and are able to run because they are funded by largely the same corporate powers.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ectospasm]

One thing in addition to that, is that all those who did serve on the same boat stand behind Kerry's war record in unison. That has to say something, too.

Re:Yeah, right...

[sumdumass]

just so you know, i didn't claim anything. i repeated what someone else claimed. he was the machine gunner or somethign like that on kerry's boat.

But now thjt the debate is open, I'm not too sure kerry ws any better then bush in evading the war. he suposedly recieved a purple heart 3 months after he was denied it and then shortly after words was able to use it to get a ride home.

If half of what i have just read from the anti kerry veterens sites is true, i think he is worse then bush or clinton for nto going at all. there a difference in being a puss and not going, and being a duesch and weasling your way out of it after volenteering. Maybe there is somethign to this "wich stand will he take this week" thing.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Space Coyote]

If people did those things, then they are criminals. If officers ordered those things, they are criminals. John Kerry pointing this out has no effect on any soldier who did not commit or order such an act. That dog will. not. hunt. That's like saying the people who reported Abu Ghraib have betrayed all the soldiers in Iraq. It's simply nonsensical.

Re:Yeah, right...

[sumdumass]

what makes this even more outragous it, several newspapers and the navy itself started investigating these acusations. I keep seeing foot notes about this when ever i read an article about his senate testimony.

Of course no one signed a document with thier statments and after tracing down the people whos names were know to have been there making the warcrime statments, they soon found out that it was inpersonators claiming to be members of the armed services and the real people were on record being somewere else at the time the statements were made.

wether Kerry had any knowledge of this is irelevent. As far as i know he was just repeating what they made up, unless it was done on purpose to thwart the war effort in vietnam. All this was done as a show to try and end the war anyways. I guess anythign is far if you have somethign to gain from it.

Re:Yeah, right...

[sumdumass]

actually thats about the way it is acuratly stated. I mean if you compare it to the parents post.

Re:Yeah, right...

[True Grit]

I'd imagine that the crew of a sister boat would have a little more of an idea than someone who was just in Vietnam at the same time.

And I would imagine that the crew of Kerry's boat itself would have an even better idea of what happened. Now, versus the one who said Kerry saved his life and the others who generally support Kerry, how many of the rest of Kerry's own crew are calling him a liar?

Re:Yeah, right...

[dave420]

Stop watching so much fox! Kerry never once called all Americans war criminals, just those who actually committed war crimes (and even then, he didn't use such expressive language).

The US forces regularly uprooted villages, burned them down and moved the occupants on. They were innocent people. Napalming whole villages and machine-gunning people working in fields isn't exactly behaviour becoming the self-proclaimed greatest democracy. It's cowards committing bloodshed. The US military performed abysmally in Vietnam. First of all, it shouldn't have been there (oops - does that make me a commie?), and second of all it shouldn't just wade in and blow the crap out of everyone it comes across. It's no surprise America got its ass handed to it on a plate by the VC. Those guys knew how to fight properly, not throw HE at problems until they go away. sheesh.

Well, at least kerry was there to save a man's life, not hiding back in the US high on coke and scared to report for duty.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Trinition]

Well, if we never went to war in Iraq, then maybe the Abu Gahrib prison scandal wouldn't have... oh, wait... we're NOT talking about the Iraq war?

Re:Yeah, right...

[glesga_kiss]

He claimed he had been told of atrocities. Do you deny that any such were committed by US troops? Hello? Mai Lai?

War is full of atrocities. It IS an atrocity. Only a fool would believe that "their country was above all that". The Iraq torture scandals are case in point that these things can happen on all sides, even in "todays modern world".

When you are out on the streets or jungle and people are shooting at you, you tend to lose respect for them and their humanity. In order to make the troops fight with passion and without remorse, this dehumanizing effect is embraced and extended by the army.

Re:Yeah, right...

[argStyopa]

Wow, 4 whole posts before the inevitable "their side is lying, my side isn't" post.

Holy crap people, try disengaging the partisan engine for a MOMENT and maybe we can eventually work our way up to constructive discussions.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Danse]

One of the silver stars being falsely questioned was for charging his swiftboat into an ambush and routing an entrenched VC force.

As I heard it (from an interview with one of the guys that served with him), the force was one guy with an RPG. Now don't get me wrong, that guy could have taken out Kerry's boat, or given them away to others which could have been just as fatal, but it was still just one guy. Nice site though. I'm gonna have to spend some time reading through it :)

Re:Yeah, right...

[abe ferlman]

Clinton

1. Is not running for office today
2. Did not send 900+ American soldiers to their deaths
3. May have avoided service but did not shirk it upon having accepted it.

Vietnam sucked, there were some very good reasons to want to avoid going. No one cares too much that Bush didn't go to Vietnam. They do care that he couldn't even be bothered to show up for his guard service.

Avoiding a misguided war is one thing. Going AWOL from service you took an oath to complete is quite another.

Incidentally - who turned the giant troll loose in the original post? Kerry wants the states to decide on Gay Marriage and is pretty strongly against offshoring- the article linked from the post just says that people who like to offshore jobs are supporting Kerry *despite* the fact that he opposes offshoring.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Danse]

How the bloody hell is pointing out that crimes were being committed, and that those in command knew about it, considered back-stabbing? We're supposed to support war-crimes now? Vietnam was a fucked up situation. Kerry was pointing out what everyone should have known, but some chose to ignore. I may not like Kerry for other reasons, but I don't see how that amounts to back-stabbing.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Danse]

It's no surprise America got its ass handed to it on a plate by the VC. Those guys knew how to fight properly, not throw HE at problems until they go away. sheesh.

Not that I disagree or anything, but it IS a bit easier to fight well when you can identify your enemy easily. That's one big thing that the VC had going for them. Well that and their numbers. Besides, it's not like the VC didn't intentionally put their civilians at risk by using them as weapons whenever possible.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Tiroth]

No one seemed to mind that Clinton dodged Vietnam. Why is it such a big deal now.

Let's forget for a moment that Clinton's draft dodging WAS in fact an issue that got a lot of airtime by Republican commentors and realize:

It's called hypocrisy, that's why. Bush has made his platform the fact that he is a "war president" and has impugned the military record of his opponent, despite not having served himself.

You may disagree with the criticism he is getting, but you should hardly be surprised.

Re:Yeah, right...

[www www www]

They don't dispute John Kerry served in vietnam. They don't dispute John Kerry saved a man's life. The only dispute they have is that people were not firing at John Kerry as he was saving some guys life. Oh and they don't dispute his other purple hearts either.

It would be hard to dispute that Kerry saved some guys life, since that guy is a registered Republican who has been on the campaign trail with Kerry. The guy was even with Kerry on the stage in Boston together with all the rest of the surviving crew of the boat that Kerry commanded in Vietnam. The guy's name is James Rassmann. By the way, this is not the only Republican Kerry has saved the life of :).

Re:Yeah, right...

[ReadParse]

Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.

Actually there are only two reports of Kerry's departure from Vietnam that I can find anything about. If he had truly been sent home due to valor or injury or whatever, that documentation would absolutely be in the collection of military records that appears on Kerry's website. It's obvious to anyone who has served (I was in the Personnel Records business when I served) that the records on his site are not complete. He's just offered the flattering highlights.

The first theory is that the other officers in his unit requested that he be sent home after his third Purple Heart, mainly because of his attitude and the fact that he was a loose cannon. That medal was not considered a very honorable thing to have by the SWIFT boat guys, because it meant they had made a mistake. Most minor injuries were never turned into Purple Heart citations.

The other theory about his departure from Vietnam is that he used the "three-and-out" policy. There was an informal Navy "instruction", numbered 1300.39, that allowed an officer to request transfer out of Vietnam after 3 injuries. He apparently requested this transfer on March 17, 1969. It's interesting that this request is missing from his military records on his website, since his request to go to Vietnam is included, you would think his request to return home, or especially orders to return home if he did not request it, would be included. Interestingly, there is no mention of his departure from Vietnam in the records posted.

You should read this recollection from the doctor who treated Kerry the day after he was "wounded". His injuries were not severe enough to be treated by a medic or evacuated by helicopter, by the way... he showed up the next day at sick call and the shrapnel, which apparently did not come from enemy fire, was removed without anesthesia and the "wound" was covered with a band-aid.

I heard part of the decoration citation for his Silver Star medal on TV last night, and the question posed was something along the lines of "why would the Navy write such a thing if it wasn't true?". Well that answer is obvious to anybody who was ever in the military. Most officers write their own citations and they get rubber-stamped by their chain of command. Most decorations are just things you get to enhance your career. When I was in the Air Force, for example, if you didn't have an Achievement Medal by the time you had been in about 2 years and a Commendation Medal by the time you had been in about 5 years, you had pissed somebody off. And the Meritorious Service Medal was the traditional award for a Senior NCO either retiring or transferring to another duty station.

Purple Hearts and the various Star medals require combat action, which is the only reason they're not handed out in the same way, and the only things which keep them from being just as worthless as the medals I mentioned before.

I also knew of a guy at my duty station who had gotten a Bronze Star for service he had rendered during an action (excuse the vagueness... the situation was so weird that I would give away who it was to some with ANY more detail), and everybody who knew anything about the incident knew it was BS. He had gotten cut or scraped or something, which qualified it as a "wound" during non-flight enemy engagement.

Don't get me wrong -- as a veteran, I have the highest respect for those who have served, particular those who have been in the line of fire, as Kerry was. But when people read citations and take them as something exceptional when they happen all the time and they're usually written by the recipient, I have to respond.

RP

Re:Yeah, right...

[cswiii]

Not to mention that Rassman has been caught in his own lies about the whole incident.

Re:Yeah, right...

[cswiii]

Oops, I meant Thurlow, the guy who was accusing Kerry of being dishonest. Thurlow , busted.

Also, more interesting information about the swiftboat veterans.

Re:Yeah, right...

[cswiii]

While they say that Kerry did pull a man out of the water, there were other boats that were feet away that were going to save him. However, they were not under enemy fire and the reason Kerry's boat was there first was because Kerry ran when they came under fire.

According to American History Magazine,

"Thurlow was struggling to get PCF-3's wounded gunner out of his hole and onto the deck when the damaged Swift ran aground hard on a shoal on the right side of the river, sending Thurlow somersaulting into the water. At the same moment, the five Swifts came under fire from the right side again, and Kerry remembered thinking that was it -- they were going to get completely cut off and annihilated in a crossfire."

Larry Thurlow is one of these bankrolled swiftboat veterans who is accusing Kerry of getting his medals illegitimately.

Kerry and the other wounded men received medical attention aboard a Coast Guard cutter, which was the closest ship capable of treating them. Along with a third Purple Heart for the injury to his right arm, Kerry was also awarded a Bronze Star for his bravery, as was Larry Thurlow.

Interesting, then... if Kerry doesn't deserve his Bronze Star, then what can we say about Thurlow's?

(borrowed from DailyKos.com's story)

Re:Yeah, right...

[glesga_kiss]

Still.. that's an explanation, not an excuse.

I don't think there has been a good excuse to go to war since 1939. I'd have signed up for that one with honour, but nothing that the UK has been involved in since then.

Re:Yeah, right...

[An Onerous Coward]

The claim the grandparent post is disputing is that John Kerry called all soldiers who served in Vietnam war criminals. Presumably, since Kerry was in 'Nam, such a claim would make him a war criminal as well. Now you're changing the claim to "Kerry said some soldiers committed illegal, criminal acts, and are buttressing the claim by pointing to a quote where John Kerry says he knew of soldiers who claimed to have performed criminal acts.

My question to you: If Kerry's claim was accurate, why do you disagree with him making it?

Clinton dodged Vietnam because he didn't want to support a war he considered unjust. Kerry served in 'Nam, decided it was unjust, and then worked to end it. W had strings pulled to keep him out of the war and out of harm's way, but never offers a lick of evidence that his actions were due to moral disagreement with the war rather than mere self-preservation.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

Good eye.

The boat hit a mine, that was the enemy fire that Kerry is said to have run from. The enemy fire from the shore that Kerry so valiantly ignored is said to have not existed.

Thanx for catching my "unclarity".

Re:Yeah, right...

[DavidTC]

All this 'minor wound' stuff is crap, anyway. You get purple hearts for minor wounds. It's not like there's some sort of ranking system there. You get wounded in any way while in the military in a war zone, you can legitimately get a purple heart.

Now, they probably don't give them out for very very minor wounds, or fairly minor wounds you stupidly inflict on yourself. You cut yourself shaving or fall off a ladder and sprain your ankle, you probably won't get one...but you could, technically.

What I want to see is someone who was ever denied a purple heart while wounded under fire. Because you won't find it. If people are shooting at you, you can get one for running too fast down a hill and breaking your leg.

The implication that Kerry somehow got special awards that others did simply isn't true.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

1) True, Clinton is not running today. But those that said his lack of service did not matter are saying GWB's lack of service does. I have more against the people who support Kerry than Kerry himself.

2) Yes, Clinton sent soldiers to their deaths to dispose of Slobodon Millosovich in Bosnia (forgive an misspellings). What did Slobo do to make that war justified that Saddam didn't do? We had no UN resolution agains Bosnia, much less the 17 that were violated by Iraq. Over a million children did not die in Bosnia, as they did in Iraq. Yet, Clinton was given a pass while Bush is called Hitler. Why?

3) Trust me, if Bush were AWOL, he would have been tossed out on his ass. He met his obligation. Even that partisan site you posted says, "substitute training for a missed UTA was performed, it was associated with a specific required UTA period."
I could even put a slanted Micheal Moore type spin on it and say, "While Kerry spent a whole 4 months in Vietnam defending the Vietnamese and 2 years protesting America, GWB was actually defending America and Americans from the threat of Soviet bombers here in the US."

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

That's my point, hypocrisy, and it goes both ways to some extent.

And... Bush has not "impugned the military record of his opponent", the 529's have done that (or whatever number). Just like McMoore and MoveOn.org compare Bush to Hitler. Has Bush taken over all of Europe and gassed 6 million people? Has Bushed suspended elections and carpet bombed cities? No? They how is he Hitler again? But as soon as a group questions JK's military record, the record that JK has touts but has refused to release completely, they are called "biggots and hatemongerers".

It's not that I disagree with criticism, that's fair, it's the level of blind hatred that gets to me. I was a democrat before ANSWER came along.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

My point is that Kerry sat there before a Senate committee and claimed that those he served with were criminals. It was found later that the people who made the claims Kerry was referring to were not soldiers at all. So he was a back-stabber because he gave testimony from heresay that accused those he served with of these crimes. It is one thing to oppose the war, but it's something else entirely to make false accusations against those that would've saved your life.

Yes, Vietnam was AFU. Not so much because we were there, but because our soldiers over there were muzzled and not supported. Kinda what Kerry wants to do to the soldiers in Iraq right now. He did vote to send them and then vote not to equip them.

Either way, I made the point because someone said "Show me where" Kerry said such things and that's exactly what I did.

Re:Yeah, right...

[killjoe]

Where in that quote does he say that everybody who served in vietnam is a war criminal?

Re:Yeah, right...

[Danse]

First of all, there were a lot of crimes committed by US forces in Vietnam. I don't think you or anyone else can dispute that. Second, does it really matter whether the people that made the claims were soldiers or not? How does that affect the validity of their claims? They are either correct, or they aren't. I haven't seen any evidence either way. As for his voting record, I don't think any politician votes "not to equip our troops". Those bills have a lot of other effects that can influence how congresspeople vote on them. Those that put the bills forth know this, as do those that amend them. Why just blame someone for voting against a bill? Why not blame the one who got us over there in the first place and whose cost estimates were WAAAAY under the actual costs, in more ways than one?

Re:Yeah, right...

[killjoe]

Oh yes let's blame the people who report the shit and not the military who actually did the shit.

Did you ever think that nick berg might have his head if the us military did not torture iraqis in the first place?

Re:Yeah, right...

[techno-vampire]

It's no surprise America got its ass handed to it on a plate by the VC.

But we didn't. In the Tet Offensive in '68, the VC was almost annihilated. After that we were fighting the NVA. In '72, they sent more armor and mobile troups across the border than the Germans did to The Battle of the Kursk Salient, the biggest armor battle of the war. I know; I was there doing shore bombardments with a 5'/54. The got back nothing. We smashed their armor, trashed their trucks and jeeps and blew up their ammo. Yes, we threw HE at them until they went away, but almost all the casualties in that battle were NVA. Throwing HE at them saved American lives and as an American I see nothing wrong with that. Then, when the liberals, bleeding hearts and cowards at home got their way we gave up and let them have what they wanted. The worst thing about this is that it taught others that if they keep fighting long enough we will give up. Not a good reputation to have. I hope Kerry's proud of the way he helped the US become a nation of cowards.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

Kerry said objection his objection to the $87 billion to equip the troops in Iraq was that it did not repeal the Bush tax cuts. In other words, it was more important to hand Bush a political defeat than it was to equip our troops.

But in reality:

Kerry was in trouble for voting for the war during the democratic primaries. He could not compound that by voting to pay for it and still be able to compete with Howard Dean. So, in other words, it was more important to gain a political victory for himself than it was to equip the troops.

All partisanship aside; The troops were in no danger of not being equipped. Bush would have either brought the troops home or made whatever consessions he needed to do in order to make sure those men and women got what needed. However, it was John Kerry's intention to make it as painful as possible for the President.

Re:Yeah, right...

[VooDoo999]

He also went to Harvard for Business School.

Re:Yeah, right...

[abe ferlman]

1) True, Clinton is not running today. But those that said his lack of service did not matter are saying GWB's lack of service does. I have more against the people who support Kerry than Kerry himself.

It's not lack of service, it's aborted service. It's the AWOL, stupid. Clinton opposed the Vietnam war and got out of it, which is consistent. Bush supported the war and weaseled out of fulfilling his obligations.

2) Yes, Clinton sent soldiers to their deaths to dispose of Slobodon Millosovich in Bosnia (forgive an misspellings). What did Slobo do to make that war justified that Saddam didn't do? We had no UN resolution agains Bosnia, much less the 17 that were violated by Iraq. Over a million children did not die in Bosnia, as they did in Iraq. Yet, Clinton was given a pass while Bush is called Hitler. Why?

This is so easy. Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to war, and did not divert resources from a more important war to launch a war of choice.

Oh yes, we had zero combat deaths and a clear exit strategy in Kosovo. I'd say Clinton used American military power wisely and judiciously.

Most Americans supported the goal of eliminating Saddam but opposed the way it was done and the priorities (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) it displaced.

3) Trust me, if Bush were AWOL, he would have been tossed out on his ass.

There's some evidence that he was, but that strings were pulled to reverse it. See the link in the parent post.

I don't know what dream world you live in, but in this world the son of Nixon's UN Ambassador sure as hell gets special treatment even if he isn't the grandson of a Senator and heir apparent to one of the most powerful families in the nation.

He met his obligation. Even that partisan site you posted says, "substitute training for a missed UTA was performed, it was associated with a specific required UTA period."

Funny how your word for "containing facts that disprove my argument" is "partisan".

The point is that what little make-up service Bush performed did not cover the time period everyone is talking about (May-September 1972)- it covered a *different* period.

I could even put a slanted Micheal Moore type spin on it and say, "While Kerry spent a whole 4 months in Vietnam defending the Vietnamese and 2 years protesting America, GWB was actually defending America and Americans from the threat of Soviet bombers here in the US."

Yes, in Alabama playing volleyball with ambitious secretaries. As an administrative officer once he unilaterally decided to stop flying without permission, Bush's keen filing skills kept us safe from the red menace on the days he felt like showing up.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Danse]

Well Bush chose to go fight a war in Iraq. Bush chose the size and nature of the tax cuts. Bush was wrong on both counts and the people of this country have been paying for it, especially those serving in the military. There were much more pressing problems than Iraq. Iran is much farther along with their nuclear ambitions. North Korea has become a major problem and is a much bigger threat than Iraq would ever be in the near to mid future. So why are we fighting in Iraq? Bush and co. claim it is because Saddam is a bad bad man and we need to send a message to countries that we won't allow them to have WMDs. Some message. Maybe we should have picked a country that actually has WMDs. It's not like there aren't other choices. Now we're still stuck there and can't seem to extricate ourselves. We're still losing troops every day. There's still no peace in Iraq. Bush was il-equipped to lead us into war, and I really don't see what he has to be proud of in that department. Not that Kerry would have done any better. Even if he would have gone to war, it's easy to claim that you would have done it differently given the benefit of hindsight. But the war was a really bad idea, and Bush damn well should have had to make sacrifices. He should have let the tax cuts go. He should have admitted that he screwed up pretty damn bad. But he won't. So I don't fault Kerry for voting against the extra funding. It shouldn't have been needed. Maybe it wouldn't have been needed if Bush had actually planned for what would take place after we rolled over Saddam's main forces. Seems everything Bush was telling us leading up to the war was a bunch of BS. He screws up and wants us to spend and spend and spend to help cover his mistakes. Like the deficit needs to get any bigger. Yeah, you're right. The troops weren't in any danger of not being equipped. I'm sure everyone voting against the bill knew that too. And they were right to make it painful for him. If he's not going to own up to his mistakes, then it's the least they can do.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Warpedcow]

Actually, when Kerry signed up for the war, the unit he signed up for was not in active combat. Kerry got moved into combat after he had joined. So Kerry was trying to avoid fighting when he signed up. On the other hand, Bush signed up for the Texas Natl Guard, which, at the time he signed up, WAS in active combat in Vietnam. However, by the time Bush finished flight school, that unit had been pulled out of combat. So really Bush was doing the "honorable" thing, not Kerry.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

When I see men getting their hands and heads chopped off and I hear stories of men receiving video tapes of their wives being raped or have to sit their while their kids legs are broken, I have a hard time callng Iraq a mistake and I doubt those that lived throught that would say it was a mistake either. You mention other countries that are "worse" than Iraq, like Korea and Iran. Well, it would be nice to go into both of those, but after all the "Bush is Hitler" protests that we saw, I don't see how we can "liberate" any country.

Besides, Iran has more or less free elections, and they are electing moderates. Eventually, the radical clerics may fall there. Our attacking Iran will only empower those clerics and hurt the democracy that is trying to take place there.

Korea is a different case. For starters, S. Korea does not want us to go to war with N. Korea. Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran liked the idea of Saddam being gone, even if only privately.

Finally, we had intel from Russia, according to Putin, that Iraq was indeed planning to attack the US. So what was Bush to do? Ignore the intel and let an attack that makes 9-11 look like any other weekday take place? Could you imagine the commission on that one? The "Bush knew" attacks would be true! Or he could take Saddam out and show the world that we are not to be fucked with. I like that one best!

Yes, the intel pointing to WMD stockpiles was wrong, but the WMD research intel was not. You don't leave a man like that in power when you know he has no problems using WMD's when he is sitting on top of 15% of the world's oil to pay for the research.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

1) The bottom line is that Bush's superior officers said he fulfilled his duty. Kerry's superior officers said that if they knew the truth about what happened, they would've never given him his medals.

2) Bush didn't lie about WMD's in Iraq. If he did, then so did Clinton, Feinstein, Chirac, Shroeder, Kerry, Edwards and so on. I think all of these people honestly believed that Iraq had the stockpiles. We know that they were still doing research and trying to acquire the stockpiles. The difference is that Bush was the only one of these with the Balls to do anything about it.
The strategy of not bombing below 10000 feet would not have worked in Iraq. Saddam was settled in and was not leaving. Had we used Clinton's strategy of lobbing missiles from afar, we'd still be in the same place were in in 2000. Oh, except more Iraqi civilians would be dead.

3) See number one.

"Funny how your word for "containing facts that disprove my argument" is "partisan""
Just like McMoore's movie contained all facts. Again, see number one.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Space Coyote]

You're either a liar or the most ignorant fuck to grace this board yet. U.S. Government, Media Silent on Torture of Detained Iraqi Kids You can't get away with the Limbaugh "they were just blowing off steam" line. Don't even make yourself look stupid by even trying, unless you think child rape is a good time.

Re:Yeah, right...

[killjoe]

It's obvious you are a supremely ignorant you must be getting all your news from Fox.

There have been at least nine deaths of prisoners, at least six of them have been ruled as MURDER by the armies own medical examiner. So its not just about wearing panties on the head it's about beating people until they die.

What Fox isn't telling you (and the taguba report is) is that dogs had torn up the leg of one prisoner, that women prisoners have been raped, that male prisoners had been crucified to beds and jail doors, that male prisoners were made to mastubate in other male prisoners mouths.

Rumsfeld when asked about the pictures that we are not allowed to see described them as "sick and sadistic". If the pictures he saw were sick and twisted to rumsfeld god only knows how a normal non depraved individual would view them.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ArcherB]

I agree with you that what happened was very wrong. However, the climate there is still 1000% better than it was before. And before, it was legally sactioned, even encouraged by the former Iraqi government. Now, we report and condemn it and charge those we find to be responsible.

My point is that is WAS MUCH WORSE BEFORE. Yes, it is still bad, but is better than it was and that point is lost on the world's media has motivated the radicles by only pointing out the bad, and not pointing out the improvement.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Danse]

Democracy or not, Iran has and does support terrorists. Do we let them continue their nuclear program? They are doing much better at it than Iraq. As for N. Korea, of course S. Korea doesn't want us to attack them. If we did, thounsands of S. Koreans would be slaughtered within hours. But I'm not talking about going to war with N. Korea. I'm talking about addressing the problem, which is something that Bush refuses to do. If N. Korea can start producing a significant number of nukes, they WILL sell them to anyone with money. Bush seems to think that if we don't speak to them, eventually something will change for the better. He needs to get engaged and start working towards a solution, not just screw around with Iraq.

When I see men getting their hands and heads chopped off and I hear stories of men receiving video tapes of their wives being raped or have to sit their while their kids legs are broken, I have a hard time callng Iraq a mistake and I doubt those that lived throught that would say it was a mistake either.

Ahh, play the emotional card. Ok. Yeah, Saddam is a bad man and has done many horrible things. So have countless other dictators. There are plenty of things as bad or worse going on in Africa right now. You don't see us liberating half of Africa though, do you? Where's the outrage?! Bush went to war with Iraq for his own reasons. He had a hell of a time convincing us that we needed to do it, and most everything he said turned out to be false. Iraq wasn't supporting Al-Qaeda, as he suggested. Iraq wasn't trying to purchase nukes from Nigere as he said they were. Iraq didn't have any WMDs as he said they did. Iraq was certainly wanting to develop such weapons, but they were only in the very early stages, and we've got plenty of others to worry about. As for Iraq planning an attack on the US, how does invading Iraq make a difference in that area? Fixing our intelligence and security problems should have been his main goal. But ok, Saddam is a bad man. I'll give him that one. I just don't think it would have convinced anyone of the need to liberate Iraq if it weren't for the pack of lies that came with it. He just got up and spouted off every unsupported, half-assed theory he and his cohorts could think of in the hopes that we would be willing to go to war. Oh yeah, and he lied about the costs too. Bigtime.

Bottom line, if he wanted us to support the war because Saddam is a bad person that commits attrocities, then he should have just said that, and left it at that. That he went to the extend of fabricating so many other reasons leads me to believe that he had ulterior motives that he was not willing to divulge.

Re:Yeah, right...

[abe ferlman]

The bottom line... that's what people who don't want accountability always focus on. Not on the numbers that got you to the bottom line. People who want accountability want to know how you GOT that bottom line.

Regarding Kerry and his service, I'll stick with McCain's opinion- Kerry served honorably and no dirty trick is going to change that. There are some sick people out there. He volunteered for combat, I don't particularly care about the shiny objects bestowed upon him after the fact. But tell me, do you think the people who give out medals are that stupid?

Bush's administration lied about certainty and specificity. Bush's State of the Union address identified specific quantities of specific substances, and Rumsfeld announced their location. You don't do those sort of things when you're not sure. All the others were emboldened by the administration's confidence in those findings, and rightly so; you'd expect the executive branch to have the best access to intelligence. When people raised doubts they were told "trust us, we know what we're doing". Well, Fool me once, shame on you, as they say.

And I defy you to come up with any methodology by which you can show that more civilians would be dead if Saddam were still in power than as a result of the war. As a conservative estimate over 11,000 civilians have been killed directly as a result of this war. So far we only know about 5000 or so from Saddam's reign, and it seems that many of these were from the insurgency after the first Gulf War that the US encouraged but failed to support. Furthermore, it's not clear at all that Allawi is going to be any better. You may recall that this is why we didn't take out Saddam the first time- it was judged that Saddam was a known quantity, and humbled at that- it was not clear that we could easily do better. This alone does not show that the war wasn't justified, but it does show that your thinking is very lazy.

As for the bombing strategy, duh you use different tactics in different places and if they aren't useful then you evaluate your chances of success and the cost of the conflict in the specific case. 900+ American soldiers dead and over 10,000 Iraqis dead so Allawi can demonstrate even faster Due Process than Texas under Bush.

Why do you want to talk about Michael Moore so badly? Quit trying to change the subject.

Here's a recap of our discussion of Bush's AWOL:

Me: Bush was AWOL, here's the facts that prove it.
You: That site is partisan.
Me: That doesn't change the facts it contains.
You: MICHAEL MOORE MICHAEL MOORE!
Me: WTF?

Can't believe I'm wasting my time on you. In a sense you win- there goes 15 minutes I'll never get back and no one who cares will ever read this.

Re:Yeah, right...

[killjoe]

"My point is that is WAS MUCH WORSE BEFORE."

My point is that that is a stupid and senseless thing to say. That's like a murderer saying that he is not all that bad because Jeffrey Dahmer killed more people and ate them. It's not good enough to be better then one of the most vile human beings that ever lived. If you set the bar that low for yourself then I pity you.

As for things being better for the average iraqi that's just billshit. The average iraqi had power, water, and food before the war. Things were even better for the average iraqi before the US lead sanctions. The sanctions made millions of people miserable and caused massive disease and starvation but you know what it was still better then the current condition where hundreds of iraqis die every week from "coalition" bombs and there is no water and power for millions of people.

As for the so called radicals I presume they are motivated by the fact that their country was invaded and is being occupied by Americans who are racially, ethnically and religiously different from them. If the US was invaded and occupied by Iraq I would be fighting too. Would you?

Re:Yeah, right...

[DaZedAdAm]

I see...that makes sense I guess.

Re:Yeah, right...

[laird]

"Just like McMoore and MoveOn.org compare Bush to Hitler"

This is a stupid, baseless claim, but it gets repeated so often by partisan mudslingers that I can't let it pass. MoveOn.org held a contest, to which hundreds of people submitted anti-Bush ads. One person submitted an ad comparing Bush to the Nazi's. All submissions were automatically made visible on MoveOn.org's web site so that people could vote on them, and the voting would determine the winner. The "Nazi" ad was pulled from the web site as soon as people complained about it.

And, if you actually watched the ad, rather than reading RNC press released, you'll see that it didn't claim that Bush was a Nazi, or did everything that the Nazi's did. It claimed that Bush used some of the same tactics that the Nazi's used (e.g. "the Big Lie" tactic for getting people to believe useful things that aren't true through repetition, and Goering's famous quote about how easy it is to maneuver a country into supporting a war by attacking your opponents' patriotism). So while it's usually a bad sign when Nazis come into a conversation (people's brains tend to shut off), it's hard to argue that Bush's team didn't use those tactics to promote the invasion of Iraq.

Re:Yeah, right...

[dave420]

Right. Right. The VC ran circles around the US troops. The Americans had to practically inihilate entire swathes of a country to make a dent.

I seem to remember it was the northern tanks that rolled into the US compound, not the other way round, so you guys couldn't have been that good. Of course, to Americans, cover it in enough flags and bullshit, and they'll believe it was santa claus.

Throwing napalm at a bunch of kids saved US lives?? Wow. You really are nuts. I mean, come on. Use some logic there. The US acted disgracefully, using its usual tactic of no subtlety, no hearts and minds, just "blow the fuck out of everything that moves". You want cowards? Look at those soldiers. Using helicopters and jet planes against a bunch of guys hiding in tunnels using improvised weapons. Pathetic. Don't fool yourself the US is anything but a big, selfish bully. You'll be disappointed.

Re:Yeah, right...

[techno-vampire]

I see: instead of responding to what I wrote, you respond to what you wish I'd written and throw ad homonem attacks. Yes, the NVA came across the border in 72, we didn't go looking for them. When they did, we blew up their tanks, their half-tracks, their trucks, their ammo and them. They lost allmost all their materiel and suffered a high casuilty rate while doing little or no damage to us. Sounds like they came, we kicked their asses and they ran to me.

As far as the nampalm goes, I'm not making any excuses because there's no way to excuse that. Yes, people made mistakes, people got carried away, people did wrong. But what you're unwilling to accept is that those were exceptions, not the rule. That type of conduct was never considered acceptable and unlike the lies Kerry told it was never a matter of policy, or routine. Kerry used the tried-and-true big lie technique, and it worked.

So let me get this straight...

[sheldon]

GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.

And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.

Uh huh.

You got something to say, then say it. You don't need these stage props to make your point.

Fucking whiner.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Wavicle]

GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.

IANAL, but isn't there a particular length of a clip that is considered fair use? A lawyer can write all they want, but that doesn't mean what they write is necessarily what the law says.

And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.

Still, IANAL, but don't the courts generally give fairly wide lattitude to political speech? Using many images from George Butler's collection might be questionable, but a poignant image to their political message might be appropriate use.

Anybody who is AL know what the courts have generally done in these circumstances?

Re:So let me get this straight...

[CrowScape]

The article states (at least the one concerning the MTP footage) that it's expensive to fight off a copyright lawsuit, and there are no real hard rules that you'll be alright if you follow for when you do not have permission to use copyrighted footage. So, even though they may be perfectly within their rights, it's just not worth the risk finacially. Still, the grand parent was complaining about how everything was being construed to mean that Bush and Kerry were the ones surpressing the respective media.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[1u3hr]

GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.

Not Moore: "In August, Robert Greenwald will release an updated version of his award-winning film, Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War. Greenwald has added a clip of President George W. Bush's February interview..."

Huh?

[Baby Duck]

My vote for most nonsensical Slashdot story summary.

I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

For a long time I've believed that a third party vote is a waste because of our lousy voting system. But I'm beginning to change my mind. If the dems lose enough elections because of spoilers like Nader, maybe they'll eventually back voting reform and we can get a decent system like instant runoff.

I think I may vote my concience this time. I'm begining to think that voting reform is a more worthy long term goal then replacing Bush the tool with Kerry the tool.

Cheers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Minna Kirai]

If the dems lose enough elections because of spoilers like Nader, maybe they'll eventually back voting reform and we can get a decent system like instant runoff.

Impossible. Even if losing makes them support voting reform, so what? They're LOSERS, and have no power to change anything.

If you have the power to make changes, then the current system is working for you and you won't change it. Or if the system is against you, then you'll want to change it but be unable.

(Notice how Congressional districts have been carefully laid to uphold the status quo)

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Veridium]

I say vote your conscience man. Do it, do it, do it. Don't listen to the naysayers.

As for voting reform, I think we need a system like the Aussies. Preferential voting. Here's a page that has info about one implementation if you're interested:
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/ElectoralInfo/WP_Prefere ntialVoting.htm

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[nadabu14]

I've been thinking the same thing. Trying to address the complex realities of modern politics with a two-party political system is like a trying to operate my computer with a lightswitch. It sucks. And it gets even worse as the two options grow ever more alike.

I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. At this point, I don't even care who the main third party option is. I know they won't win this election; I just want to crack open the door for some meaningful diversity in American politics.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is short-sighted. The first step to a long term solution is to vote third party now.

And don't even think about abstaining. Not voting is functionally a vote for either of the two parties, not a vote for neither, as some suppose.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Kris_J]

Sounds great on paper, but we're also in the "vote for one of two parties that suck or waste your vote" boat just like the US. That said, I joined the Greens last week.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Ricdude]

If that were the case, you'd see Kerry moving to the left, instead of the center. Nader was enough of a "spoiler" (barring the Florida issues of voter role purge, absentee ballot handling, and Gore winning more actual votes) to make any level headed democrat think twice before running right back to the center.

I changed my party affiliation in 2001 to the Green Party. It's not just about environmentalism, they seem to have the closest political views to me on all of their major platforms. I wrote to local democrats, and I told them why.

Will I vote for Kerry? In these immortal words, http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com

Will it be everything I want in a candidate? No. Will it be better than Bush? By miles...

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Understood. But don't underestimate the value of having that much.

Imagine how much better off Iraq would have been if every four years they'd been able to choose the lesser of two evils.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Jeremi]

I say vote your conscience man. Do it, do it, do it. Don't listen to the naysayers.

I say vote intelligently. I'm a bigger fan of electoral reform than anyone, but the facts are this: (a) it ain't gonna happen this election, and (b) we can't afford another four years of corruption and incompetence on the scale we've seen since 2000. To quote Arianna Huffington, "When your house is on fire, it's not the time to talk about remodeling."

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[nadabu14]

Agreed.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[trenobus]

If the dems lose enough elections

If the dems lose this election, they ought to disband the party. The 2000 election should never have been as close as it was, and now that everyone can see what Bush really stands for, this election shouldn't be close either.

I could see something like a New Democratic Party, just like the old Democratic party, only with competent people running the campaigns. IMHO, the biggest mistake the Democrats make is trying to make rational arguments to people who are not rational. They need to learn to appeal to emotion, religion, fear, and hatred.

Ok, I'm a little bitter, and Democrats have a lot of other faults. But when Kerry said in his convention speech that he believes in science, it struck me that that, more than anything else, is what distinguishes him from Bush.

Science and rational thought need a serious modding up in the world, and the people who believe in it need to hang together until it happens. We can always split into Socialists and Libertarians later.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[advocate_one]

"If you have the power to make changes, then the current system is working for you and you won't change it. Or if the system is against you, then you'll want to change it but be unable."

Well, I was gonna mod you up, but felt this reply was more appropriate.

Happened in the good ole UK, Tony Blair and "new labour" in conjunction with the Liberal Democrats were making a lot of noises about voting reform and having proportional representation when they were in opposition before '97, but ever since "new labour" got into power we haven't heard any more about it from them... possibly because it would mean them losing.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Jeremi]

I've been thinking the same thing. Trying to address the complex realities of modern politics with a two-party political system is like a trying to operate my computer with a lightswitch.

That is exactly right. The job of an electoral system is to fairly represent the will of the electorate, and our current system utterly fails at that task whenever there are more than two significant candidates. The fact that people cannot in good conscience vote for their (third-party) candidate of choice is a glaring indication that the process simply does not work.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is short-sighted. The first step to a long term solution is to vote third party now.

I have to disagree here. The situation may suck, but allowing the greater evil to be elected will only make the situation suck worse. Do you really think that George W. is going to champion electoral reform for you? Perhaps you think that losing will inspire the Democratic Party to do so, and it might -- except that they won't be in power, so they won't have the ability to help you. And frankly, at the rate we're going, four more years of W might cost us even the limited democratic freedoms we enjoy now.

IMHO, the best course of action is to minimize the damage on the national level by voting for the lesser of two evils (and I'd say Kerry isn't even evil so much as mediocre -- but compared to Bush he's a breath of fresh air), while at the same time pushing for electoral reforms at the local and state levels. Reform is much easier to accomplish there, and once the benefits of better electoral systems have been well demonstrated, it will be much less difficult to get similar reforms passed nationally.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Unordained]

"When your house is on fire, it's not the time to talk about remodeling."

You're right. While the house is on fire, you should be thinking "hey, once they're done removing this wreck from the plot of land, what should we build in its place?" If nothing else, you should probably think to build a house that won't so easily set itself on fire. Besides, in our current political climate, everything's always on fire (it keeps people interested/scared;) if we keep putting off design issues until better days, we'll never get there. (No, I don't program XP-style, and yes, I do like replacing software from scratch -- even my own.)

Just let it burn.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Veridium]

There's nothing more intelligent than voting for the person you think is best for the job. You won't support a third party candidate in 4 years, you'll be just as afraid then of whoever the republicans are offering as you are now. It will NEVER change, until you've decided you've had enough. I've had enough. NO MORE DEMOCRAT, NO MORE REPUBLICAN. Lying sacks of piss by any other name...

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[wass]

I think I may vote my concience this time. I'm begining to think that voting reform is a more worthy long term goal then replacing Bush the tool with Kerry the tool.

I would normally agree with you, but this election is far too important. Ie, the stakes are way the hell too high. It's a math problem, kind of like like the prisoner's dilemma. Is 4 more years of worsening hell worth getting a guy that IMHO isn't all that bad?

In 2000 I voted for Nader because, like you, I hate the two party system and wasn't too enthralled by the democrats options. I was in a solidly-democrat state (Maryland). However, in 2002, a republican governor was elected, so I don't know how solid the democratic base is anymore. And even so, I want to make sure my popular vote is counted towards Kerry.

But this time around is so so different. I really feel if Bush gets elected again our country will go down the shitter real fast. I mean, there were many even more controversial things he didn't do because he had to maintain the swing voters to vote him in for the 2nd term. Expect no such moderation if he's re-elected.

My priority this time is to make damn sure Bush stays out of office. Look at the math. It's either gain a small amount vs losing a SHITLOAD. It's really like prisoner's dilemma, do you talk or not, how do the respective punishments compare.

I don't look at it as the lesser of two evils, I look at it as a great evil and a centrist.

Also, interestingly, I've heard that many republicans are going around trolling blog sites as ultra liberals, encouraging people to vote 3rd-party, to take away votes from Kerry.

Well, you do what you gotta do, but this time I gotta make damn sure we get this born-again ultra-conservative tool out of office. As for Kerry being a tool, I think he's too intelligent to be as much of a tool as Bush. Any president (even Nader) would fall for special interest groups of any kind, but IMHO Kerry is orders of magnitude better than Bush.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Jeremi]

Just let it burn.

The problem with that strategy is that it assumes we can afford to "let it burn". Don't forget that whoever is control of the US government is in control of the world's largest stockpile of WMDs, and the world's largest military. As nice as it might be to imagine letting the US government completely destroy itself, I think the reality could be much uglier than you are counting on. You might not live long enough to rebuild.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[kubrick]

I vote using the Langer method; it's legal, but he was locked up for advocating it.

[1] Greens
[2] Labor
[2] Liberal

(or 2 for another minor party and 3 for both majors, or whatever). They have to throw your vote away when they get to the tied section.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[wass]

I agree with much of what you say. As much as I hate the republican party, they really 'get it' as far as marketing goes, and banding together to support the team. Hell, look at how much money/effort they waste just making sure bush looks picture-perfect regarding lighting, angles, scenery, in nearly all his public appearances. The newspapers have commented that every picture they get is near perfect, they never had this success w/ clinton's administration.

the democrats don't have this unity, and really don't seem to understand the importance of charisma for candidates. Well, Edwards has it, but look at Gore, Kerry, and Gephardt. yeah yeah, for us 'smart' folks we don't care about charisma. But if you're catering to sixpack joe, you really have to market it. Democrats have really been 'betamaxed' by the bush administration.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Jeremi]

Even if everybody did as you say and voted third party, the only thing that would change is that the most popular third-party would become one of the two major parties, and one of the current two major parties would drop out and either become a third party or disappear. In a few years, the new majority party would deteriorate into the same sort of corrupt mess that we see today, and we'd be right back where we started.

Simply voting third party is not going to have any effect, other than preventing your vote from having any effect on the 2004 outcome. What's needed is changes to the system itself -- we need to adopt an electoral system that can support more than two parties, without significant "spoiler effects" or other perversities.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Concerned Onlooker]

I say vote your conscience man. Do it, do it, do it. Don't listen to the naysayers.

Basically, I'm with you on the idealism, but the problem is that the Republicans would be happy for you to vote your idealism because that way they will always win. When was the last time you saw a conservative question his party or candidate? You don't hear about it that much. They are united. They do not question the party line. And it works to the party benefit.

The Democrats seem constantly divided up between many camps. Kerry may be the lesser of two evils but I just will not stand by and watch conservatives turn this country into an intellectual, spiritual and (for most of us) economic wasteland. Yes, that sounds a bit harsh, doesn't it? Well, it's time liberals started playing by the same linguistic rules as the conservatives. It's time to make 'conservative' a dirty word.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Kris_J]

Oh, look, I have no problem ranking the major parties at election time. I dislike the Liberal's sucking up to the US (from way before the FTA), so it's easy to go 1, 2, 3 based on your order. The problem is that so many people have been convinced that a vote for the Greens or the Democrats is a wasted vote, that despite their actual preferences, they put a one next to one of the major parties, effectively making it a self fulfilling prophecy.

The Right have been in a strong position for so long that what used to be Centre is Right and mainstream Left is barely Left at all. To try and vote for anyone actually Left is to be branded as a tree-hugging hippy, or dismissed as a communist. I am neither just because I believe that business and money are not the be all and end all of society.

But all of this is way off topic, since copyright isn't distorting the political arena nearly as much as the media is in general. I recommend watching "OutFoxed" (as referenced in this week's Media Watch) -- I got the DVD shipped in from Amazon. It may be American but the discussion of the techniques used by such stations as Fox is interesting even so. When some Americans say that their media sucks and that they need to turn to sources such as the BBC for a real idea of what's going on in the world it sounds like any person bitching about their crappy media, but if OutFoxed is even to be belived on half the things it claims then America's democratic process is in serious trouble.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[tehdaemon]

"but allowing the greater evil to be elected will only make the situation suck worse."

Correct. However, voting for the lesser of the two evils will do the same thing. It will just take longer.

But what if, by letting the greater evil win, you give us a chance to actually get a non-evil administration into power? I say go for it, even with the chance that if we fail, the end comes sooner. A chance at winning is better than a delayed, but guarenteed, loss. IMHO anyway.

You are right about reform at the local level, that is where it has to start. But I disagree that election reform is what we need. (though it could help) Education of the public, and election of non-republicrats to local and state office is where most of the effort needs to be.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[capologist]

Instant Runoff Voting is a terrible idea.

It sounds good, if you don't think about it too much, but a little analysis demonstrates a lot of serious problems.

If you assume that the political landscape continues to looks pretty much like it does now -- two dominant parties, and a number of minor parties that don't get much attention -- then it works great. Minor-party enthusiasts can cast their largely symbolic votes for their minor-party candidates, who will get eliminated in the early rounds, and in the end it comes down to a two-way contest between the major parties.

But since the whole point of IRV is supposedly to change that political landscape, one certainly ought not to assume that the landscape would remain the same under IRV in attempting to justify IRV. So consider what happens when a minor party becomes strong enough to challenge the more-sympathetic major party:

30% like Minor > Major1 > Major2
10% like Major1 > Minor > Major2
15% like Major1 > Major2 > Minor
45% like Major2 > Major1 > Minor

Under IRV, Major1 would be the first candidate eliminated. Then Major2 would defeat Minor by a vote of 60-40. However, Major1 could defeat Major2 by a vote of 55-45. The 30% who support Minor could bring about a more desireable outcome by ranking Major1 ahead of Minor on their ballots. So they are faced with the same dilemma that they face in the existing system: vote for their favorite candidate, or vote for their preference among the two candidates who can win?

Another illustrations of problems with IRV:

Imagine the following votes:

6: A > B > C
5: B > A > C
4: C > B > A
2: C > A > B

B has the fewest first-place votes, and is eliminated. In the second round, A defeats C by a vote of 11-6, and wins.

But imagine that the 2 voters who voted C > A > B had reconsidered, decided that they really did like A better than C, and hence voted A > C > B. In that case, C would have been eliminated first, and then B would have defeated A by a vote of 9-8. So those two voters caused A to lose by listing him as their first choice!

And here's a really bizarre example:

40: B > C > A
25: C > A > B
35: A > B > C

C is eliminated first, then A defeats B by a vote of 60-40.

But suppose all the voters completely change their minds, so that their favorite becomes their least favorite, and vice versa.

40: A > C > B
25: B > A > C
35: C > B > A

B is eliminated, then A defeats C, 65-35.

The voters completely reversed their evaluations of the candidates, and yet got the same result!

IRV holds that A is the people's selection as the best candidate, and also that he is their selection as the worst candidate!

IRV is just a terrible idea.

I'm a little surprised we haven't yet heard from the Debian community extolling the virtues of Condorcet voting. I have my reservations about Condorcet, but it is clearly far superior to IRV. I do think that Condorcet is excellent for the purpose for which Debian uses it, and that there are other areas where we would also do well to use Condorcet voting. However, I don't think that it should be the general method by which we select candidates for major public office.

For my money, I'll stick with the two-party system. It's frustrating, but it actually works reasonably well. We live under the two-party system, so we are very familiar with its failings, but most of us do not see the problems in the alternatives. Naturally, the grass looks greener over there, but we'd be well advised to scout out the land much more thoroughly before racing over.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Veridium]

When some Americans say that their media sucks and that they need to turn to sources such as the BBC for a real idea of what's going on in the world it sounds like any person bitching about their crappy media, but if OutFoxed is even to be belived on half the things it claims then America's democratic process is in serious trouble.

Seriously, if you have a book on critical thinking, or you've retained enough knowledge from a previous course, just tape a Fox news broadcast(if you can, I'm all US centric here so I don't know what other peoples are exposed to), and analyze how they present the news. It's very enlightening. It'll probably work with their text news, but I haven't tried it. That said, I'm going to order a copy of OutFoxed as you've got me interested.

I personally use google news:
http://news.google.com/
for 100 percent of my news. It's the best source we have going for us in the states right now, IMO.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Unordained]

I, for one, welcome our new (glow-in-the-dark) cockroach overlords? (or rather, successors?)

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[sumdumass]

When they start supporting the voter reform then people start voting for them again and they start winning. It is about telling the elected officials what to do and expect rather then putting up with them telling us what we have to put up with. If not winning a couple election doesn't bring them around to whats stopping them from winning then they don't deserve to win in the first place.

The people should be able to shape policy and the direction of the country and not leave it in the hands of a few extreamist following agendas laid out by people so far removed from the scene it is impossible to track who really in charge. It is no wonder everyone is skepticle of the government and politicians in general.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Kris_J]

No book on critical thinking can prepare you for the statistic that regular Fox viewers are wrong about things significantly more often than non-viewers. (The report gets interesting at page 12.) I mean, I joke about feeling less informed after watching Channel 7 news here in Perth, but I'm making a comment on the insignificant nature of the majority of stories (which sports personality is banging which other sports personality's wife, etc) -- I don't literally mean that after watching it I feel like I've been infected with lies. Spin, sure. Fear, maybe. But there's a difference between choosing your stories carefully and blatently mis-informing your viewership.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[sumdumass]

wow, therer must be somethign wrong with how you look at the news. i watch fox and cnn all the time. cnn seems to have more slant in thier news stories then fox does (don't confuse the shows with news).

I prefer to watch fox news over cnn. This choice isn't really because one is better then the other (they seem the same to me and have about the same coverage) but more because the news girls on fox look better. some of them are dow right hot. I have never seen anyhtign fox has done to missinform the viewer ship. please elaberate a little mor on that.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[sumdumass]

you have to take a stand sometime. If you feel another canidate is better then vote for them. What your doing is making a statment and if the powers to be continue to ignor that statment then your waisting a vote on them.

Voting third party is more about saying we belive this way and you don't. If you don't belive the same way that the canidate does then why even vote for them in the first place? i mean just stay home. Or better yet cast the vote for the person that best represents your beliefs and goals. This "you have to vote for kerry instead of nader" is pretty much bullshit. If kerry wanted my vote then he would support the things i do.

The question is are we mindless robots or people with issues at stake. Do we have free will and expect a little respect from those charged with governing the many facets of our lives. Is voting your conciesne screwing over another party or a sign that the other party is screwing you over. I guess some of these are questions an indeviduals will have to answer for themselves. this country has been around alot longer then 8 years of a president and will have the strength and resources to continue alot longer. We can survive the growing pains of making things right.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[kubrick]

Oh, look, I have no problem ranking the major parties at election time.

I do. Labor sucks up just as much when it's in power -- we'd still be in Iraq, although the decision would have been more anguished, if Labor were in power. (Mainly due to Australia's defence policy re: Indonesia being "let the Yanks take care of it").

But the thing I'm basing my vote on is the detention of asylum seekers; it's really hit me to see people I know treated as subhuman purely to gain votes, and both major parties have the same policies on the issue. I thought this country had moved on from its racist days, but Pauline Hanson led Howard back into it, and most politicians seem to have been happy to play around there since.

Not trying to convince you, just explaining why I vote the way I do. :)

Yes, I agree, society is too corporately controlled, but it has been ever thus; our chances of changing that are pretty low.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[kubrick]

The Right have been in a strong position for so long that what used to be Centre is Right and mainstream Left is barely Left at all. To try and vote for anyone actually Left is to be branded as a tree-hugging hippy, or dismissed as a communist.

Also, I find it interesting that anyone using the term "human rights" these days seems to be branded a socialist or worse... after all, that's what I thought all these wars we fought were about, weren't they? Freedom and justice for all?

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[DHam]

Except that the Electoral Act was changed after the Langer incident and Langer votes are now invalid. See: the AEC website. A Langer vote is now a completely wasted vote.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[kubrick]

Ah bugger. I'd still rather vote Donkey than for either major party :(

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[kubrick]

I mean, "vote informally" (for reasons stated elsewhere in this thread).

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Trinition]

Now, I'm not trying to sway you the other way (I'm debating the same thing), but if you continue to vote for 3rd parties, by the time the dems wake up and realize they need to change, it may already be too late. We may be ain a World War III (everyone versus us), electronic voting could already be in place, ready to tweak elections as necessary, etc.

Yet, if we do just vote for the lesser of two evils, what really changes?

How the hell did our forefathers not see this coming?

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Trinition]

vote for the person that best represents your beliefs and goals

I sometimes wonder about that. I certainly think my representatives should represent me. But am I choosing someone who I believe hinks represents me, or someone who I believe has a duty to represent me? THe former can never be a perfect match and the latter is impossible to execute.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[cthugha]

It seems to me that you are committing a fallacy in your critique by assuming that the unique views of a group of individuals can be reduced to a single, organic will directed in favour of a single candidate that can be measured with a reasonable amount of certainty and objectivity. I don't think that's the purpose of IRV or should be the objective of a sensible voting system. IRV seeks to establish a consensus view in the absence of a clear majority opinion.

I believe that if you re-evaluate your second and third examples from this perspective you'll see that the results make a lot more sense. The third-party voters are brought in to resolve the deadlock between the two majority groups and even the differences in opinion between the majority factions are taken into account. Your first example is somewhat artificial as preference relationships tend to be undirected, i.e. if Minor voters like Major1 then Major1 voters ought to like Minor on the grounds that they are similar (consider Democrats voting Republican ahead of the Greens). It is conceivable that this is not the case, however we now have the same problem: the views of the individual voters in the electorate are interacting in complex ways that probably aren't measurable by any reasonably simple system.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Heisenbug]

I no longer believe in the option of voting my conscience. On the one hand, there are candidates I prefer to Kerry. On the other hand, voting for them increases the chances that my environment will be destroyed, my tax dollars used to pay back a massive debt to the Chinese thanks to wartime tax cuts, and my ass drafted and sent overseas. My conscience isn't exactly clear either way. Nader's campaign in 2000 was based on the reasonable idea that having Bush or Gore in the White House wouldn't have any significant impact on the events of the next four years. With respect, if you still believe this you aren't paying attention.

So, let's put it this way -- do you support voting reform more by voting for Nader, or by sending $10 to an organization working for voting reform? I say, vote the way the current system requires you to vote in order to win -- and work, in some equally tiny way, to change the system.

As to how to go about doing that, my inclination is to work for voting reform in, say, Vermont congressional elections first, something doable, and then move up from there once people see it works.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Azghoul]

Conservatives are no more united than Liberals. The GOP is probably better at producing just enough bullshit to attract all their diverse groups, however.

Imagine, for a moment, a Republican coming in favor of abortion. The religious south would drop him like a hot plate, and just stay home. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

I'm a relatively conservative guy. Am I voting for Bush? Hell no, I'm voting Libertarian no matter how goofy the guy is this year.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[dcw3]

When was the last time you saw a conservative question his party or candidate? You don't hear about it that much. They are united. They do not question the party line. And it works to the party benefit.

Wow, so us conservatives are all the same, huh? I'll have to change my opinions on abortion, stem cell research, holding people without charges, etc., etc., in order to not question the party line then.

Personally, I was a McCain fan during the previous election, but when that didn't work out, well yes, I was going to vote for the person that best matched my beliefs. As for questioning the party, you better damn well believe I'm gonna question it.

Now, I know you can make a more logical commentary than this, because I've read your previous posts, and had marked you as friend...some of my best friends are Democrats.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Chris Carollo]

maybe they'll eventually back voting reform and we can get a decent system like instant runoff

Instant Runoff is pretty deeply flawed. Approval voting is a much better alternative for making 3rd party candidates viable without the situation backfiring as in 2000.

Adding proportional representation or eliminating the electoral college would also help immensely.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[LaCosaNostradamus]

The only real "runoff" happening here is whether or not the Democrats will sink into real electoral mediocrity before they start abiding by democratic principles and their own platform.

Slight sarcasm aside, please consider voting for the best man all the time, and adhere to conscience always. Remember, it's not the ~2 million Nader voters in 2000 that put Bush in the White House, it was the ~50 million Bush voters.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Like many people of conscience, I started out pretty damned liberal, then time added layers of conservative thought ... forming the fine and detailed sediment that I am today. Conservatism as an idea is just as well-constructed and respectful as Liberalism. They key in criticizing them in today's political environment is to identify their unquestioned extremities.

I often use the term prefix "Neo-" to qualify what's happened to the promoted or mainstreamed Conservatives and Liberals. The Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs are wrecking America's ability to peacefully live with the rest of the world (i.e. "foreign policy") and ensure domestic tranquility (i.e. "domestic economy").

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[egarland]

A third party can have a huge pull over the parties, if they *use* the leveradge they have. In 2000 Nader's party could have thrown the election decisively one way or another. They could have used that power to negotiate with the parties forcing consessions on important issues. They didn't and instead squandered all those votes. What we need is an aggressive third party that will force the Democrats and Republicans to stop screwing the general puplic to benefit large corporations.

There are huge lobbying organizations throwing support behind candidates (coal, hollywood, microsoft, steel, teamsters, big finance, etc) but that support has strings attached and the organizations get legislation in return for their support. It's time for a third party to do the same thing, to work winthin the current system to force the parties to do what is fair and benefits *the people* not what benefits specific existing corporations and groups. If the parties don't go allong, throw your support behind the challenger. If the parties start figuring out that their guy doesn't stay in office unless they do what we want, they'll start to listen.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[neurojab]

>every picture they get is near perfect

Except when he looks like a chimp.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[nadabu14]

> > Voting for the lesser of two evils is short-sighted. The first step to a long term solution is to vote third party now.

> I have to disagree here. The situation may suck, but allowing the greater evil to be elected will only make the situation suck worse.

That's a short-term view. Both the democrats and republicans have had significant time in power over the last few decades and neither has lifted a finger to help the situation. Long-term, your approach will be useless. We need to start taking power (our votes and our money) from both major parties and giving it to other ones. Once there is at least three parties that can legitimately compete, the barrier will be exponentially lower for those fourth and fifth and so on parties to participate.

I'm not saying we can expect great change soon by voting third party. I'm saying that it may very well be our only hope for change in the long term.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[nadabu14]

> You are right about reform at the local level, that is where it has to start.

agreed, this is where the most immediate success can happen and it will be necessary to build and maintain momentum. still, let's not neglect the higher levels; vote third party in presidential and congressional levels as well. stop giving power to the status quo.

> But I disagree that election reform is what we need. (though it could help)
> Education of the public, and election of non-republicrats to local and state office is where most of the effort needs to be.

and election of non-republicrats (good word :) to local offices will be one of the most effective means of educating the public.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[ZB Mowrey]

It's time to make 'conservative' a dirty word.

Two words: Fuck You.

Explanation: I'd rather see the words Democrat and Republican made into dirty words. See, I'm still a conservative, but I am in no way a Republican. Here's why:

1. I don't give a shit if gays can marry or not.
2. I don't give a shit whether or not you have an abortion (not my problem).
3. I think 'affirmative action' is just racism pointed at a different race.
4. I don't want a national religion - or any semblance of it in an authoritative forum, such as courthouses and Senate buildings.
5. I think over-regulating the economy is what adds 'drag' - and that drag costs us jobs and prosperity.
6. I think free markets really can work, if people would get their damned fingers out of the machinery and let it work.
7. Welfare should be a temporary solution to disaster-proportion incidents, not a constant state of survival.

All this comes from someone who was once a devout Christian/conservative/Republican. I have changed, like all people do. Now I'm more of a socially-liberal fiscally-conservative kinda guy. You can call me a libertarian.

Spout your rhetoric all you want, you can never make me despise the Republicans any more than I already do. Same for the Demoncrats, you right-wing readers. Your left-right applecart will one day be upset... when most of us have figured out that there are really more than two directions to choose from.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

because the news girls on fox look better. some of them are dow right hot

Good lord. I like a hot chick as much as the next guy, but what the hell does that have to do with the news? In fact, if you choose your news source based on that I'm going to guess you're not paying much attention to the news anyways. Certainly not enough to notice the slant.

And the above poseter provided a detailed report on what was wrong with Fox News (or at least it's viewership). Your asking for elaboration indicates a serious lack of perceptive skills.

Cheers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

it ain't gonna happen this election

You're right. But then if we don't get started on the long process it's never going to happen. And the long process begins with hurting one of the major parties enough that they embrace it. I think I'm going to start now. How do you propose we force electoral reform? It will have to be forced, you know.

And yes, the house is on fire. Bush and his administration are complete madmen. But the more I learn the more I think that Kerry is just as bad. Throwing more fuel on the fire isn't going to help either.

Cheers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

Heh... yes! That was the whole point of this thread. Not to actually get a third party into power, but to spoil it enough for one of the two major parties that they reform voting. (Instant runoffs would eliminate the spoiler effect, for example, Gore would have won Florida by a wide margin)

I don't know if it's really possible to get voting reform, but I don't see another way than voting outside the two major parties. I'm starting now, despite my hatered for Bush.

Cheers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

Imagine how much better off Iraq would have been

Good lord, if we have to compare ourselves to Iraq to appreciate our leaders then it's way past due for a revolution.

Yeah, lesser of two evils is better than a dictator. But we got past that a few centuries ago. Let's take the next step.

Cheers

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

If that were the case, you'd see Kerry moving to the left, instead of the center.

No, I think the dems, as any large corporate like structure would, is just going for the majority. They saw who won the last election and they are aiming there. They don't want to be like the losers, Gore and Nader. They're far more concerned with winning than with any paticular ideology.

The thing is it's not really a majority, it's a plurality. There are a small group of neo-conservatives that outweigh any one group of opposing viewpoints. But taken together, the opposing viewpoints outweigh them. This is why we need a different voting system, one that doesn't allow a cohesive bunch of nuts to control an election even if they aren't the majority.

Cheers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Stalky]

(to be sung to the tune of "Jack and Jill")

George and John,
See how they run,
Not knowing what they oughta.
George smacked down
Iraq's chief clown,
And tag-team John ran after.

June to June,
Rich backers' tunes
Command their every caper.
"End, fiscal year"
Is what's most clear
On both their calendars' papers.

To turn an eye
To the common guy,
Some need a motivator.
Kerry and Bush
Still need the push
Found in a vote for Nader!

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

I've read a lot on instant runoff voting (and borda count, and plurality, etc). Yes, instant runoff has flaws. In fact it has been proven that all voting systems can result in contradictory results in some cases. Howver, instant runoff brings about several orders of magnitude less contradictory results than plurality. Plurality is actually just about the most nonsensical voting system there is.

So without going through the examples, be assured that mathematically there are several hundred kooky examples of pluratly messing up for every one example of IR messing up.

I'll still take that any day.

Cheers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

You do realize that Kerry supports the war? I can't find a clear opinion on electronic voting for him, so I'm guessing he'd let it slide.

I guess I agree that we are running out of time before it all goes down the toilet here. But I'm starting to think that the "act now!" action is to vote third party, not vote for the lesser of two evils... again.

But I'll still be thinking about this some over the next few months.

Cheers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

Thanks for the approval voting link. I had read about that and several other methods. They all seemed so much better than plurality that I kind of hopped on the bandwagon for IR, which seemed to have the most momentum.

But yeah, Approval voting does sound better. I'll still support _any_ voting reform where I see the opportunity, but I'll specify Approval if I have the option :)

CHeers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[frankie]

Bah. IRV is just a scam to trick 3rd party voters into ranking one of the Top Two somewhere on their list, thereby giving them your vote. The system completely and utterly goes to hell if there are more than two viable candidates -- we're talking insane shit like if you switch a ranking from 1st place to last, they can change from losing to winning.

IRV is (slightly) better than Plurality, but I approve of Approval Voting.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[sumdumass]

actually i hear that in rusia they strip durring the news too. i'm game.

just watched the preview for that site you posted. 2 words, OH,YEA!

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Jeremi]

How do you propose we force electoral reform?

See my last paragraph in this post.

Bush and his administration are complete madmen. But the more I learn the more I think that Kerry is just as bad.

Do you really think that Kerry would/will spend the next four years trashing treaties, alienating our allies, and invading marginally relevant countries for no valid reason? That a man with a 94% positive voting record on the environment will suddenly become the best friend of polluting industries? That he will give embarrassingly large tax cuts to the rich while letting the budget deficit balloon? That he will make social policy and science decisions based mainly on the ignorant prejudices of the fundamentalist right? Despite Kerry's shortcomings, I don't believe he'll do anything like that.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[CrimsonAvenger]

When was the last time you saw a conservative question his party or candidate? You don't hear about it that much. They are united. They do not question the party line

Nonsense! Last time it happened en masse was when Ross Perot was running. Or do you honestly believe he took votes exclusively (or even mostly) from Clinton?

Most Conservatives I know (I suspect you don't actually mean the same thing by the word I do) don't pay too much attention to "Party" - they look at "voting record". Republican != Conservative. Historically, the South voted Democrat - because the Southern Democrats were Conservative. Recently (last 20 years or so), that has changed, as more and more COnservative Democrats couldn't toe the Party line anymore, and became Republican. Or were replaced by Republicans when they DID toe the Party line.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[capologist]

I believe that if you re-evaluate your second and third examples from this perspective you'll see that the results make a lot more sense.

It makes sense that promoting a candidate to first place on my ballot could cause that candidate to lose?

Your first example is somewhat artificial as preference relationships tend to be undirected, i.e. if Minor voters like Major1 then Major1 voters ought to like Minor on the grounds that they are similar (consider Democrats voting Republican ahead of the Greens).

If I am your nearest neighbor, it doesn't necessarily follow that you are my nearest neighbor.

Image that Minor is the "extreme liberal" party, Major1 is the "moderate liberal" party, and Major2 is the "moderate conservative" party. The moderate liberals may be split on the question of second choice: some would prefer the extreme liberal to the moderate conservative, while others would prefer the moderate conservative to the extreme liberal.

Personally, I am a voter who would generally vote the Democrats first, and the Republicans second, ahead of the Greens. I know many people who feel the same way. It's not at all unrealistic.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

Okay okay. I admit I'm just wallowing in frusteration. Kerry is probably a good bit better than Bush. But I've yet to decide how to voice my disapproval of the whole mess.

I have been looking into which groups I can support or donate to to encourage voting reform. This seems to be a good starting point.

Cheers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[MrBlackBand]

...but the problem is that the Republicans would be happy for you to vote your idealism...

And the Dems would be happy for you not to vote your idealism. So what if the Dems win? It's not like they're liberal.

When was the last time you saw a conservative question his party or candidate?

Paul Weyrich, a Christian conservative organizer recently said of the line-up of moderate Republicans (all of whom oppose a Constitutional gay-marriage ban) given high-profile roles at the upcoming Convention: "If the president is embarrassed to be seen with conservatives at the convention, maybe conservatives will be embarrassed to be seen with the president on Election Day."

Contrast this with the vilification of any liberal who dares criticize the quick march to the right that plages the Democratic party.

A vote for Nader (or any other third party candidate) doesn't siphon votes away from Kerry. Those voting for Nader would probably not vote for anyone if he wasn't running. (I know I wouldn't.) If the Democrats are tired of losing then perhaps they could try, I don't know, offering an actual alternative to the Republicans?

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[tehdaemon]

The media mostly pays attention to the higher levels, as you put it. That free publicity is important. Plus a lot of people don't believe anything is real if it is not in the mainstream media. Ignoring those higher levels would be stupid, except possibly when you are just starting. (no media is better than bad media for a first impression!)

So yea, I think you are right.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[nadabu14]

> a lot of people don't believe anything is real if it is not in the mainstream media.

Well put and, sadly, quite true.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Quintin Stone]

• When was the last time you saw a conservative question his party or candidate?

Almost every other week, when I read the latest issue of National Review. A conservative magazine that's not afraid to point out problems with Bush's policies.

The rest of your post... it's just crap. Sorry.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[festers]

I grew up "Republican", and have never in my life voted for a Dem, but I'll be happily voting for a 3rd party candidate this Nov. (In a state that always votes Dem.)

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Trinition]

I remember Ross Perot during the first election I was elgible to participate in. I voted for him. I had high hopes. He was the most viable third-party candidate in a long time, if not ever.

Yet he didn't win. Even after all of the plublicity, and the first truly viable third-party option in a long time, he didn't win.

Now was that just because Admiral Stockdale didn't know "who he was" or "why he was there"?

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Jadrano]

In fact it has been proven that all voting systems can result in contradictory results in some cases.

Most of these problems arise only when people vote for one (or another very small number) seat. In elections for a sufficiently large number of seats, proportional representation is straightforward, each party gets the percentage of seats that corresponds to the percentage of votes. Therefore, in my view, it would be more important to reform the elections to the house of Representatives first. That would be relatively easy, other parties would be represented in the legislative, and this could change politics quite a lot. Presidential elections should be reformed, too, but it is more complicated, so perhaps it shouldn't be the first priority.

Gay marriage

[kyhwana]

Both Bush and Kerry are against Gay Marriage, but there are really only two parties.
So who do the gays vote for, huh?
Go Democracy!

Re:Gay marriage

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

So who do the gays vote for, huh?

How about, for the one that didn't try to carve its position into the actual living flesh of the Republic, the Consitution?

I am getting so sick of people saying that there is no difference between the two parties. Guess what? We heard "It doesn't matter which one wins" in 2000. Then we ran the experiment. If you honestly believe this nation would be where it is is now, had Gore been sworn in, then you are either ill-informed or insane.

Re:Gay marriage

[jrcamp]

You're leaving out some important facts. While both George Bush and John Kerry do not support "marriage" for gay people, that is where the similarities end. My guess is Kerry does this to not offend some of the more conservative democrats.

However:

1. John Kerry supports civil unions.
2. John Kerry supports non-discrimination laws.
3. John Kerry received a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campain (HRC, a Washington gay lobby group).

Just saying John Kerry doesn't support gay marriage doesn't give the whole picture. George W. Bush is a homophobe who does not support any gay rights. Compassionate conservative my ass.

Re:Gay marriage

[k8to]

Speaking as a gay, this is pretty much a no-brainer.

Bush: actively opposes gay marriage. Engages in mindless hate-speech against gays and nonsense rhretoric in an attack on my position in society. Attempts to pervert the Constitution of the nation in order to enshrine his personal bigotry in it.

Kerry: Will not actively work to create national marriage parity, but instead will allow states to decide as they have already begun to do. Will make at least some effort to avoid supporting obvious anti-gay bigotry as in Bush's above-mentioned constitutional amendment.

Wow, this is a really tough choice!

Sure I'd love to vote for someone who believes fervently in equality, but for a given office there is often no likely candidate who closely aligns with one's views. You make the best choice you can.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Too bad Kucinich isn't still running.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php

I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice.

So there you go. Kucinich is the only politician that I know of that doesn't classify humans into "people with rights" and "people without rights".

Re:Gay marriage

[Trogre]

I'm sure both Kerry and Bush are against pig-shagging too.

So, who do us pig-shaggers vote for? And they call this a democracy.

And cannibals? Well, they just don't have any options but to vote "No confidence".

The fact is that lines have to be drawn somewhere, otherwise by making radical legal changes to appease a vocal minority we just fall further down that slippery slope.

Re:Gay marriage

[phwiffo]

I think you really have no idea what clout the gay vote has. In fact minority votes have a huge impact because, socially speaking, minorities have huge social clout. When you piss off a minority they get angry and cause a stir. As a politician that mobilizes people who would otherwise be indifferent to the cause against you.

As for your bigoted views as to sexuality being a choice and going against the "grain of traditional society" I would pickup a history book and see if that's really true. You'll quickly find that it is not. In many cutlures, such as ancient Greek and fist nations, homosexuals were exhaulted. In much of modern times we've always existed but have been persecuted.

For instance in the 1960's Tupperware parties actually served as a front for womens liberation. Queer women could meet other queer women without their husbands around. Even straight women could enjoy a cigar or a glass of brandy and do "unlady-like" things. Meanwhile the husbands would be at country clubs which were often the reserve of bisexual and gay men to meet eachother without their wives around. We've always existed. It's only today that we can be out and proud to live our lives and seek our inalienable right to freedom.

It is testament to our society that people of all sexualities, colours and race expect to be treated equally. And our responsibility as a just and equitable society is to grant people their equal rights.

Re:Gay marriage

[Trogre]

What are you talking about? The parent poster has exactly the same rights as you or I; In particular, to marry somebody of the opposite sex.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking a person is defined by their choice of sexuality. You might as well say that people who use Linux exclusively are people without rights because they can't run Microsoft Access 2003 (well, not without difficulty anyway).

Re:Gay marriage

[ryen]

heres another common Kerry "flip-flop"...
1. Say you are "morally" against gay marriage.
2. Vote for state legislation rather than an amendment to the const.
3. Relax knowing full well that most states will legalize gay marriage through their courts and activist judges (democrats will route gay marriage cases directly to certain judges).
4. Be confident that you (Kerry) have covered both angles politically.

This is but a taste of John Kerry the President: Making it look like he is pro-something, while supporting the other end through misleading and indirect politics.
At least GW Bush is consistent with his views.

Re:Gay marriage

[wass]

Well, Massachusetts does have legal unions, didn't they? That's where Kerry's from.

I personally think Kerry would fully support gay marriage if there wasn't such a large Christian base that would instantly alienate him if he did publically support it. Ie, he has to kind of remain ambiguous in order to not lose such a major block of voters, especially in the swing states. Sucks, but that's the way it goes.

I think Kerry wouldn't mind gay marriage at all. Bush, on the other hand, is born-again, and believes it's a major evil that must be eradicated.

Personally, I think that in maybe 5-10 years (depending on the outcome of this election, of course) the next constitutional amendment will actually ALLOW gay marriage, and allow equality independent of sexual orientation. Well, maybe in more than 10 years, but I still think that will be the next amendment.

Re:Gay marriage

[IBX]

1) Your missionary position is gross and unnatural. 2) Some acts cannot be sanctioned because freedom ends where somebody else's freedom begins: Practicing post-mortem cannibalism is very disruptive for the necrophilic cross-generation incests of the rest of us.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Are you saying that I shouldn't define myself by my sexuality? Fuck you.

Don't make the mistake of assuming I am anything else but a giant penis looking for a repository. Fuck you very much.

Re:Gay marriage

[Temporal]

But why should you be given any more rights than people who perform other unnatural activities? Once we've let the barn doors open (so to speak), what happens next?

Your argument is known as the "slippery slope" theory. It is generally considered a fallacy. Allowing gay marriage does not "open the door" to cannibalism, polygamy, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, or anything else. Those are all different issues, and we will deal with them as appropriate.

Can those of us who practice post-mortem cannibalism, necrophilia, and cross-generation incest be allowed the status we deserve in society? Surely we're not hurting anybody, so it's not immoral, right? And that goat didn't complain once.

All those things hurt people. Cannibalism implies murder. Allowing necrophilia would be highly upsetting to people who don't want their bodies used in such ways after they die. Incest results in deformed children. That goat was harmed even if it wasn't able to say so. All of these things have reasons for being illegal.

Gay marriage will bring great joy to the lives of many gay people. Those like you who think being gay is a sin probably don't know any gay people and thus will be completely unaffected by gay marriage. Who is being harmed?

Re:Gay marriage

[peachawat]

Because marriage is recognition from society to two people that are loving, committed and willing to spend the rest of their life together. Marriage is not just about sex.

Turn the question around, why should a heterosexual be given more right than people who perform other criminal activities? The heterosexual I am talking about can be a serial killer, a sex offender or even a cross-generation incest. They can get married, too. Why? What makes unnatural worse than criminal?

Re:Gay marriage

[Trogre]

"Don't make the mistake of assuming I am anything else but a giant penis looking for a repository."

Too late. I already assumed you were a human being. And still do.

Re:Gay marriage

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Let's take the most significant and influential event in America this year ... the war in Iraq.

George Bush : in favor (obviously)

John Kerry : in favor

So exactly what would be different ? Get Sick all you want, even though I find the gay marriage stances akin to racism, I don't think they matter in the least for 269,99 million Americans. Get some decent points, like social security, lowering defense budgets (ought to be called "offense" these days), rebuilding dried out American cities, lowering dependence of communities on a single corporation, copyright (please explain to me how in a democratic community in which > 50% breaks the law, the law gets made more strict, and a vendetta is started against singled out individuals, with help from the government ...)

Re:Gay marriage

[Space Coyote]

You, and your gay agenda, will destroy this socity. Imagine a society where nobody no longer knows the difference between hetero and homosexuality. THIS is what will begin to happen once we legalize gay marriage. maybe we should throw in polygamy as well right? are you for that too? i would bet you are. also, stay away from my kids. Lemme guess. Bush supporter? John F. Kerry: Choice of non-hate-filled-bigots everywhere.

Re:Gay marriage

[Trogre]

All those things hurt people. Cannibalism implies murder. Allowing necrophilia would be highly upsetting to people who don't want their bodies used in such ways after they die. Incest results in deformed children. That goat was harmed even if it wasn't able to say so. All of these things have reasons for being illegal.

I think you and I differ in opinion on the definition of marriage and presumably family.

But to address the above paragraph:

Incest results in deformed children? Since when did my brother shagging my father result in children? What if my friends mother was sterile when he gave her one?

The goat in that beastiality video I watched didn't put up any kind of fight, and the dead person I shagged then ate had signed a permission slip before committing suicide.

Tell me who was harmed in those cases? And they all brings great joy to the lives of those who participate in them. Surely they can't be wrong then?

Is the only source of morality the degree to which harm is directly imposed on another living being?

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

You're an ass who deliberately plays semantic games. Gays don't have the same right as heterosexuals. They cannot marry the person that they choose. They do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that you'd think a woman marrying a gay man is OK shows just what you think of marriage in general. It's just a show for you, not a relationship and a partnership for fulfillment in life.

Re:Gay marriage

[Trogre]

Nothing makes unnatural worse than criminal. A criminal loses certain rights, such as the freedon to go where ever when they are locked away.

People who perform unnatural acts do not lose any rights when they perform such acts, unless that act also happens to be criminal; they still have the exact same rights as before. Nothing is taken away.

What is at issue is whether the relationship is recognised as a legal institution by the powers that be. And why should it? What would be achieved for society as a whole? Apart from temporarily appeasing a small minority who hide behind the fear of upsetting political correctness.

Re:Gay marriage

[NiceGeek]

-1 Ignorant Bigot

Re:Gay marriage

[Coryoth]

You're trying the "slippery slope" argument, but we can discuss all of cannibalism, necrophilia, incest, paedophilia, beastiality as seperate issues:

Let's start with incest, paedophila, and beastiality, because they all come down to the same principal: informed consent. In our society it is generally believed that sex should be consensual (rape is illegal) as otherwise we would be infringing on anothers rights. The problem is, to be able to consent, the other party has to understand what it is they are consenting to. That's more than just understanding the physical process involved, but (in our society anyway) understanding the emotional issues attached to such things. This is why paedophila is considered criminal - it is harmful to the children, because the children (even if they do "consent") don't really understand the full implications of what they would be consenting to. My understanding is that beastiality falls into the same category. It is interesting that we extend this protection to animals where otherwise we would not, but that's how it is. The other issue with beastiality is a "cleanliness" issue. Mostly this the same sort of "cleanliness" that directs the finer points of a kosher diet, but there are some remaining issues (transferring diseases across species, which has been known to happen through beastiality and related pursuits can definitely be problematic). Still going with holdover taboos we come to incest - a large part of our reaction to incest is based on an old taboo which centers around the issues of inbreeding. All very reasonable and sensible. The issues with incest do extend beyond this though - we're essentially back to the informed consent: most incestuous relationships involve exploiting the familial relationship into something more, and at least one party is usually not in a position to give informed consent.

I believe that leaves us with cannibalism and necrophilia. With these certainly no obvious harm is being done (presuming it is post-mortem cannabilism, and the person isn't being killed to e eaten) to the immediate parties, however, our society generally holds that a person (and their immediate kin) has rights over their remains - refer to organ donation, leaving your body to science, what have you: there are plenty of laws that consider damage done post death to still be harm to the individual. Based on that, necrophilia is out, as a dead person cannot give consent. Likewise cannibalism. That, of course, leaves the possibility that a person could will their remains to be used for such purposes. Why they would choose to do that I do not know, but that is their choice. In that case, personally, I don't think I would stand in the way of such thigns. Cannibalism, on some level, makes sense (read Stranger in a Strange Land).

And then homosexuality - well, that's sexual intercourse between two consenting adults who have full knowledge and understanding of what they are entering into. No harm to either party, so I don't see the problem there.

Jedidiah.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Wow, you're an idiot. You are my enemy, and unAmerican. Un Human.

And who said I was gay? Maybe I am and maybe I'm not. What is clear is that I believe that everyone has the right to be the person they were born to be. You do not. What is very clear is that I am not a bigot, like you.

Your ideas kill people, they are false, and they degrade the dignity of a person. That is completely indefensible for any moral person. That you defend the ideas makes you immoral. That you do not recognise right from wrong is an advertisement of your moral perversion. That you do not exist in a vacuum is evidence of a sickness in our culture that will kill a lot more people with ignorance and lies.

You're entitled to your own opinions, no matter how stupid they are. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

Re:Gay marriage

[Temporal]

I think you and I differ in opinion on the definition of marriage and presumably family.

Marriage is a bond between two people who love each other, to the point where they feel in many ways like one person, and would like to act as one combined entity and express this union.

People used to add many arbitrary restrictions to this definition, but over the years we have managed to strip those away to get at the core of what marriage is. For example, it used to be that the two individuals had to be of the same race. By modern standards such a restriction is absurd, but many once defended it just as fiercely as some defend the opposite-gender restriction today. Well, the opposite-gender restriction is irrelevant to the true definition of marriage, and, like the same-race restriction, is simply something that was added on by human prejudice long ago.

Incest results in deformed children? Since when did my brother shagging my father result in children? What if my friends mother was sterile when he gave her one?

Those are rather perverted acts, certainly, but assuming everyone involved is of age, and they're doing it in the privacy of their own homes, why stop them? You are free to believe that they are "wrong" but there is no reason to make these acts illegal. Laws are only meant to protect people from being harmed unwillingly.

The goat in that beastiality video I watched didn't put up any kind of fight,

Does the goat really not mind? I suppose it's possible. If the goat is enjoying it, and the participants are enjoying it, and no one is subjected to it who does not wish to be, then why stop it? I personally wouldn't want to watch the video and certainly would not want to participate, but if no one is forcing me to do so then I don't care.

and the dead person I shagged then ate had signed a permission slip before committing suicide.

That's a whole lot more complicated. The person essentially committed suicide. That suggests the person was depressed or had some other psychological disorder leading them to make such a decision. They probably could have lived a healthy, happy life given proper treatment. That potential happiness was obviously destroyed by killing them, making it wrong.

And they all brings great joy to the lives of those who participate in them.

I would say that none of your examples are cases which bring "great joy" to anyone involved. Temporary physical pleasure, perhaps, but they certainly do not compare with the joys associated with lifetime companionship.

Now, normally the freedom to choose one's own path to happiness is itself a huge factor in happiness. Normally it would be bad to force people to go against their stated wishes "for their own good", because that would be taking away their freedom and thus their happiness. But if someone's stated wish is their own death, then in most cases the potential loss greatly outweighs the need for freedom. So, we stop them.

Is the only source of morality the degree to which harm is directly imposed on another living being?

What other source is there? Religion? But how can you use religion as justification when we can't agree on which religion is correct? It is certainly not right for government to impose arbitrary moral standards that a significant portion of the populous doesn't accept.

Yes, I believe that if an action does not harm anyone, then it can't possibly be "wrong". I think this is a much more logical position than the moral systems of most religions.

Re:Gay marriage

[Trogre]

And who said I was gay? Maybe I am and maybe I'm not.

Apologies if I made a false assumption about your orientation.

What is clear is that I believe that everyone has the right to be the person they were born to be. You do not. What is very clear is that I am not a bigot, like you.

See my earlier post about what you were and were not born to be.

Your ideas kill people, they are false, and they degrade the dignity of a person. That is completely indefensible for any moral person. That you defend the ideas makes you immoral. That you do not recognise right from wrong is an advertisement of your moral perversion. That you do not exist in a vacuum is evidence of a sickness in our culture that will kill a lot more people with ignorance and lies.

Wow. I could have easily said that exact same to you with conviction.

Except that I don't know you. And it is becoming more and more clear that you don't know the One who made you. I pray that one day you will come to know and be all you were truly born to be.

Where do you get your morals that you feel you must defend so vigorously and spew hatred to those who go against them? What is immoral, and by what standards do you make your judgement?

Oh yes, and exactly how does a pro-life anti-depravity moral system kill people?

And no, even if you are gay I don't hate you or consider you less than human.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

See my earlier post about what you were and were not born to be.

And you're just wrong. You can't argue with facts, and you can't make up facts when the person who you're talking to knows better. You can fool someone who doesn't know anything, but I'm a great deal smarter than you. And you don't realize it.

Wow. I could have easily said that exact same to you with conviction.

And you'd be completely wrong. You'd be as wrong as a bigot. You'd be as wrong as a Klansman.

Except that I don't know you. And it is becoming more and more clear that you don't know the One who made you.

Hahaha. What are you, a child? Wake up.

Where do you get your morals that you feel you must defend so vigorously and spew hatred to those who go against them?

I get my morals by being a person who uses his head. You say that a person is wrong or sinful because of the way you are born? Fuck you. You're a bigot, and I oppose you and every justification you provide for your bigotry with every ounce of energy that I have.

And no, even if you are gay I don't hate you or consider you less than human.

And you are a fucking liar too. You disapprove of everything that a person is, but you say you don't hate them? What a fucking lie. It's a logical contradiction and you are too stupid to understand that.

I HATE YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A BIGOT. I don't pretend to like you. I just plain hate you, because what you think and what you do is what you are.

Got it? Bet you 10 bucks you don't understand anything.

Re:Gay marriage

[Antique Geekmeister]

Your reasoning is sound, but it has this false premise that the laws are about consent. Their legal history is about reproductive behavior: incest leads to inbreeding, pedophilia leads to reproductive system damage to the victim and lowers the "value" of the victim as a virgin before they get traded or sold off for marriage, bestiality messes up the livestock and lowers its likelihood of reproducing like farm animals should, homosexual behavior does not lead to reproduction, etc., etc.

As long as you argue against this stuff on the basis of reasonable logic of consenting adults, you will miss the underlying motivations of your opponents in such debates and never succeed in addressing their hidden motivations.

Re:Gay marriage

[Coryoth]

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree, most of these "immoral" acts are deemed immoral in various religious codes mostly for the reasons you cited and reasons akin to them. A lot of religious "law" is, if you look at it, sensible precautions to take given limited real knowledge and understanding of how things really work.

It is not false, however, that the laws are about consent, otherwise sex with underage boys would be permissible. I think you'll find that while the laws started as you suggest (as various religios codes), in the last century or two the legal profession has done some reasonable work to try and bring some sense, clarity, and consistency to such laws (they are good for something!), and in this day and age consent is what you will find cited. The fact that this cleaning up of antiquated and potentially prejudiced law is still ongoing (like legalising homosexual marriage) shows both how ingrained the prejudices introduced by various religions are, and that we are seeking to move to a more consistent and rational moral code (albeit with some opposition).

Jedidiah.

Re:Gay marriage

[sumdumass]

I don't see how you could fins gay mariage stances akin to racism.. Unless you just that shallow. I mean there is a choice unvolved with being indoctrinated inot the gay lifestyle. (reguardless of the persons prefernce or so called orientation, being gay involve making physical decisions that a person choses to make. It is more like wether you prefor vanilla ice cream or strawberry)

I would agree if you stated it to be somethign more like the womens sufferage or freeing of slaves or even denying people inherant civil right but racism, common? If you would like o could go into a deep detailed and acurate reasoning in why society at large has a problem with gay mariage. It sort of ties into what normal and whats perverted but entails more then just gay sex.

Re:Gay marriage

[peachawat]

People who perform unnatural acts do not lose any rights when they perform such acts, unless that act also happens to be criminal; they still have the exact same rights as before. Nothing is taken away.

That is the same as saying a black and white couple does not lose any right when intermarriage is prohibited. Nothing is taken away because it is nothing there in the first place.

What is at issue is whether the relationship is recognised as a legal institution by the powers that be. And why should it? What would be achieved for society as a whole? Apart from temporarily appeasing a small minority who hide behind the fear of upsetting political correctness.

What about achiving equality? You can ask the same question regarding interracial marriage. After all, blacks are minorities, right?

Re:Gay marriage

[sumdumass]

from what i could tell is that gays have no less rights then straight people. The married someone of the oposite sex comment was basically to distinguish what that right was.

You do bring up a valid point though. It also ilistrates that a straight person as well as a gay person cannot do any of these things so were is the inequality.

Re:Gay marriage

[LaCosaNostradamus]

As far as intrinsically important issues go -- foreign relations and domestic economy -- then yes, it didn't make any difference then (2000) as is doesn't now (2004) about who wins the Presidency.

And, no, I'm not ill-informed or insane, thanks. I make my statement from the standpoint of deep historical information.

If you want to qualify the parties by minor items like gay marriage and logging rights, then have at it. Your homosexuals will be free to marry ... under the bridge where they have setup their shanty-town due to the excessively elitist economic policies of every politician in their welfare-warfare nation-state. Just don't pretend that a gay marriage compares to lost pensions, homes and lives. Put food on the table before attending to niceties like the kitchen wallpaper.

And as far as lost lives go, Clinton did his own share of bombing in the Middle East and Yugoslavia, as you'd recall. Furthermore, after the bombings of Iraq in the 1988-1992 Republican adminstration, Clinton continued the Imperial policy of keeping Iraq bottled up with interdiction, no-fly zones and overall boycotts, so that the next Republican adminstration could continue the saturation bombing.

Do I really need to identify the non-stop culture of outsourcing and offshoring that has flourished in every administration since Reagan? How about tax shelters and dodges? Investment bubbles? Tax-and-spend vs. borrow-and-spend? Need I go on?

As far as foreign relations and domestic economy go, there's no significant difference betwen the two parties. As long as they are so religious about supporting corporations and securing wealth against taxation, then this will continue.

Re:Gay marriage

[Chris Carollo]

George Bush : in favor (obviously)
John Kerry : in favor
So exactly what would be different ?

Well, first of all, it's not just a yes-or-no issue, it's far more nuanced than that. Even assuming that both would have gone in on the bad intelligence, how would Kerry have involved the international community? What would the combat strategy be? What sort of plans would have been in place for post-war security and reconstruction? How much responsibility would have been taken for the bad intelligence? Obviously these are all hypotheticals, but I suspect there would be substantial differences, even assuming that they both would have gone to war.

Get some decent points...

If you honestly think copyright law is more relevant to people's lives than gay marriage, then you clearly need to get outside of /. a bit more. Gay marriage and the rights it entails is a crucial issue for far more than the 10,000 Americans that you cite. It affects EVERY gay person's ability to create a real, legally protected family. It's a serious issue for all the gay friends that I have.

Re:Gay marriage

[DavidTC]

Yeah, let's make sure to outlaw everything that doesn't achieve anything for society as a whole. And we'll rest easier knowing you're in charge of what, exactly, that is.

Fucktard.

Re:Gay marriage

[Yunzil]

Don't sell yourself short. You were not born gay. It is not who you are but a choice you made along the way. I may as well say that I was born with a desire for Pearl Jam. It's learned.
Studies have shown that there is some genetic basis for homosexuality. Studies have not yet been done on the genetic basis for Pearl Jam appreciation.

You can actually fall in love with and marry a person of the opposite sex.

Really? Could you fall in love and marry a person of the same sex? Seriously?

Re:Gay marriage

[Yunzil]

What are you talking about? The parent poster has exactly the same rights as you or I; In particular, to marry somebody of the opposite sex.

No, gays do NOT have exactly the same rights as straights; in particular the right to marry the person they love.

Re:Gay marriage

[CrimsonAvenger]

No, gays do NOT have exactly the same rights as straights; in particular the right to marry the person they love

No, "straights" don't have the right to marry the person they love. Unless that person happens to be of consensual age and single, and the "straight" in question is of consensual age and single.

What? Polygamy is immoral? Marrying minors is immoral? But why?

Re:Gay marriage

[sumdumass]

constatutional ammendment? or passing state laws forbidding the sale of albums and performances by the groups? look at 2livecrew and you will see you fears were someones reality at one time.

Re:Gay marriage

[sumdumass]

i find this amazing. everytime the anti gay vs. the pro gay step into the ring. it turns from a you made a choice or was born that way discusion to my god os better then you or i'm some how liberated and better because i don't fall for that stuff slam fest.

I was interested in seeing some debate about wether or not a person is born ghey or they have made a decision somewere in life? If you think about it the defining part of gay is homosexual sex or acts of. so with that being know, is sex somethign that is controled. (meaning do you have a choice if it happens or not?) or is sex somethign that must happen and there is no control over it.

This is an interesting delima because it stray into other catagories like rape, spousle cheating, necrophelia, pedophelia and about anyhtign else sexualy realted. I'm sure we are past the "it's for the betterment of society and security of the nation" kick and homosexuality is more widley accepted in many circles unless it is pushed too far too fast then it become threatenting.

Re:Gay marriage

[sumdumass]

The studies also showed that the results counlt be reproduce when redone. This is kinda like the cold fusion argument. It is out there somewere if we can find it.

This is off topic but if there is somethign that makes a person born to be predispositioned to homosexuality, does that then mean they are abnormal or defective? or will it give creedence to the fight for gay rights? also how long before pedophils and rapist turn that evidence into justification form thier actions. Could yo imagine a catholic priest saying "it wasn't my fault. god made me this way"

Re:Gay marriage

[sumdumass]

i'm not sure the sex with little boys is a consent thing either. at cetain point in history when most of these rules were started the general idea was any sex not intending to reproduce wasn't right. This is because the towns and families needed workers for the farming and hunting as well as wariors for defending and attacking. It was my impresion that most if not all the rules/laws discouraging sex was in one way or another related to this.

It is interesting how times have changed and the fears of the olden days are no longer with us. Still we have been able to justify the usage of the laws/rules and have an inherent almost instinctive view on them. I guess morals are deeper then a belief in religion or someones sence of rational. In order for homosexual mariage to become accepted, there need to be a clear rational dividsing line seperating it form the other taboos we have instilled in society.

Re:Gay marriage

[sumdumass]

most attraction is little more then admiration. what you choose to do with it is up to you. gettign hot and bothered over someone is a learned trait. Thats why it is impossible to have one move that seducess any woman instantly. Anyone that tells you different is either lying or has something knowone else does.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

OK, so you're saying that opposing bigotry is wrong? Yer fucked in the head.

No Klansman is correct in his bigotry, no Nazi was justified in his genocide. And no idiot should be unchallenged in his intolerance.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Opposing bigotry with bigotry is wrong.

My statement is that I really can't stand a bigot. Hate them all, and will oppose their ideas at every turn.

You're trying to construct a Goedel sentence out of my position, hoping to prove that my position is self-referential.

But you are conveniently leaving out the fact that I am opposing evil bigotry, of the same character as the Klan practices. My opposition is an ultimate good, and is the opposite of the Klan's bigotry. Therefore, no self-reference is possible, and you fail your semantic game.

But that's expected, because bigots who defend the hating of homosexuals have giant cocks stuffed into their craniums, displacing their brains. You're just a stupid little fuckstick, and nobody can blame your idiotic position on anything resembling thought.

And if anyone thinks that was harsh, I ask you, would you be nicer to Adolf Hitler if you met him?

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

I know who you are. Distintuishing one bigot from another is a useless excercise. All that needs to be known is that bigots are idiots.

If you say that my dislike of bigots is bigotry, then you are just morally fucked up. Opposing evil is not evil, it's good.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

I don't know what you're trying to prove, but when you defend bigotry, it's not likely to earn you a blow job.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

You're objecting to my vitriol directed towards anti-homosexual bigots. You're in my fucking way. When I'm venting at bigots, anyone in my way is going to get a piece of my mind. You try to stop me from venting my spleen completely at a bigot, well that's defending a bigot.

Get used to it. If anyone is spewing anything negative about blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else, I will stomp them into the ground. They can believe whatever fucking stupid idea they want to believe. But if they lift one little finger or wiggle their tounge in bigotry, I'm going to fucking cut it off.

Re:Gay marriage

[Yunzil]

What? Polygamy is immoral?

I didn't say that.

Marrying minors is immoral? But why?

Because minors can't give informed consent.

Re:Gay marriage

[Yunzil]

The studies also showed that the results counlt be reproduce when redone.

Link plz.

also how long before pedophils and rapist turn that evidence into justification form thier actions. Could yo imagine a catholic priest saying "it wasn't my fault. god made me this way"

Pedophilia and rape harm other people. Homosexuality doesn't.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

And you can go fuck yourself. Bigots will not get any nicities from me.

Re:Gay marriage

[CrimsonAvenger]

What? Polygamy is immoral?

I didn't say that.

You're not pushing for legalization of polygamy, are you?

Marrying minors is immoral? But why?

Because minors can't give informed consent.

They can't? You believe that age is a magic bullet that allows "informed consent"? And if not, why not push for removing that silly limit. Should be easy enough to develop a psych test that can determine whether people are capable of "informed consent". Unfortunately, if we used such a test, it's likely most adults wouldn't pass muster....

Re:Gay marriage

[k8to]

No, most gays, like most americans, are quite aware that voting for tiny minority candidates does not cause their views to be heard, but to be lost entirely.

If our voting system was different, I could concionably consider voting for a candidate other than Kerry. As it is, I cannot.

Re:Gay marriage

[k8to]

The libertarian supports equal rights for all americans provided they haven't signed away these rights in a contract.

At least, that's how I see their position, so I really can't condone it.

Same Song...

[theguywhosaid]

New band. Except it is the same band too.

Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[Anonymous Coward]

right from the horses mouth. Big difference between saying "Bush had nonsense answers on MTP when defending his position in Iraq" and _showing_ Bush attempt to defend his position.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[CrowScape]

Yes, but you fail to explain how it's GWB who is using Copyright law to censor when NBC is denying the footage. I honestly don't think the submiter got past the first couple sentences of the article before he rushed off to do the write up.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[1u3hr]

Yes, but you fail to explain how it's GWB who is using Copyright law to censor when NBC is denying the footage. I honestly don't think the submiter got past the first couple sentences of the article before he rushed off to do the write up.

I RTFA. The point was that Bush does very few interviews, and so media are so concerned about losing that privilege that they will self-censor and not allow reuse of interviews that put him in a bad light. Bush doesn't have to say anything, but by only offering interviews with companies that toe the line, he is endorsing their attempts to intimidate using copyright. This would be fair enough if he was a movie star concerned about controlling his image, but as a paragon of American values, including free speech, he should hold to a higher standard, and should explicitly allow free use of his public statements.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[CrowScape]

OK, so when has Bush withheld interviews from companies that allowed anyone to use their footage of him, or threatened to do so?

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[Jerf]

The point was that Bush does very few interviews, and so media are so concerned about losing that privilege that they will self-censor and not allow reuse of interviews that put him in a bad light. Bush doesn't have to say anything, but by only offering interviews with companies that toe the line, he is endorsing their attempts to intimidate using copyright.

Ultimately, you really have to conclude he is as free to only give interviews to those he choses as we all are. I submit it is less about "endorsing" and more about "toeing".

Part of free speech is having the right not to speak, and President or not, Bush still has that right.

You are free to draw whatever conclusions you choose based on his choices.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[CrowScape]

Re-word: "withheld interviews from companies BECAUSE they allowed anyone to use their footage of him."

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[1u3hr]

Part of free speech is having the right not to speak, and President or not, Bush still has that right.

Obviously. If you read all my piece, or the orignal article, it's not about what's legal, but what's moral.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[1u3hr]

Re-word: "withheld interviews from companies BECAUSE they allowed anyone to use their footage of him."

Obviously, he would never give that as a reason.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[CrowScape]

No, but surely you can at least show a causal link somewhere, right?

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[Ricdude]

Fortunately for me, I've remained under the radar so far... (click my homepage url to see why).

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[CrowScape]

BTW, when I was talking about "the submiter" I was not referring to you, but to MacDork. Just want to clear that up so there are no hard feelings.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[1u3hr]

No, but surely you can at least show a causal link somewhere, right?

No, it's unprovable. The point is that if he continues to give interviews preferentially to "news" shows with such policies, he endorses their actions. But you're free to interpret this in other ways, and surely it's not him personally and directly but his staff who do this unbidden.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[CrowScape]

If it can't be proven then the position is simply a matter of faith and has no real place in rational discussion (and certainly no place as an article on a news site), don't you think?

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[1u3hr]

If it can't be proven then the position is simply a matter of faith and has no real place in rational discussion (and certainly no place as an article on a news site), don't you think?

No.
This isn't a news site, it's a site for commenting on the news.
There's a large difference between legal standards of proof, and "knowing", on the balance of probabilities, what is happening. See for instance OJ Simpson.

Political choices are a matter of judging character and motives, neither of which are subject to concrete proof. Since I have a pretty low opinion of Bush's character already, naturally I lean towards explanations supporting that point of view.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[Shajenko42]

Part of free speech is having the right not to speak, and President or not, Bush still has that right.

That's not actually a right. For instance, you can be compelled to speak in court. The president is required to report on the "State of the Union" by the Constitution. The Freedom of Information Act requires the government to disclose certain documents (and Bush has certainly fought hard against this).

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[Oligonicella]

So, that opinion is based upon the presumption of motive of those who are presumed to be doing something because of the presumed movites of Bush which cannot be shown?
A bit too many presumptions to avoid the foil hats.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[Oligonicella]

None of which involve interviews with reporters.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[dcw3]

The point was that Bush does very few interviews

Well then you'll probably want to watch Larry King Live at 9pm ET tonight:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.ki ng.live/

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[1u3hr]

Well then you'll probably want to watch Larry King Live at 9pm ET tonight:

Yeah, he's bound to get a grilling from Larry.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[Jerf]

And you also can't yell "fire" in a theatre and there is no protection for "fighting words". The right to free speech has a long history of not being absolute but we still consider ourselves as having it, despite the restrictions. Your examples prove nothing that isn't already well known by people who study the issue.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[davinciII]

Part of free speech is having the right not to speak, and President or not, Bush still has that right.

Yes, but when he speaks on my dime, as I contribute to his salary, I have a right to that speech as well.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[Warpedcow]

Bush doesn't have to say anything, but by only offering interviews with companies that toe the line, he is endorsing their attempts to intimidate using copyright. This would be fair enough if he was a movie star concerned about controlling his image, but as a paragon of American values, including free speech, he should hold to a higher standard, and should explicitly allow free use of his public statements.

Bush's interview with NBC is NOT a public statement, that's why NBC was allowed to do what they did in the first place. Any true "public" statement made by Bush is free for anyone to use, that's why it's called a "public" statement.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[1u3hr]

Bush's interview with NBC is NOT a public statement, that's why NBC was allowed...

Correct in a narrow legal sense. But nevertheless, he wasn't chatting with a reporter off the record, or in a private meeting, he was performing knowing it was going to be broadcast. It was certainly a statement to the public, and should be considered part of the public record. As the article said, ifit came to court NBC probably would fail to prevent the use of a clip from that, but they still tried to use legal intimidation to keep it from being used.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[CrowScape]

Except I'm not asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, just a single instance where you can say an interview was probably denyed because of who footage was given to. As you can't even meet this increadibly low threshold, I'll put the theory in the same category as the fake Moon landing and the communist plot to flourinate our water supply. Nah, make that lower; those conspiracy theorist actually try to back up their accusations.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[1u3hr]

Except I'm not asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, just a single instance where you can say an interview was probably denyed because of who footage was given to. As you can't even meet this increadibly low threshold, I'll put the theory in the same category as the fake Moon landing and the communist plot to flourinate our water supply. Nah, make that lower; those conspiracy theorist actually try to back up their accusations.

Well, you've certainly convinced me. Four More Years!

slashdot logo

[kaykay_2k1]

sorry for posting this msg in this thread... i don't know where to post.
but, my slashdot page shows "php" logo instead of "slashdot" logo !!!
is it same for everybody else ???

Re:slashdot logo

[kaykay_2k1]

here's a screenshot for the same http://kk.freewebpages.org/slashdot.jpg

Re:Only in America

[HermanAB]

The Patriot Act is but a thinly veiled 'State of Emergency' - you are not living in a police state, because you are living under something worse already.

Lock it down tight and it will be alright.

[bigskank]

It is becoming more and more clear that the focus on tightening up intellectual property law to make it more like a form of "real" property is not just affecting geeks and pirates anymore. As the entertainment industry and members of congress continue to pound it into our heads that "taking any expression from anybody from any reason is bad" we are going to realize extraordinarily negative consequences to our democracy. Will we be able to show the "State of the Union" address after the original airing? I most certainly can't get into Congress to tape it, so it seems that the networks can lock down political information very tightly. Sure, there are transcripts, but political messages aren't just about what's said, it's about how it's said and who the message is said to, and what the reaction to that message is. The use of copyright as a tool to stifle opposing viewpoints or criticism in politics is a very powerful - and extremely dangerous - political weapon, and it is one that could kill democracy as we know it. If we aren't even free to draw up words and images of the leaders who we elect, who we pay out of our tax dollars, and who we let govern us, then the ideals which this country was founded on are dead (if they aren't already). Just because NBC or ABC or CNN shot the film of a leader doesn't mean the public shouldn't have certain rights to choose who can or can't use it or how it can be used. These networks use public airwaves, receive public services wherever they shoot (i.e. the extra police protection around the press corps at the Democratic Convention in Boston) and take the time of our elected leaders. Surely the public deserves a little fair use.

Re:Lock it down tight and it will be alright.

[kfg]

Sure, there are transcripts. . .

Which are the protected intellectual property of the speech writer.

KFG

Don't waste your vote.

[antikarma]

If you don't like Kerry or Bush, you might want to check out the Libertarian candidate for president, Michael Badnarik. I can almost guarantee you'll agree more with him than either Kerry or Bush even if you do consider yourself a democrat or republican.

Re:Don't waste your vote.

[joonasl]

I'm sorry, but at least this guys views on crime are self-contradictory.

First he states that the crime rate in U.S. is much higher than in Europe or Japan and that "our children are even gunned down in their schools, often by other students" then his solution is more guns? I simply don't get it.

Re:Don't waste your vote.

[antikarma]

Well, this is what Badnarik believes about gun control :
I sincerely believe that statistical evidence supports the idea that crime increases exponentially wherever gun control is instituted as the governing policy.

So technically it's not self-contradictory. But yes, he might be completely wrong. He attempts to back up his belief with some examples here.

Re:Don't waste your vote.

[Jack9]

I'm sorry, where is the program he suggests for subsidizing weapons? While I think I can show statistical evidence that extreme gun control will create safer environments in localized areas (see Great Britain), Americans have tradtionally exibited more sadistic behaviours and justified them with (surprise) tradition (right to bear arms, blah blah blah) when faced with limited freedoms. In the end extreme gun control probably is not right for US (us heh).

The rebelling teenager archetype, is not just a cliche, it's fundamental dynamic of human psychology. Might want to think like an adult about gun control. We can't change our history, but we can take into consideration all the evidence and environmnetal factors before tossing around simplified opinions about such an issue.

I'm pro-libertarian. I believe a libertarian government would not choose to censor my vote, if I disagreed. That's enough for me. I tend to ramble.

Re:Don't waste your vote.

[gl4ss]

also this gem: "; consequently, crime plummets 30-50% when states enact laws making it easy for responsible citizens to carry a concealed weapon."

the only thing the guy has got right is the compensation to the victim, but doesn't that happen in the us already?

(oh, and he has a fantasy that criminals would have money)

Re:Don't waste your vote.

[dave420]

"Don't waste your vote"..."Vote for [a 3rd party candidate]"

hahahahaha!! you libertarians are funny.

Is There Some Story or Even Some Facts Here?

[ortcutt]

I was hoping that the person who posted this would deign to provide us with some solid information or maybe just a link. As it is, the post just makes this unsupported claim that Bush and Kerry are using copyright to censor and then asserts without proof that they are no different than each other. Could someone please explain to me how something this thin got posted here.

Re:Is There Some Story or Even Some Facts Here?

[Animats]

On the Kerry side, the issue is Kerry's book from the 1970s, The New Soldier. It's out of print, and now selling used on Amazon.com for over $500.

There are some excerpts from it here, including small versions of the cover and some of the illustrations. Another site which had a copy of the cover (which has a picture of Kerry with an upside-down American flag) claims to have received this letter., insisting that they take the picture down or be sued for a DMCA violation by a photographer who claims to have taken the picture.

The photographer, George Butler, is listed as an editor of "The New Soldier". The Library of Congress entry for George Butler shows only his "muscle pictures". George Butler produced and directed "Pumping Iron", wrote a biography of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1990, and took the photos for several exercise books.

Don't blame me...

[Sean Clifford]

I voted for Kodos.

Seriously, though. Demopublicans, Republicrats, same same. Both parties are feeding at the corporate trough. I'm hopeful that under Kerry we'll have Evil Lite rather than Double Evil with Cheese and Curly Fries.

I like Nader and his take on things - I've been a fan for a long time. But I don't think he has a shot - he's not going to be on the ballot in many states, some of them key states like California.

It would be nice if one day we can have a third party candidate who (a) had a hope in hell, (b) wasn't a nutball, and (c) had the stones to be a progressive rather than a "me too" corporate slave.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

Re:Don't blame me...

[Richard M. Nixon]

Also consider that both parties are becoming more and more evil.

Do you think that I was as evil as George W Bush?
Heck, do you think I was as evil as John Kerry?

It is time for a real change. Vote Nixon 2004!
I'm much less evil that the politicians of the 21st Century.

Re:Don't blame me...

[White Roses]

Woo! Vote Nixon's Head! Vote Nixon's Head!

Re:Don't blame me...

[poot_rootbeer]

Seriously, though. Demopublicans, Republicrats, same same.

No. They're really not.

Yes, the two parties agree on some issues, but they are diametrically opposed on many others. The last four years of GOP-dominated national politics should be proof enough of that.

Re:Don't blame me...

[doinky]

Tee Hee, Ain't You The Dickens!

Mistake

[neurojab]

>Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."

That's not true. John Kerry is anti-offshoring. He went as far as naming CEOs who do extensive offshoring "benedict arnold" CEOs.

Re:Mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone better ask Teresa about offshoring, seeing as how 57 out of 79 of the Heinz's factories are overseas.

I'm sure you'll receive a classy "Shove It" response though...

Re:Mistake

[demachina]

"John Kerry is anti-offshoring"

Corrections he says he is anti-offshoring at the moment because he considers it to be a good way to win votes. Its anybody's guess if he would be anti-offshoring if he got elected or would really do anything about it other add a couple of new incomprehensible changes to the tax code that may or may not discourage it.

If you recall Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and for the Patriot Act. During the primary when Dean was killing him on these two planks he magically became a crusader against the war and the Patriot Act. As soon as he locked up the Democratic nomination he rapidly backpedaled on both issues to court indepentent voters who aren't as hard over on these two planks. Haven't heard him say anything on the Patriot act lately and his position on Iraq is nothing but muddled. He seems to be both for and against it.

I don't have any use for the Bush machine but they are hitting the nail on the head calling him a flip flopper. The quandry for independent voters, do you vote for the incumbent who is obviously bad and dangerous, or a challeneger who might turn out OK or could just as easily turn out worse, you simply can't predict what position he will have five minutes after you elect him.

Re:Mistake

[kfg]

He went as far as naming CEOs who do extensive offshoring "benedict arnold" CEOs.

Ah yes. The old "treason" card. Very classy. I wonder where his watch was made?

Maybe if the various candidates didn't compete so hard to see who can wrap themselves in the flag the tightest it would let a little blood continue to flow to their brains.

KFG

Re:Mistake

[wass]

Huh? It's not Kerry's wife's company, it's his wife's ex-husband's company. Sure she's a semi-major stockholder, but she's not CEO, COO, CFO, and doesn't have more than 50% of the shares. So how does this come under Kerry's jurisdiction?

If your reply is that she should sell the shares of said company, she's probably held back by FTC of how many shares she can legally unload anyway.

Re:Mistake

[wass]

I don't have any use for the Bush machine but they are hitting the nail on the head calling him a flip flopper.

So are you implying that a candidate should never change their mind on any issue, even if they realize their original opinion may have not been in the public's best interest?

Re:Mistake

[demachina]

No. A politician SHOULD change his mind based on changing conditions or if he realizes he was wrong. Lord knows its one of Bush's biggest flaws that he can never admit he was wrong apparently even to himself.

That's not what Kerry does though. He changes his position to pander what he thinks the audience he is after at the moment wants to hear. He seems to be oblivious to the fact, that in the electronic age, people are going to notice that he is taking both sides of key issues depending on the audience. I think the Republicans have a film with cuts where he contradicts himself over and over and its going to drive home this fact.

During the primary Kerry was a firebrand liberal in order to beat Dean at his game, and now since the Dem vote is locked up he's morphed in to Mr. Middle of the road centrist to sucker the independents.

I may be naive but I think sometime before an election a candidate should establish his positions, tell everyone what they are, and let the cards fall where they will. He comes across like he is playing all of his supporters as chumps and thats why so many people really dislike him.

I pretty much gagged when he opened his convention speech with the salute and "Reporting for Duty". Maybe the still photos worked but to me he couldn't have done anything more to come across as a complete phony.

Re:Mistake

[1u3hr]

>Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."
That's not true. John Kerry is anti-offshoring.

And in the link referenced, all it says is that Marc Andreessen (Formerly Netscape, now an offshoring advocate amongst other things) supports Kerry DESPITE Kerry's stated opposition to offshoring, because "Bush no longer represents a better alternative on trade and globalization issues".

Re:Mistake

[LibrePensador]

You mean like Bush moderated his stance to make it sound like he was pro-choice in 2000 and a compassionate conservative that would do no nation-building or squander the billions in the Social Security fund?

Re:Mistake

[Entrope]

You missed John Kerry's latest "nuance" on this issue -- Benedict Arnold companies are now limited to those who move their nominal headquarters overseas to avoid paying US income tax on most of their revenue. Apparently an overzealous speechwriter was responsible for having offshoring qualify CEOs as Benedict Arnolds.

Re:Mistake

[Phil John]

You do realise that overseas sales of Heinz products are probably higher than US levels. You're not the only ones who put ketchup on your burgers. It makes far more sense to produce in the market you are selling in than to export to that market. This is not off-shoring, that's farming out work to other countries for products sold only in the U.S., so software, call-centres and nike factories (sweatshops) are all off-shoring.

Re:Mistake

[Danse]

Someone better ask Teresa about offshoring, seeing as how 57 out of 79 of the Heinz's factories are overseas.

I'm sure you'll receive a classy "Shove It" response though...

Might be appropriate in this case considering that she doesn't run the company, and doesn't make any of the decisions for it. Besides, I still don't see where Republicans get off bashing her for saying "shove it" to a reporter. Cheney said a lot worse than that on the Senate floor to a US Senator.

Re:Mistake

[RickHunter]

And his VP candidate, Edwards, is very anti-offshoring. One of the planks in his primary platform, which has become one of the planks in the Dem platform, is terminating all tax breaks for corporations that offshore jobs.

This translates to: anyone who offshores jobs gets annihilated by the IRS. Better think twice before trying to destroy the American economy, Mr. CEO!

Re:Mistake

[demachina]

OK, I'll grant you Bush played voters as chumps in 2000 too. But you see Bush was a lot smarter about it. He lied consistently throughout the campaign. It was only after he was elected that he proved himself a liar.

Kerry changes his position every few weeks in the middle of a campaign making it obvious he doesn't believe at least half of what he says. It makes it extremely easy for his opponent to highlight this fact and it makes potential voters feel like chumps if they vote for him because its obvious he is pandering to the voters he happens to be talking to at the moment.

Re:Mistake

[Zak3056]

That's not true. John Kerry is anti-offshoring.

John Kerry voted for NAFTA which is hardly the mark of someone against "offshoring" unless you take it litterally and require crossing an ocean for it to count.

Re:Yeah, right... I CALL BULLSHIT

[quixotic411]

I Call Bullshit:

Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry (the website pointed to by the 'Kerry' link) is the organization running attack ads on US television, attempting to besmirch Kerry's war record. The adverts include the catchphrase 'I served with Kerry', which is stretching the truth a bit -- not a single vet in the adverts actually served alongside Kerry, they were merely in Vietnam at the same time

The group running ads is "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". Both groups clain to have served in vietnam, the swift boat people claim to have served "alongside" Kerry - their boats were almost always with Kerry's - as per standard procedure. These guys saw exactly what Kerry did and didn't do, and tell it in commercials and a book.

I don't know anything about the other group. Kerry is threatening to sue TV stations that run ads from "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"
This is good enough reason not to vote for him for suppressing the truth. I guess Nader will have to do.

And don't diss Bush, no one knows if he did coke, and he's smart enough to take a stand on issues - something Kerry cannot. Unfortunately for me, it's the wrong one.

Re:Only in America

[Shihar]

That is the stupidest title I have ever read. If you think this is 'only in America', you need to open your eyes and take a look around. When it comes to free speech, the US is pretty damned liberal. I can still fly a confederate flag and wear a white hood if that tickles my fancy, but in free thinking places like Germany you can be arrested for doing a stiff armed salute or displaying a Nazi symbol - and it isn't like Germany is the most toltalitarian of places in the world.

Catchy phrase, but pure bullshit karma whoring.

Well Duh

[rsilvergun]

They're our ruling class. They take positions that benefit them, and only them. It bugs me to hear starry eyed morons going on about gov't for/by the people, and never stop to consider that America's got rulers just like any Dictatorship you care to name. The fact that you can sometimes join the ruling class doesn't change that. If the people ever really do wise up and start trying to change things, you can bet your @$$ our facade of democracy's gonna colapse real quick.

Re:Well Duh

[LardBrattish]

Yep, but Bush is doing his best to stop any form of democracy in America.

In at least some states the 3 strikes & you're out law is being used to gag peaceful political protests. Bush removed the right of protestors to claim freedom of speech as a defense so basically if you get arrested 3 times for being on a protest march you can be jailed for life.

Home of the free?

Re:Well Duh

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

The fact that you can sometimes join the ruling class doesn't change that.

Actually... that makes all the difference in the world. If a system has mobility, then its other ills will eventually be ironed out. The main worry I have for the Republic is the current atrophying of the lines of opportunity. Right now we have rulers but not a permament ruling class. But I agree that the mold is hardening.

Re:Well Duh

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Stupidity is the root of all evil.

So let's suppose you are right, then it doesn't matter who are elected, they will inevitably turn bad. This stance will obviously lead to you not voting, which in turn will lead to exactly the situation you lay out here. Anyone who believes this argument will help it coming true. So imho it is utter stupidity.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

You could join the communist party in the USSR. You could even work your way up its ranks and may one day be leader if the old one dies. It makes no difference though, it's still the communist party.

What better reason for DRM?

[teamhasnoi]

Why, when DRM gets here, we won't have any of these Fair Use or copyright infringement discussions because there won't be fair use, and there won't be infringement. If something slips past the Analog Hole, unjust and misused laws like the DMCA and anything Senawhore Hollings has a filthy hand in will carry the day.

When corporations can absolutely control what you can archive, reuse, or replay - that will be the day that free speech is reduced to what an individual can mimeograph and hand distribute. And there are already laws that chill that speech, such as vandalism, loitering, disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly, and thousands more. Don't worry, one applies to you. Right now.

So violate copyright every chance you get. Copyright has been abused to the point where it is useless, unjust, and no longer represents the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. Civil Disobedience, kids - 1 in 6 Americans can't be wrong...or can they?

Re:What better reason for DRM?

[surprise_audit]

that will be the day that free speech is reduced to what an individual can mimeograph and hand distribute

Or transcribe it to a word-processor, perhaps? It's highly unlikely that any WP would be able to determine that you're simply typing in what Dubya's saying, rather than writing a letter to your mom, or a college paper, or a postdoc thesis. At some point, after it gets emailed to the world, or copied to a weblog, someone might notice you'd copied parts of Dubya's speech. By then the can is open and the worms are everywhere.

And anyway, you're not copying the video clip, just the words, and if anyone owns the copyright on those, it would be either the speaker, or the speechwriter.

OK, so it wouldn't have quite the same impact as the clip... By the way, if someone in the audience uses a tape recorder to get sounds bites, who would own the copyright on that?

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

[boisepunk]

I'm trying not to troll of flamebait here, but this really isn't a good reason to vote for somebody. You're comparing an existing record vs. a nonexistant record. The two cases can't be compared without baseless assumptions. That aside, I don't think anyone with half a brain should be voting for Bush. But, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. We learned that with Stalin, Pakistan, Saddam Hussein (issue aside please), Howard Dean, Ralph Nader, etc. You should think about choices that are still there. Think of it this way: there are a few choices out there and you've only eliminated one; you should weigh the remaining choices or eliminate them in roughly the same fashion. Hey, from this comment I can see you're at least a somewhat intelligent person. It'd be a shame if you lost your intelligence in the voting booth.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

[HeghmoH]

I believe it's a good enough reason. Bush has been really, really bad. It would take a great deal of struggle for Kerry to be as bad as Bush has been. For me, given the choice of a known evil or an unknown, I will take the risk with the unknown.

The other choices are eliminated mostly because they won't help the goal, which is to get Bush out. I have weighed all of the choices, and I see this choice as being the least bad.

In any case, which third party would you propose that I vote for? Nader's a total whack-job. I don't agree with him about much of anything. Libertarians are more my style, but they're about a million times too extreme. No, even with the third parties included, it's still a choice between the least of evils, and in that contest in 2004, John Kerry unfortunately wins.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

[boisepunk]

Well, at least you're thinking. It's sad that a lot of people aren't.

Best wishes

Misleading

[peachpuff]

This article makes it sound like both candidates are engaging in a campaign of suppression. If you actually follow the links, you find out that there is (as far as i can tell) only one lawsuit per candidate, and that the suits were not filed by the candidates.

I think copyright holders are wrong in both cases, but the candidates aren't necessarily behind it.

If you want to know where a politician stands on an issue, you should ask them and check their record. It's not enough to find one example where they've benefitted from someone else's lawsuit.

Come to think of it, how come these suits are only evidence in one direction? The candidates aren't party to the lawsuits. You could just as easily say that both candidates are against copyright suits because a movie that helps Kerry is being suppressed and so is an ad that helps Bush.

Re:Yeah, right... I CALL BULLSHIT

[Aardpig]

These guys saw exactly what Kerry did and didn't do, and tell it in commercials and a book.

These guys also contradict all of the evidence given by those who actually served on the same boat as Kerry. Who are the more credible witnesses here, hmmm?

And don't diss Bush, no one knows if he did coke, and he's smart enough to take a stand on issue.

What a bizarre notion -- supporting someone because they 'took a stand', even though it goes against your stance. I'm sure Hitler doesn't command your respect, but he took a stand on many issues, hmmm?

DoS voting

[Doc Ruby]

That's why I'm voting for Kerry. His party is much less effective at passing legislation restricting citizens rights than is the Republican Party. And with the Republican control of Congress, the balance of power between the Legislative and Executive branches will defang them more than ever. Moreover, the more precarious position of the Democratic Party makes it more responsive to activism from the people. Through individual donations to the DNC and anti-Bush "527" corporations, especially over the Internet, the people are much more important to the DNC than they are to the RNC, which protects their corporate "donors" more effectively, at the expense of the people.

Re:DoS voting

[o'reor]

His party is much less effective at passing legislation restricting citizens rights than is the Republican Party.

That's a good point. But, how effective will they be at cancelling the rights-restricting PATRIOT act and its sequels when Kerry gets into office, considering indeed that the GOP will still be in control of the Congress ? This would lead me to think that the Democrats need more legislative clout than they have right now.

the more precarious position of the Democratic Party makes it more responsive to activism from the people.

This could be seen as a weakness too: the Dems actually tend to be more responsive to right-wing activism for fear of losing those votes to the Republicans. Why the hell is Kerry so wishy-washy about social protection, abortion and so on ? I think this is a strategic error in the long run : Kerry needs to raise interest among the progressive-leaning citizens that did not vote in the last elections. Trying to adopt a conservative stance on 'sensitive' matters won't help much, and those people will say "what's the use voting for Kerry ? He sounds too much like Bush."

And you end up with more and more people either abstaining or spoiling their votes on Nader (looks like he won't be there this time), because the Dems refuse to take a clear progressive stance on such important points.

Re:DoS voting

[Zak3056]

That's why I'm voting for Kerry. His party is much less effective at passing legislation restricting citizens rights than is the Republican Party

Virtually all federal gun control laws were signed by Democratic presidents and sent to them by a Democratic controlled congress. By that standard, I would argue that the Democrats are just as effective at restricting civil liberties (albiet different ones) as the Republicans are.

Re:DoS voting

[Doc Ruby]

I don't think any of those "flaws" are so bad, unless you work for the DNC. Despite appearances to the contrary, Republican activists are people too, so Democrats' response to them is appropriate, when they represent Republicans in their constituency. Which of course the President does - hundreds of millions of them.

As for the "PATRIOT" Act, once Ashcroft is fired, that mass of lies and fascism will have a lot less momentum. Ted Kennedy's public statements that we should get rid of most of it probably show the direction, considering the vast help Kennedy has given Kerry's run. Politically and bureaucratically, the entire Act, as well as the entire Department of Homeland Security, should be thrown out, not only operationally, but as a political message easily explained to the public and history. Then a new security Act and Department should be immediately introduced, after 3-6 months of public discussion, then revised after about a year. With included regular revision dates, and a sunset clause.

Re:DoS voting

[Qrlx]

You know what I'd really like to see? A new Constitutional Convention.

Give us 13 years (for Patriotism's sake) and see if we can't figure out a better way to run things.

A lot of people talk about change, and a hell of a lot of people work for change within the system and without. But there are some real evident problems with the system we've got, and taking a fresh look at the building blocks of society is a healthy thing. (Glaring example: winner-take-all Electoral college. There are much less polarizing systems of voting. However they are in countries that aren't 200+ years old.)

Couldn't we devote one hour a day to a project like that? Or are we doomed to playing DOOM and not getting a whole lot done.

Re:DoS voting

[Doc Ruby]

While the right to carry a gun was limited, the right not to get shot was protected. Congress writes laws that mostly limit total freedom, and Democrats aren't libertarians - they're just less able to pass a consistent agenda sacrificing freedoms than the Republicans. You can't turn a single (inconsistent) issue into a standard by which to judge civil liberty protection/destruction. When you look at the broad range of civil liberties, you see Republicans constraining them all over the place, with Democrats much less so.

Re:DoS voting

[Doc Ruby]

We do need reform, but a new Constitution, drafted in these times of corporate power and media immersion, would lose much more ground that we've evolved. The Constitution itself is still an excellent model of a selfgoverning people, including its capacity for amendment, as well as its conservative processes.

The 2000 election, and almost certainly even more so the upcoming 2004 election, showed us a constitutional crisis in the fundamental mechanism of ballots. No surprise, as the Party system overlaid on the Constitution allowed the parties to accumulate countertricks in manipulating the flaws, rather than producing changes to update the system as we learned of bugs over the centuries. The Electoral College, for example, assigns a ballot point to the winner of a given state's popular vote for each *congressmember*, including the 2 senators. So empty states get extra representation. There's no reason the State itself should get 18.5% (100 out of 538 ballots) of the say in the next president. That single change would make even that extra layer a better model of the people. But it's better to throw out the whole hack (a patch for 18th Century communications constraints), rather than let a vestige fester, ripe for some new, unanticipated gaming.

We always have >2-way presidential elections, even when the "3rd" party is running someone who doesn't have star power like Nader, Perot or Anderson. The top election priority, of creating acceptance of the president by getting the majority to vote for them, failed in most modern elections. "Instant runoff", or proportional voting, would fix that. We'd pick our top "N" candidates, allowing everyone's consensus #2 pick to win, when everyone had a different #1. The first consensus on the list, with a minimum 50% consensus, or those below 34% consensus are eliminated in a revote, until consensus is measured.

We *can* devote time to that project. The first Americans were members of many lodges and organizations, so they developed the practical experience on which voting was based. Current Americans are even bigger "joiners", and we can experiment at low risk among ourselves with new voting paradigms. Until we've got both accurate sampling, and the confidence to use it. The Internet is a great forum for these experiments, as well as the added dimension of vote authentication which is such an important factor. I agree with you - so put together some network voting software for some real groups, use it, and blab about its success for the next decade. It will become part of rising wave of electoral reform.

Re:DoS voting

[Zak3056]

While the right to carry a gun was limited, the right not to get shot was protected

I respectfully disagree. Show me an example of any federal gun control laws that actually reduced shootings instead of simply making it harder for the law abiding to purchase firearms.

When you look at the broad range of civil liberties, you see Republicans constraining them all over the place, with Democrats much less so

Define "all over the place," please--and provide a few examples. If those examples include PATRIOT act and gay marriage, you mind want to dig a little depper as to where Democrats stand (or stood) on those issues, first.

Re:DoS voting

[Zak3056]

Gun control increases the rights of citizens to walk freely without fear of being shot.

I posted this in reply to another post, but I'll repeat it here: Give me an example of any federal gun control law that has actually reduced shootings, instead of simply making it harder for the law abiding to purchase firearms.

Nothing appropriate for "sport shooting" gets eliminated by these laws, unless you think emptying a clip into a deer is sporting. But then I guess you play Doom in God mode.

1) The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting! It's about the right of people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, and represents the final check in our system of checks and balances. Going out to bag your deer once a year isn't what it's about.

2) To play your game for a minute, define "sport shooting." The International Defensive Pistol Association, and The International Practical Shooting Confederation sponsor shooting sports involving "tactical" handgun and rifle scenarios (using those ugly black rifles politicians love to ban) and tens of thousands compete worldwide every year.

Re:DoS voting

[Doc Ruby]

Government figures show gun crimes down, Brady bill successful

Why shouldn't it be hard, but possible, for the law abiding to purchase firearms? It's hard to purchase, register, and drive a car, because they're dangerous, and require screening and control. Why haven't gun advocates demanded that all guns include triggerlocks, to protect their owners from being shot when the gun is taken by an assailant or a fool?

Republicans constrain civil liberties all over the place. Are you kidding me about which party is producing the "PATRIOT" Acts, the "Straight Marriage" amendment, DMCA, INDUCE, and the rest of these depradations? And which party is buckling under the pressure in the minority? Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1992, the institution has turned into a corporate republic. When Democrats ran it, it was more of a people's republic. When balanced, it was more of a republic, with a much more diffuse bias. But that's the Congress - I'm talking about Bush or Kerry, the president. Republicans are known, even praised, for their ambition in setting civil behavior into law, Democrats for their "permissiveness". That equates to control vs. liberty. And I'm sticking to my assertion that I prefer the less effective Democrats, despite their lesser contributions to control, to the more effective, controlling Republicans.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

You misunderstand "well regulated militia". It meant "amply supplied local troops" when written. We've gone far away from that path, as our $.5T military budget amply supplies our troops, without needing them to bring their guns from home. The Amendment has survived revision because it sounds like it means "properly controlled army", which no sensible voter would dislike, even though we need more controls on the beast. If you're going to quote the 2nd Amendment, you'd better back a plan to discard the standing Federal military, in favor of local, self-armed militias.

Re:DoS voting

[Zak3056]

Government figures show gun crimes down, Brady bill successful

The data as presented by CNN is not entirely factual. The current Brady law didn't really go into effect until 1998 (from 1994-1998, the brady law established a waiting period on handgun purchases. In 1998, the NICS system went into effect requiring background checks for both handgun and longgun purchases.)

As noted by the story, violence was actually on the decline for two years before Brady was passed, and six years before background checks became the law of the land. Given that context, no, I can't agree with you that Brady has had a significant effect on gun violence.

Why shouldn't it be hard, but possible, for the law abiding to purchase firearms?

That's not to say I don't think the idea of background checks are a bad idea. Most objections from the pro-2nd amendment crowd center around the idea that if you're approved, that record should be destroyed (which is what the NICS law states should happen.)

It's hard to purchase, register, and drive a car, because they're dangerous, and require screening and control

It's ludicrously simple to purchase a car (no ID required) and registration is not required unless one wishes to drive on the public roads. For example, you could dig through the classifieds, find an old beater pickup, pay cash, have it towed to your land, and let your 10 year old drive it around your land all he wants and all would be perfectly legal (though you MAY be violating child endangerment laws...)

You'll note the 2nd amendment crowd usually supports concealed carry licenses, which are exactly what you're talking about: A difficult piece of paper that requires lots of paperwork and proof of training (in most jurisdictions) that allows you to carry a firearm in public.

Why haven't gun advocates demanded that all guns include triggerlocks, to protect their owners from being shot when the gun is taken by an assailant or a fool?

I have a safe. Why should I be forced to pay an extra 15 bucks every time I buy a firearm, for a useless piece of metal, most of which are horribly designed? (Google for it.) Furthermore, why should my self-denfense weapon be locked up at all? Doing so all but ensures that the assailant you mention WILL be able to disarm you. The criminal is not going to wait around for you to unlock your gun, after all.

Ask yourself why "safety" laws such as you propose ALWAYS excluse law enforcement/government from their jurisdiction. If the police unions think this is such a bad idea, exactly why should MY safety be considered of lesser importance?

Are you kidding me about which party is producing the "PATRIOT" Acts, the "Straight Marriage" amendment, DMCA, INDUCE, and the rest of these depradations?

PATRIOT passed almost unanimously--that's BOTH parties giving the FBI a bunch of stuff it's wanted for years, with 9/11 being the handy excuse to ask for it--and NONE of the bastards, from either party, even READ THE FUCKING THING before voting on it.

While the Republicans are the ones pushing for a national amendment on gay marriage, the Massachusetts legislature (google around to see how the party affiliations in that body break down) is working on a state constitutional amendment to be voted on in 2006. Further, John Kerry is on record as opposing gay marriage.

The DMCA passed BOTH HOUSES on a VOICE VOTE! Granted that the Republicans controlled both houses in 1998, but looking through the congressional record, I don't see any democrats in either house demanding a roll call vote. And then it was signed by Bill Clinton, a democrat.

INDUCE is co-sponsored by Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Exactly how this is a Republican abomination is beyond me.

Buckling under pressure my ass, Democrats had a big hand in every example you posted.

Personally, though, I agree

Re:Yeah, right... I Call Bullshit AGAIN

[quixotic411]

Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.

The whole point of the allegations: His injuries were self-inflicted or otherwise manipulated to utilise a loophole designed to get outta hell a lot quicker than our other fine veterans

And before you call bullshit, there is at least one incident that is verified and part of public record: Kerry took shrapnel, claiming that it was during an incident in which there was no shrapnel produced

Again showing, you're full of it :P

Fact checking...

[SeaFox]

GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.

BZZT! Sorry, but that is incorrect. It is not Micheal Moore, but another Iraqi War documentary maker: Robert Greenwald, who is trying to use the clip.

Source: This editorial from Wired about, not-ironically, big media and copyrights suppressing democracy.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html ?pg=5?tw=wn_tophead_6

Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Alien54]

Strangely enough this article entitled Who Would Jesus Vote for? makes a actual point:

Shortly after George W. Bush first assumed office, I found myself driving down a rural Arkansas road, enroute to a speaking engagement. A small church stood alongside the road and, as I swept past, I noticed that it's readerboard said, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." I nodded to the wisdom of that rural pastor in posting his commentary on things Presidential. I assumed he meant Bush, of course, as representing the lesser evil in the choice that America had just made.

Amazing how far we have come. I never would have thought it possible to sit here, over three years later, and actually feel nostalgic about the Bill Clinton era. Ah, for the good old days when I merely was ashamed of America's President and thought governmental growth and spending to be simply grossly out of control.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

So many of us voted Bush into office with the conviction that voting for anybody other than Bush or Gore was wasting our votes. So many of us pulled the lever for Bush, thinking him the lesser of two evils. Ironically, even more of us pulled the lever for Gore, thinking the same thing. Now we face yet another Hobbesian choice: Do we continue with the devil we know, or choose the one we don't? Bush or Kerry?

[...]

What? You're not Jesus? Nobody asked you to climb up on a cross, you know. You don't have to pay with your life to vote your conscience. All you have to do is vote against evil.

Bush or Kerry? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

If we all, every single one of us, voted against Bush and Kerry, we could change America overnight. Even with the substantial vote fraud that takes place all across America.

Ok, you might say - I'll play. Who do I vote for? That is where your responsibility as a citizen comes in. Find out who else is running and choose someone - anyone - that you honestly can say is not a lesser evil. You might even find someone you can support in good conscience. It could happen.

Of course, it's a bit longer in the original article. But definitely worth a read.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Anonymous Coward]

uh-huh, yes, could you explain how Zionists started
both World Wars?
Or how you could support a party that says it's:
"opposed to unconstitutional interventionism."
yet
"is completely pro-life, anti-homosexual rights, pro-American sovereignty, anti-globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, anti-unchecked immigration"

Hell, it would seem the constitutional party is
even anti-constitutional party. Insightful? That
guys a wack job.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Alien54]

Insightful? That guys a wack job.

While I don't know what he's saying about zionism, that doesn't disprove his quoted point.

So, which evil are you voting for?

;)

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the governator of California?

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want my plumber to know how a toilet works before he comes over.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[kfg]

Now we face yet another Hobbesian choice. . .

No, we do not. A Hobbesian choice is one in which no choice is actually offered. You can have any color Ford you want, so long as it's black.

I've lived through an actual "democratic" election in a third world country. You were told who the candidate was, and you voted for him.

Oddly enough he won with an overwhelming "mandate from the people."

It wasn't pretty. Mostly because there was never so much as a hint of civil unrest during the process. No bloodshed. No arrests. No fear among the populace. Nothing. Complete civil order reigned as they lined up to vote en masse for the same man. Completely democratic autocracy.

Our system may well be flawed, but it isn't anything like that. . .yet. You still have the power to choose, and the responsibility for that choice still resides with you. You can't pass it off to "the party."

Choose.

If you don't like the candidate either of the "two" parties present to you, choose more wisely.

But choose.

Or they really will end up telling you who to choose someday. And you'll do it. And be happy about it.

Because choosing your leader will be somebody else's problem.

KFG

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[wass]

Bush or Kerry? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

True enough. But anybody reading please keep in mind that republicans have started going around trolling liberal-leaning blogs (like /.), parading as ultra-liberals. Their point is to give pep-talks such as this to sway the liberal votes away from Kerry, towards Bush.

I'm certainly not accusing you of being such a troll, but I just want other readers to be aware that such right-wing efforts are going on.

Anyway, as for me, I think the stakes of this election are way too high. Think of all the REALLY controversial stuff Bush didn't do because he needed to maintain his swing voters. He'll have no such obligation to them if he's re-elected.

I really don't think Kerry is that evil. At least not much more than most other candidates, including Nader. I voted Nader in 2000 (my state was solidly democratic), so I totally know where you're coming from. But IMHO the stakes are WAY too big this time around.

This time I'm voting Kerry for several reasons. He seems much more centrist, so hopefully he can unite the majorly partisan congress. Remember that the big-time conservatives would hate Nader nearly as much was we hate Bush, and this would cause even more partisan splitting. Gingrich really fucked the country up by effectively making war against the 'other' team, and now the whole politics is way too fractured. I'm hoping Kerry can pull the more moderate republicans to him, bringing some sanity back to the Capitol.

Also, it seems like the election will be close again. This time I want my popular vote to be counted for Kerry. When they said Gore got more popular votes last time than Bush, my vote wasn't counted. If Gore would have lost the popular vote by 1 vote, I would have been sad that I didn't vote for him. So yeah, I want the results to include me for Kerry.

Anyway, I don't see Kerry doing anything particularly damaging, especially anything that Bush wouldn't have done already. And my biggest priority is to make sure Bush doesn't drive this country off a cliff any more than it's already been pushed, so I must do all I can to get Bush out. If that's voting for Kerry, then that's fine with me.

But anyway, I really don't think Kerry is all that bad. I don't know of any candidates that are perfect, and ALSO not too radical that they'd be able to effectively form a coalition with the other Congress members.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Phleg]

The stakes would only be "WAY too big this time around" if the candidates were actually any different. For all that Kerry complains of Bush's failures, I have yet to hear any ideas for how he would mend those failures.

I have serious concerns of how Kerry will be able to make decisions, without Bush making the "wrong" ones, for him to base them off of.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[sparrow_hawk]

The problem with this view is that it presumes that politics is all about making the right choices for *you*. In fact, that's not it at all -- the point of politics is about making the right choices for the *country*. Here's an example:

(okay, got my asbestos suit on)
I'm a Kerry supporter, but I tend to think he doesn't go far enough in his views. For instance, he's not in favor of gay marriage, although he is in favor of civil unions. (Bush, for the record, is in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning *both*, so the original submitter of this story has it wrong). I see absolutely no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and so I'd really like Kerry a lot more if he fully supported the right of gays to get married.

Why, then, aren't I supporting someone who *would* fully support that right? Because the question isn't who best represents my views, the question is who would be the best for the majority of the people. *My* personal views are never, ever going to be perfectly represented by the person running the country unless *I* run for president. Since that will never happen, I have to choose the person who I think best approximates my views and has the best chance of effecting positive change. I have no problem with that, because the question is not, and never has been, which candidate is best for *me*. The question is which candidate is best for the *country*.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[tarunthegreat2]

ummm... this would have made more sense in the primaries... at least then you had a greater choice (or illusion depending on how you see the glass)...but for those unaware of your system, the whole point is to theoretically filter out the cruft, and be left with the 2/3+ most-liked/least-hated candidates - I said theoretically. If you don't like this system, you may prefer the parliamentary democracy system instead , where you don't vote for the person, but the party. This actually localises things in that you are thinking only of voting for your local representative to the Lower House, and are counting on him/her to elect a good person as Prime Minister ... (this doesn't work too well either, however)...

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[wass]

well, Kerry did he'll repeal the upper-class tax cuts, that he'll try to prevent off-shoring (i don't know specifics here, though), which should help the economy. He also said he will revamp the health-care system (again no specifics). He doesn't want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

I also believe he wouldn't form his cabinet from diehard conservatives, that he would work better with the UN, etc.

Bush also wants to privatize more services, including medicare, which I strongly disagree with. Bush has also blurred lines between state and religion, which I don't think Kerry has any intention of doing. Bush is adamantly pro-life, Kerry is pro-choice.

Those are some key things off the top of my head about differences between Bush and Kerry. I guess Kerry doesn't have much specifics for fixing the economy, fixing Iraq, fixing health care. But some of Bush's moves (major tax cuts, privitization, alienating UN) which failed one could be pretty sure Kerry wouldn't have initiated on his own anyway.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Espen]

You are think of Hobson's Choice, named after the owner of a livery stable in Cambridge who would let customers choose any horse they wanted as long as it was the one closest to the door. Hobbesian would normally be in reference to the philosopher Thomas Hobbes who is unrelated to this expression.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Znork]

You appear to think that what the party machine is saying is what Kerry actually believes. While Kerry might well be in favour of gay marriage, actually saying so would cost him more votes than it would give him. You would 'like' it if he did say it, but you wont change candidate over the difference, nor would anyone else with an interest in the issue, when the alternative winner is someone who opposes gay anything.

Therefore, Kerrys position is carefully crafted to maximize his vote count, and it's hardly as if he'd express any other view in public, should he think differently.

"The question is which candidate is best for the *country*."

Yes. Well. Except you dont get to choose from the 'best for the country' list. You get to choose from the 'best for the groups in control of the parties and their sponsors' list.

Nice of you to think of the country tho.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[SlamMan]

How would you go about proving that to a skeptic like myself? It's not like I see anybody typing ultra pro Kerry stuff while wearing their "Religious Right and Proud of It" buttons on \.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[ChadAmberg]

that he'll try to prevent off-shoring (i don't know specifics here, though)
I don't think so...
The problem with Kerry is that he is trying to be all things to all people. Somewhere you heard he was anti-x, but his very next speech to another interest group he is pro-x.
No one has ANY IDEA what the hell this guy wants to actually do. All his plans are secret until after the election...

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[JInterest]

True enough. But anybody reading please keep in mind that republicans have started going around trolling liberal-leaning blogs (like /.), parading as ultra-liberals. Their point is to give pep-talks such as this to sway the liberal votes away from Kerry, towards Bush.

Also please bear in mind that many advocates of John Kerry are trolling these boards accusing Ralph Nader supporters of being stalking horses for Republicans.

Better suggestion. Review each post on its own merits, not through a partisan lens. There's a shocking notion. Advocates for third party candidates, or those who believe that they should be voting their own conscience and not somebody else's, deserve better than they have gotten from the Kerry partisans on this board.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[krunk7]

Ding! Ding! You win the most senseless, biased misinterpreted article of the week post! Straight off the bat that site smacks of nothing but tripe. But in good humor I actually read the reference article it sited.

• First: The article quotes Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Governor NOT Kerry.
• Second: The article never quotes anyone as saying they are "pro-outsourcing", but only assures India that it is not actively against US/India business relations
• Third: The only mention of Kerry and outsource in the same sentence is here: "Kerry had earlier termed CEOs who outsource jobs from the United States as "Benedict Arnold CEOs", after a traitor of the revolutionary war, sparking off widespread criticism."
• And Fourth: The article is the equivilant of one with the title: "BUSH EATS BABIES FOR BREAKFAST!!" with the content being an interview with some obscure Republican about how the republican party does not hate babies.

Now I'm not making any definitive claim about the actual stance of Kerry or his wish-washiness (or lack thereof), but if that's the best you can do......You sir are an---> Idiot.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[kenaaker]

There's a reasonable level of detail on most of this stuff at http://www.johnkerry.com/plan.

The proposal for preventing off-shoring is probably the weakest of the collection.

The most interesting piece is the health-care reinsurance proposal, where catastrophic care (starting at $50K/year?) would be handled by reinsurance of existing health care plans. A lot of the catastrophic cases are already handled by governments, but only after the insurance companies have spent who knows how much time and money fighting about it.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[kortex]

I believe you are referring to "Hodgkin's Choice" or the conscious decision whether to swell or itch. A "Hobbesian" choice as we understand it in middle America is making the decision to publicly urinate on either a Ford or a Chevy. Maybe a Dodge.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't been following any of the speaches personally (no tv), but is it a case of lost nuance? Obviously you have to adjust your message to your audience, so one week it's, "I am not in favor of killing babies", and the next week it's, "I am in favor of a woman's right to choose." They don't actually conflict, but they come across as supporting opposite sides.

There's also the possibility that he is just open-minded. I don't see the world in black and white. There are no right answers, no easy solutions (most of the time). I can agree with almost anyone that they have a legitimate point in their argument. I often play devil's advocate to present the counter-argument, just because I can do so honestly. Maybe Kerry is just being honest that X is an issued that can be viewed different ways, and he isn't going to claim any one way is necessarily better than another. Then again, maybe he's just trying to get more votes.

Admittedly, the president has to choose sides at some point, and it would be nice to know which side he will choose before we elect him, but the fact that he is willing to listen to the people puts him a step ahead of Bush, who is 100% certain that everything he does is right and Right! (No matter what the population of the country or the world thinks.)

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[falloutboy]

He should have named that site jewishconspiracypenpal.com. He's got a pretty strong anti-Jew thing happening in more than a few of the articles on the site.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[ratamacue]

Simple: Jesus wouldn't vote. Why? Because if Jesus votes, he endorses the principle of force. No matter who he votes for, force will be employed as a means to an end: certain people will be granted power (the "right" to initiate force) over other people. Force is, after all, the essence and key tool of government.

I could be wrong, but I always thought that Jesus taught us to interact through voluntary association, not through force.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[abb3w]

Hobbesian would normally be in reference to the philosopher Thomas Hobbes who is unrelated to this expression.

Actually, this election campaign has some resemblance to a Hobbesian choice: Nasty and Brutish... but alas, not short. Also, decidedly neither solitary (fortunately) nor poor (meaning in the financial sense-- less fortunate).

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[ratamacue]

The question is which candidate is best for the *country*.

Don't you mean best for the most powerful special interest group? A "country" is nothing but a collection of unique thinking individuals -- it is not a living, thinking being in itself! It cannot know good or bad, or what's best for itself. Only the individual members of that country can determine that, and they can't speak for anyone but themselves. In order to say, "best interest of the country", then, you must prove that your policy has been endorsed by each and every individual member of your country. Impossible, yes, and that's my point.

There's no such concept as "best for the country". It's nothing but a fairytale made up by the powerful elite to convince us why they should retain and/or expand their powers.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[IBX]

Careful with the name-dropping: A jewish philosophy professor Sidney Morgenbesser was hauled to precint for assaulting officer with a crude expletive. A policeman in NY subway ordered Morgenbesser to get rid of his cigarette. "I am not smoking and I will lit the cigarette after leaving the station which will be in about 10 seconds so your point is moot already." said the prof. "I cannot let you", said the policeman, "because I would have to let everybody do the same". "Why?, asked Morgenbesser, "Are you Kant?"

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[_Sharp'r_]

"This time I'm voting Kerry for several reasons. He seems much more centrist, so hopefully he can unite the majorly partisan congress."

Ummmm.... you missed the part where Kerry has been rated the most liberal senator of them all, right?

Please, don't judge a politician on what they say to get elected in an election year, especially Kerry, who seems to change his public positions based on the wind and which state he's in.

Judge them on how they actually vote. By those standards, you probably like Kerry better (based on your expressed views), but he can in no way be called a "centrist".

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[abb3w]

I see absolutely no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and so I'd really like Kerry a lot more if he fully supported the right of gays to get married.

Would be replies, finish reading before reacting.

I was raised Catholic. My two sisters and I regularly argued theology with the parish priest-- mutually educational and broadening. =)

Under the contemporary view of Catholicism on marriage, marriage is a sacrament, an external sign of god's grace. Furthermore (and pay attention), Matrimonium facit consensus, i.e. Marriage is contracted through the mutual, expressed consent. Therein is contained implicitly the doctrine that the persons contracting marriage are themselves the agents or ministers of the sacrament. In other words, any two people who declare themselves married before the community have ipso facto married. However, it has also held that marriage, like other sacrements, must be performed with the approbation (spiritual approval) of the church.

Even when leaving aside questions of non-Christian faiths, not all faiths recognize the Authority of the Patriarch of Rome to give approbation. Furthermore, under the American precepts of the separation of church and state, the government of the United States lacks jurisdiction to establish whether the Patriarch has that authority or not.

Therefore, any union recognized by the state is ipso facto a civil union. Whether it is also a marriage is not a question for the courts of men, but for the court of God-- and ought be presumed valid by the state given the acceptance of any church.

Therefore, I would hold that the government has no business discriminating between ANY "marriage". Mind you, they might conceivably have some business deciding which civil unions to recognize (which is why arbitrary declarations as above may be valid canonically but not civilly without a marriage licesne), but that would be a fairly straightforward civil rights case... which neither the politicians nor the preachers like the taste of.

In short, I'd say that the problem is that the politicians aren't theologians, and that the theologians want to be theocrats. Technically, the only thing politicians can discuss by definition is whether gays (or straights!) can have civil unions, not whether they can get married! Of course, neither the politicians nor theocrats are that precise in their speaking or thinking.... which is Unhelpful in discussing the issues.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[ExMember]

A Hobbesian choice is one in which no choice is actually offered. You can have any color Ford you want, so long as it's black.

You are right, we do have a choice. We get to choose between midnight black and jet black.

Of course it's all a matter of opinion. For the next three months millions dollars will be spent trying to convince us there is a difference between the two candidates. They will largely fail and about half the eligible voters won't bother to choose one over the other.

Perhaps there are differences between the Bush and Kerry, but they aren't on the issues that matter to me. I'll be requesting the neon green Model T, though it's unlikely I'll get it

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[wass]

Hey, congratulations, you're my first freak (on slashdot, that is). I've gone years without anyone naming me their foe, I guess that record is ruined now that I've commented on politics. Oh well, politics, religion, they're bound to come up sometime. :-)

Anyway, yeah, astroturfing is all present in politics. I saw many people in the 2002 Maryland gubanatorial election with signs saying "another democrat for erlich", and the vibe i got from these guys was that they were bigtime republicans to begin with. I'm damn sure we'll see "another republican for kerry" signs this time around too, many from bigtime democrats.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[gfxguy]

I agree. I've been reading slashdot for many years, I didn't join to thinking that eight years in the future I'd could "sway" anybody.

Let's face facts, no one here is going to be "swayed" by anybody else, everyone already has their minds made up, and it's stupid to argue about.

I generally jump into the fray only when someone makes a post that is blantantly or disengenuously mis-informing.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Jadrano]

ummm... this would have made more sense in the primaries... at least then you had a greater choice (or illusion depending on how you see the glass)...but for those unaware of your system, the whole point is to theoretically filter out the cruft, and be left with the 2/3+ most-liked/least-hated candidates - I said theoretically.

I think the way primaries offer more choices is really mostly theoretical because "electability" matters so much. For instance, if I was an US Democrat, I would have been in favor of someone like Kucinich, but I doubt whether I would have voted for him if he had a real chance of getting the nomination because he would have had much smaller chances of winning against Bush than Kerry.

If you don't like this system, you may prefer the parliamentary democracy system instead , where you don't vote for the person, but the party. This actually localises things in that you are thinking only of voting for your local representative to the Lower House, and are counting on him/her to elect a good person as Prime Minister ...

In a parliamentary system, you vote for parties (or local party candidates), but in most cases it is quite clear for which prime-minister you vote when you vote for a certain party or local candidate, and I think many voters mainly think about the parties' candidates for prime-ministers. E.g. before the last German elections the main public debates, quite similar to the ones in the US, were between Schröder (SPD) and Stoiber (CDU/CSU). (When you voted for the Green party, it was also clear that you would support the election of Schröder as prime-minister with the vote because it was announced beforehand that the SPD and the Greens would form a coalition.)

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[gfxguy]

You make a good point... for the record, I don't really care about gay marriage..... on the other hand, I think civil unions ought to be good enough. But I'd like to expand on the point you were making...

What you did was make a good point about how to pick a candidate. A lot of people are one trick ponies... they have one issue that they base their entire decision on. My suggestion is to take the top five or 10 issues, as they are to you. Rank them in order of their importance to you, then rate each candidate on their past performance in each category.

As a lot of stock market companies like to say, past performance is not a guarantee of future returns, but it's the best gauge you have (certainly better than what a candidate says he will do).

You really need to do research, though, because a lot of impressions about a candidates positions might come from traditional party stereotypes that may not represent the candidates views or record... we really need to look at records, not vague promises.

Is GW Bush for smaller government (as I am)? Not according to his first four years... But what about John Kerry? Who will be worse? Is "homeland security" the most important issue? Education? Who is really in bed with the media companies?

I think you'll find they are very much alike (GW signed into law the biggest increase on educational spending in four decades... JK says he'd increase educational spending "without question"). Both say they will keep troops in Iraq. JK says he'll ask the UN for help, but GW already tried that. Maybe certain countries will aquiesce to JK simply out of spite to GW... who knows?

But I do think, if you limit it to the two major candidates, that one will edge out the other.

I also think people need to think about what their values REALLY are. I've convinced people to change their minds about abortion, of all things... one of the most polarizing subjects in existence.... although I my opinion on abortion has done a complete reversal since I was in high school (20 years ago).

And it's also precisely for that reason that I'd limit my views on the candidates to what they've done recently... the past 5, maybe 10 years. Opinions do change - recently JK had an "epiphany" about conception! I don't care about JK's vietnam service. I don't think it will make him a better leader. I also don't care about his anti-war activities... I don't think they will make him a better leader, either. I do care how he has voted. I also am afraid of GW because he has not vetoed ONE SINGLE bill that has come across his desk, no matter how wasteful it may have been.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Geez, if you search Google for Hobbesian Choice, you find a lot of people making this mistake--some even offering some nonsense explanation linking it to words in Leviathan.

Weird.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Alien54]

He's got a pretty strong anti-Jew thing happening in more than a few of the articles on the site.

this was pointed out after the fact. I disregarded that element for sake of the core point, which is why vote for the lesser of two evils. Why make that compromise at all?

Of course, your milage may vary when it comes to the actual definition of evil. After all, Microsoft does not own any particular political party. (insert wise acre remark: they merely buy them wholsale)

The fact that he is loopy on some points does not mean that he is unintelligent or does not have some interesting ideas elsewhere. Some folks cannot tell the difference, and sort of paint everything with a hot tar brush with feathers ready at hand. If you going to tar and feather someone, make sure you search him for his gold first. Even if it is a metaphorical tar and feathering.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Alien54]

For Myself, I do not buy into the anti zionist rant and rave.

but the main point is interesting. Why vote for the lesser of two evils. Why make that compromise at all?

Of course, your milage may vary when it comes to the actual definition of evil. And you may be completely comfortable with either John Kerry or George Bush. But since both of them are skull and bonesmen, I wonder what the agenda is there, if any.

Not fully trusting either, should I vote for the lesser of two evils? The idea seems to be worthy of debate by itself....

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[admiralh]

Maybe Kerry can make better decisions because he's well-read (he actually reads newspapers), well-educated, feels real sympathy to those less fortunate then himself, and has personally experienced what damage a President can do with a bad decision.

Though remember, when W's frat brothers needed someone to go on a beer run, George W. Bush said, "Send me!"

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[bwcbwc]

Hear, hear!

I always wonder what the heck is going on when the minister says "and by the power vested in me by the state of (fill-in-the-blank), I now pronounce you man and wife."

If we clean up the language on the government side of things, and restrict governments and states to recognizing "civil unions" or "families" rather than "marriages", then the churches can take care of marrying people, and the government can define what benefits civilized/unionized people get, and who is eligible to create a family.

And then (hopefully) the civil rights issue can be fought out without reference to religion.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Rich0]

If you really want to clear up all this arguing over federal definitions of marriage, then simply deregulate it. Remove all references to it in law. Marriage could be a purely social or religious activity.

Wives would have no particular legal basis to ownership of their husband's property, aside from any contractual agreements between them.

There would be no joint filing of taxes - everybody just pays whatever they make. Alternatively, you could allow joint filing, but with no restrictions on who can file (ie two complete strangers could file jointly).

There would be no legal benefits or obligations associated with marriage.

If that happened, the whole argument would disappear.

The problem is that marriage involves all kinds of legal issues aside from the simple decision of who is allowed to get married. People who object to gay marriage for religious reasons might prefer to not pay for spousal benefits using their tax money, for instance. On the other hand, gays might prefer not to pay for heterosexual spousal benefits.

My feeling is that marriage either is or is not the business of the state. If it is the state's business, then people will have to put up with the associated politics. If it is not, then there should be no legal status associated with it.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[kfg]

Yes, I am familiar with Hobson, his horses, and the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, some of whose works share space in the right next to my desk shelf.

The author of the essay which sparked my comment seemed confused over the similarity of the names, but I chose to stay with his spelling without comment on that score, rather than correct it, which was perhaps an error.

KFG

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[abb3w]

In short, "marriage" is theological, say theologians. Political, say politicians. Personal, say persons.

Sounds like an elephantine problem, indeed.

In fact, they're all partly right (at least most of the time). The theological nature I've already discussed. The personal nature results from it being a particular nature of relationship between two people; since the state modifies its behavior in the cases of such relationships (such as with tax law), it is also a matter res politica. Unfortunately, they all want custody of the word. And while "civil union" nicely distinguishes a state-marriage from a church-marriage, I can't think of any phrase much better than "permanent shack up" to separate out a personal-marriage. "Conjugal union" maybe? "Common-law marriage"?

Leave it to people what unions warrant "marriage".

That would have some unfortunate consequences. The state must make some distinction between what is and is not a "marriage"/"civil union"/"conjugal union", if it is to continue court recognition of the marital communications privilege and spousal privilege. Removing that really would be a weakening of marriage, not merely in the minds of religious zealots, but in the eyes of the court. And allowing completely arbitrary pairs of people to refuse to testify against each other simply by saying "we're married" has equally unfortunate consequences.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[abb3w]

And then (hopefully) the civil rights issue can be fought out without reference to religion.

Yes, and perhaps pigs will come flying out of my ass, but I'm not investing in pork futures on that basis. =)

Alas, most folk like Falwell and Pat Robertson have a vested interest in there not being a thoughful, reasoned discussion anywhere in the neighborhood of their religious beliefs. It ain't a-gonna happen.

Instant runoff?

[YrWrstNtmr]

As in no more electoral college? That would be possibly the worst election process this country could have.

It sounds good at face value, but it would result in NYC, Chicago, and LA determining the outcome of the election. Add up the population of just those 3 cities. Now add up the population of 10 states west of the Mississippi.

Where do you think the candidates would spend their time and money? Who do you think they'll pander to?

Re:Instant runoff?

[nadabu14]

Amen. It would be a huge mistake to give up geographic representation. That would amount to a huge loss in political diversity. The system is already oversimplified as it is. One size does NOT fit all.

While it is true that instant runoff voting would increase the number of legitimate options for voters, adding that to the process in a way that eliminates geographic representation would be swapping one problem for another.

Re:Instant runoff?

[BrodeCo]

a) the Electoral College gave us Bush II. b) isn't democracy about "majority rules"? I just don't see the problem, sorry. Maybe it's because I live in a city (a small, townish city called Seattle) but I would prefer politicians pandered to the populous, progressive provinces.

Re:Instant runoff?

[nadabu14]

How noble and selfless of you. "I'm part of the majority, so I should be pandered to."

A fat lot of good selfish and arrogant attitudes like that have done for humanity over the years.

Re:Instant runoff?

[BrodeCo]

How many years are we talking about? Care to share specifics about the reproductive success of species which gave selflessly of themselves to others over the eons? Sorry, but I qualified my statement-- and you replied with melodramatic claptrap. Humanity's selfishness got us where we are today, like it or not. Whinging about it doesn't prove your point about instant runoff voting.

Re:Instant runoff?

[quixotic411]

we ain't a democracy, we're a republic.
The constitution provides for a republican form of government, in which we can choose represenatives.

You insensitive clod.

Re:Instant runoff?

[nadabu14]

If you want to appeal to nature (evolution) to support your position, you should not be so quick to dismiss the crucial importance of diversity in ecological systems. The inherent dangers, weaknesses, and flaws of monocultures in all sorts of systems have been well documented. I don't believe it is any different in a politics.

My response may have been "melodramatic", but I stand by it. The white, urban majority (of which i am part) in this country may think they don't need the rest or know better than them, but that is foolish arrogance. We need diversity.

Re:Instant runoff?

[localman]

Humanity's selfishness got us where we are today

Actually that is demonstrably untrue. Despite humanity's overall tendancy to be selfish, it is in fact communication and cooperation that have got us where we are today. Note that each culture that succeeds has a high degree of internal cooperation. In fact, cooperation is so benficial to one's own success, one might even say it is selfish!

Read "The Evolution Of Cooperation" by Axelrod. It's a real eye-opener.

Other than that, I agree that we're probably better off with pure instant runoff voting, and letting go the whole geographic crap. There is no legitimate reason I see to give some individuals (in low population states) ten times more voting power than those in high population states.

Cheers.

Re:Instant runoff?

[localman]

And you think that by giving some folks higher power votes encourages diversity? If anything it's interfering with such a process. I'm sorry, but each individual should have an equally powerful vote. There's no reason at all to conclude that everyone in highly populated areas think the same. I know I don't think much like the people around me. Why doesn't my vote count more then?

I agree diversity is important -- I don't see how geographical representation has anything to do with that.

Cheers.

Re:Instant runoff?

[nadabu14]

You can't see how geography has anything to do with diversity? You've got to be kidding. Any pollster, sociologist, or gerrymandering politician can tell you that geography makes a huge difference in political views.

And yes, i do think that giving minority perspectives "higher power votes" (though i dispute the term) encourages diversity. It's hard to see how it couldn't. I am not saying the minority should rule over the majority here. I'm saying that we need to ensure them a substantial voice. The value of diversity in politics is breadth of perspective. Geography is critical to that.

And for the record, i'm a young, white, middle class, male living in suburban Portland, OR.

Re:Instant runoff?

[localman]

No, I'm saying that arbitrarily assigning higher power votes to people in remote areas doesn't have anything to do with actual diversity. That's affermitive action voting. I don't trust anyone to make those decisions correctly. I say everone gets an equal vote. That is actual diversity.

Cheers.

Re:Instant runoff?

[nadabu14]

Huh?

There is nothing arbitrary about geographic representation in the electoral process. And that has nothing to do with affirmative action (which i'm not convinced is bad anyway), the two concepts may have some similarity, but they are quite unrelated.

Re:Instant runoff?

[localman]

Huh?

arbitrary (adjective): based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.

I don't see how geographic representation is anything but. One vote per person: individual humans is not an arbitrary distinction. Geographic boundaries are highly arbitrary.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see any reason that justifies messing with one person, one vote. Anything else would be claiming to know which views are important and/or underrepresented. And it implies that any underrepresented view deserves extra promotion. I don't think either of these is true.

Cheers.

Re:Instant runoff?

[nadabu14]

> arbitrary (adjective): based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.

determined by individual preference or convenience, eh? isn't that the type of voting system you want?

and seriously, do you really think the founders of this country were being arbitrary when they decided to include a degree of geographic representation in the electoral process? geographic boundaries may arguably be arbitrarily determined, but they are there and significant nonetheless. likewise, geographic patterns of population distribution and cultural influences resulting therefrom may be arguably "arbitrary", but they are there and significant nonetheless. it would be foolish when setting up a government for an unevenly distributed population in a nation with diverse geography to pretend these things did not exist or have no bearing upon political issues. There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about being aware of these realities and factoring them into the process. It is very intentional and logical.

> I don't see any reason that justifies messing with one person, one vote.
> Anything else would be claiming to know which views are important and/or underrepresented.

Wrong again. Factoring in geographic representation does not judge which particular views are important. It merely begins with the assumption that allowing for a diversity of perspectives to get a fair hearing is beneficial. It then observes that geographical differences consistently correspond to differing perspectives. It then decides to factor geography into the political process in order encourage a diversity of perspectives.

> And it implies that any underrepresented view deserves extra promotion.

yes, it does. and here we must apparently agree to disagree.

Re:Instant runoff?

[BrodeCo]

Not sure who you're talking to here, but obviously it's an important cause if you're willing to post as an Anonymous Coward about it! You'll DIE to protect it and blah blah blah, but you won't stay logged in and take bad Slashdot karma for it. Ha!

Make them pay for it

[leereyno]

Threats and bullying only work when you give in to them. If you're not willing to fight and sacrifice for your rights then guess what, you don't have them. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that means doing things that are uncomfortable in the short run to ensure your freedom in the long run. Giving in to the abuse of power only makes that power more likely to be abused in the future. To stand fast and say "NO!" is a victory in and of itself regardless of the personal cost.

I don't know about you, but threats from law firms don't scare me. If they think my freedom and my rights are less important to me than my bank balance then they are sadly mistaken.

The fact that the law can be used to harass is a two way street. At the end of the day it all comes down to who is going to blink first. Who is willing to go the farthest, dig the deepest, and get the meanest. I don't know about other people here, but I'm one of the most vicious, spiteful, ruthless and stubborn people I know. I'm a nice guy when others are nice, but when it becomes clear that someone is trying to fuck with me my demeanor changes rather dramatically. When someone is clearly my enemy, I have no conscience, no scruples, and I'm willing to go as far as is necessary to make my enemy wish they were never born. This aspect of my personality is sometimes frightening even to me.

If I were someone these shysters were threatening, I do believe I'd tell them to put their money where their mouth is. Make them spend the time and money to pursue me. If they did...well lets just say that they'll wish they hadn't. That is the kind of vigilance that is necessary to secure and defend one's rights against abuse at the hands of others who have more money and power than you do. Make it as painful for them as possible at every turn. Make them PAY for it in ways that they just aren't willing to. Exact the maximum discomfort from them at every turn.

Lee

P.S. The scientologists can KISS MY ASS TOO!

Both bad

[Doc Ruby]

It doesn't really matter - they're both unacceptably bad. Although Reagan's deficit was larger as percentage of GDP (GNP, then), eg. 6% in 1983, vs. Bush's 5% of 2004 GDP, -$500B in 2004 brings us to something like $8.5T of debt. And remember that Reagan's debt was also Bush Sr's debt - especially as Bush Sr ran the "deregulation" of the banking system that enabled the $1.5T S&L heist. That was the 1980s, when a trillion dollars was still worth something :).

Nader

[Colonel Panic]

I really want to vote for Nader. I just wish there were a 3rd party (4th party?) candidate on the right siphoning votes from Bush as well. Then there would be less complaining about Ralph being a spoiler. (what is a spoiler anyway? Couldn't Kerry be a spoiler for Nader?)

I went to the local Nader nominating convention here in Portland. It was a 3 ring circus. There were Rupublicans there who wanted Nader on the ballot. There were Democrats there filling the seats and refusing to sign the petition because they wanted to keep him off of the ballot (they were unfortunately successful). And then there were those of us who thought that it would be nice to have Nader on he ballot so we could have a real choice if we decide in November that we can't go with Kerry.

Amazingly, at the end, Nader took questions from the audience. Unfiltered questions. Some of the questions were form angry Democrats. One question was from a guy that was not mentally all there (and Nader was quite gracious with him, I thought). I was so impressed by this Q&A session. Not that the questions were all that great, but that Nader opened himself up to questions like that and handled then well. It would have been unimaginable at a Bush or Kerry rally.

Re:Nader

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>I just wish there were a 3rd party (4th party?) candidate on the right siphoning votes from Bush as well.

Check out http://www.peroutka2004.com/

Re:Nader

[ezzzD55J]

"I just wish there were a 3rd party (4th party?) candidate on the right siphoning votes from Bush as well."

start one!

(another page in my echelon file)

Re:Nader

[GigsVT]

I'd say more Libertarians come from the right than the left.

anyone else?

[CAIMLAS]

Does it appear somewhat suspicious to anyone else that the two predominant candidates are a) both weak candidates, (and, at least with the case of Kerry, not the one with the highest popularity during primaries amongst his party), b) corporately motivated, c) seemingly both with few (if any!) stances that differ from the current status quo which is pissing off so many Americans in so many different ways?

Re:anyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, it bugs me.

but I will vote for Kerry because, unlike neo-con radical Bush and his cronies, Kerry is a political moderate (despite the "liberal" tag). Unlike Bush, he is not going to go around actively undermining our republican democracy.

You invoked Hitler :)

[quixotic411]

You invoked Hitler, I win :)

Who is the more credible witness amongst people who saw the same things? Kerry's supporters are outnumbered by detractors 23:1

I trust his equals and commanders, who contradict what he says than his subordinates who pal around with him

And I didn't support bush, i support truth. I respect bush.

Re:You invoked Hitler :)

[quixotic411]

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. (Jargon Dictionary)

A comparison was made, between Bush standing for something, and Hitler standing for something. What more do you want?

Re:You invoked Hitler :)

[cammoblammo]

You invoked Hitler, I win :)

Actually, a thread participant is allowed to draw a comparison with Hitler if the comparison is legitimate.

The parent post points out that Hitler was able to sway the opinion of the masses, but that that was not necessarily a good thing. Hitler's ability is an extreme example that proves the parent's point, or at least weakens the opponent's argument.

Thus, let the thread continue!

Re:You invoked Hitler :)

[Minna Kirai]

? Kerry's supporters are outnumbered by detractors 23:1

No. Since Kerry has official military documentation and awards on his side, his supporters outnumber detractors by 50,000:1.

Re:You invoked Hitler :)

[quixotic411]

awards applied for by kerry himself and granted based on false and misleading information... there should be no support for that

the 23:1 is of those who served on swift boats and either oppose or support his version of events

and 50K sounds rather arbitrary... if he told the truth and earned his awards, only one would be necessary, although he'd have the entire military.

Politics and Moderation

[screwedcork]

Hmm... I think /. should stay away from politics, moderators' personal political beliefs get in the way. Its just such a touchy topic around here...

Meet The Press Transcript (I think)

[thecampbeln]

Washington Post Version
According to Bush
Or... the Google Search

Re:Yeah, right... I claim Moderator Bias!!!!!

[quixotic411]

I know who the moderators are going to vote for - anyone anti-kerry or pro-truth (not necessarily pro bush) is abandoned whole the pro-kerry posts are "informative"

I know my posts are mostly ignorable, but there must be SOMEONE the doesn't believe Kerry and says so good enough to get moddedup

difference

[Doc Ruby]

While John Kerry was in Vietnam, earning medals for saving his buddies' lives, Bush was illegally punching athletes in the face. Which followed his prepschool career as cheerleader. While Kerry followed his heroic Vietnam tour leading the even more heroic, and successful, Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Re:difference

[ArcherB]

And Bob Dole gave his right arm for his country, literally. Clinton left the country to protest on foreign soil. Yet the same Democrats that said Clinton's war record was irrelevant are now saying that Kerry's and Bush's are critical. What has changed?

If you are going to take a position, at least be consistent.

Re:difference

[Doc Ruby]

What has changed is that we are now fighting a debacle war of choice in Iraq. Clinton went to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, learned to work with Europeans, and ran a winning war in Yugoslavia. Dole's record in Europe, *50 years before*, in a totally different kind of war, wasn't as relevant as his membership in the Republican Senate that had done nothing to promote Clinton's popular, successful programs. Kerry's heroism in Vietnam, followed by his greater leadership to end the war, show a man who learned the lessons of war by living them, and applying them. Bush's privilege to avoid war first showed in his cutting the line to the Texas Air National Guard's "Champagne Squadron", then in his dereliction of even that privileged duty. Now he's unaccountable even for his lies getting us into Iraq, because of "faulty intelligence". For consistency, we can see that Bush will send more Americans to war, without consequences, while Kerry will lead us honorably through a conclusion of Iraq, ASAP. That's consistent: we decide each election on the issues of its day, and it's obvious to any responsible voter that we've got another Vietnam in Iraq, with a choice between Bush, who will drag us deeper into hell, and Kerry, who can lead us out of it.

Re:difference

[ArcherB]

What made Vietnam a debacle was the fact that our soldiers were muzzled (you can bomb this area, but not that one) and not supported (Hanoi Jane and Kerry calling US soldiers criminals). Just like today when Kerry votes to send troops overseas, but votes against the support they need. That is the attitude that will make Iraq another Vietnam.

Also, I'd hardly call Clinton's war in Bosnia a winning one. We still have troops over there. Didn't he say they'd all be home by Christmas?

Finally, all leaders agreed with the "faulty intelligence", Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Bush, Feinstein, Chirac, Shroeder, Blaire, Putin, everyone. This means that they all thought Iraq was a danger to the US and the world but none of them, except for the Bushes and Blaire, were willing to do a damn thing about it. The "War on Terror" is not easy, it may be Hell for a while, but I don't want someone to "lead us out of it" (retreat). I want to in head first and win it.

I don't want to be out of Iraq ASAP. I want to stay there as long as it takes to get the job done right! I don't want someone in office who wants a "more sensitive" campaign against terror. I want someone who will kill terrorists.

Re:difference

[Doc Ruby]

Iraq was a debacle because the US government wanted a war, despite necessity, and lied to the Americans about it. For example, just this past week, some Nixon/Kissinger tapes were published showing their coldblooded considerations of continuing the "unwinnable" war in 1972, to preserve their chances at reelection. Sound appropriate to Iraq? How about Johnson's "Gulf of Tonkin" fraud, inventing an attack by North Vietnamese on American troops to incite Congress into backing his Vietnam escalation. A blueprint followed by Bush, with his Cabinet's incessant talk of WMD, "45 minutes to launch", "smoking gun / mushroom clouds". Even the Vietnam "domino theory", discredited by the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, sucessfully repelled, following American retreat, shows the Vietnam precedent of persuasive fallacy in oversimplifying "enemy of my enemy is my friend", fraudulently equating Hussein to bin Laden.

The soldiers were "muzzled" by the government, which ran an unwinnable war from afar for its political benefit, as well as its military contracts. It's well established that the troops themselves were tactically superior (over 1M Vietnamese dead to about 55K Americans, >20:1), while the Pentagon was strategically incompetent - to end the war, but very competent to stay in the war business. Kerry is a good example of people who supported the troops, like the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which he headed, but fought the politicians keeping them in a meatgrinder. When the troops returned home, they weren't supported by the public, because the politicians identification of "the troops" with "the war" backlashed when the war became unpopular. The actual atrocities committed by some soldiers, necessarily revealed to stop the war, added to their shame. Despite the dignity with which people like Kerry made the case that the war's victims included our own troops, unjustly sent to fight on false pretenses of cause and conclusion.

Kerry's vote to send troops to Iraq was, along with everyone else in Congress, a vote based on not only the intelligence, but presidential assumption of authority for it, and the policies they voted for. In fact, the vote Kerry joined was a sensible, responsible vote for "necessary force" to disarm Hussein:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." (October 9th, 2002).

When WMDs were shown to be a Tonkin-style hoax, Kerry worked against the use of force. On his vote against the specific $87B Iraq war funding bill, Kerry voted against that version because its $18B for reconstruction had no accountability to ensure its application - and to date, only $0.5B has been spent on reconstruction, just as Kerry suspected. While several billion has been sucked up by Halliburton overcharges, to Cheney's delight. That's why Iraq is already another Vietnam, and Kerry has the experience, insight, and leadership to get us out.

Sure, all those politicians grabbed the "faulty intelligence" cover story that exonerates their bad judgements, including accepting it. Clinton at least had the judgement not to invade Iraq just based on the bad intelligence, while his campaign disarmed Iraq. The "bad intelligence" that overestimated Iraq's threat at worst led him to contain and defang Iraq, while Bush's people devoured it and demanded more, to justify their invasion. Where we're still stuck today, years after they declared the war over, losing more troops than ever.

The perpetuation of these conflicts is testament to the inconclusive power of foreign policy developed by, for, and of the Pentagon. The Korean stalemate that Eisenhower produced has kept over 40,000 American troops there for over a half century. Carter's Israel/Egypt peace is kept by another 40K American troops on the border. American troops

The President

[dnb415]

Let me start this with I work for lobbyists out here in Colorado. I've been working in politics for a while now and it's safe to say the President doesn't hold nearly as much power as everyone seems to think. The biggest movers and shakers reside within the federal senate, congress, and your state legislative representatives (if the senate holds a contrary majority to the President nothing will get done, etc.). Remember he can't do much unless the congress and senate approve it (you voted them into place too). So, in your effort to vote out bush, or keep him there, remember there are other elections on your ballot that you all should be watching!!

Re:The President

[s2k2vidguy]

Last time I checked, the Senate is the other equal house of Congress and is not a separate entity unto itself. Would it hurt for people to learn just a little about our government?

Re:The President

[dnb415]

True, house and senate are separate entities. So going by that it's really three layers of government legislation must pass threw. I have to give you props, you have contributed one of the few intelligent political responses. And i agree people must learn the system better than they do, for example how many Coloradans voted today??? How many people vote in primaries????

Re:Only in America

[Jedi Alec]

true, Germany for one learned from its past mistakes and is redeeming itself to this very day. sorry, but nice as free speech may be, as much as an elemental part of a free society it may be, banning nazi behaviour somehow seems to, i dunno, make sense...

You've missed the point

[Daetrin]

There will always appear to be too much at stake. That's the trap. Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act? Do you think he will pull us out of Iraq?

I think Kerry is more likely to undo the Patriot Act than Bush. He's also more likely to pull us out of Iraq earlier than Bush, although i'm not sure if that's a good idea. We made a mess over there, and we bear the responsibility of cleaning it up, even though i have no real idea of how to go about it. It might be that anything active we try will just make the situation worse, and the best we can do is pull out and let things reach equilibrium on it's own, but that would be a rather sad state of affairs.

But that aside, the past is the past, and as much as we might like to change it we can't. However we can learn from it. What's more important than how much of Bush's crap Kerry would undo is how Kerry would act differently from Bush in the future. I believe Kerry is _much_ less likely to support further additions to the Patriot Act, i believe Kerry is _much_ less likely to invade Iran or some other middle-eastern country on specious grounds.

I'm not going to vote for Kerry because i think he'll fix the things in the past, i'm going to vote for him because i think he'll do more good, or at the very least less damage, in the future.

I'm not trying to trash kerry either. If I had to vote for one or the other, it would be Kerry over Bush. But I don't have to, so I'm not going to.

Presuming you're an american, i hope that means that you're planning on voting for a third party. I tend to disagree with people who vote for third parties because they think the two main parties are both the same, but at least you'd be doing _something_ productive.

Not voting because you think it won't make a difference is just a self-fullfilling prophecy, and not voting because you "object to the system" doesn't actually send the message you want, unless the message is to think that you're lazy or don't care about your future.

The only way to change the system is to vote for a new system or to try and overthrow the government. The voting way is a lot more likely to get you results, and a lot less likely to end with you in jail or dead :)

"Congress shall make no law..."

[io333]

It seems to me that if Copywright law, made by Congress, is being used to violate political speech, that that pesky little Amendment 1 ought to void out such laws in such circumstances.

Re:"Congress shall make no law..."

[Prof.Phreak]

It seems to me that if Copywright law, made by Congress, is being used to violate political speech, that that pesky little Amendment 1 ought to void out such laws in such circumstances.

Or they can just amend the amendment.

Re:That's why majority should rule

[ArcherB]

Face it, no one is going to vote for Nader or any other third party candidate because they know he can't win. Still, we need third parties.

The best way to allow third parties in is mandate that no one can become President without a majority of the vote.

This would have forced a run off between GHWBush and Clinton and would have eliminated any Perot effect. It would have also forced a run off between GWBush and Gore and eliminated any Nader effect. This would free up the population to vote for whoever they wanted and not just who they think has a chance of winning.

Oh, and the reason we have to go with Israel is because they don't strap bombs on kids and have them walk into pizza parlors full of other kids and blow themselves up.

Re:Cthulhu '04

[Lehk228]

... beat me to it

Groupthink

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot, I appreciate your latest attempts at telling me how to think.

I mean, before, the articles only contained strong hints that I should be a libertarian liberal. But now, I'm flat out told what to think. This is a wonderful change, as I was not bright enough to understand those old school strong hints on my own.

Most refreshingly though, is that I should now hate both presidential candidates because their similar positions on 2 issues do not reflect Slashdot's approved positions. I mean, wow! Can Kerry and Bush honestly be that stupid? I mean, Slashdot's editors have figured it all out by themselves...why can't two of this nations most powerful leaders figure it out?

Anyways, I'm off to see Farhenheit 9/11, because apparently there is much truth in that movie that tech nerds like me should see.

MOD PARENT UP

[Trogre]

People don't seem to realise that voting for a third party is not simply throwing your vote away.

Bush and Kerry are so similar that it doesn't matter really which one gets in, so voting for one just to ensure the other one doesn't get in isn't really that smart.

Don't just think you only have two choices. The whole point of democracy is to vote for the person/party/whatever that YOU WANT to be in power. Whether or not they actually do get the presidency or not (most likely not) is almost immaterial at the end of the day, you will have still voiced your lack of confidence in the current two choices.

Non-swing state?

[tehdaemon]

Utah (my state) will vote for Bush. He knows this. He is not even bothering to campaign here.

A vote for a third party here will have ZERO effect on who wins the election. Most states are in this position.

So, look at your state, and if there is some question about which dork will win your state, go ahead and choose the lesser evil. For the rest of us, vote third-party. That way your vote can have some impact on politics. Voting for either dork in these states is throwing your vote away.

Re:Non-swing state?

[wass]

Voting for either dork in these states is throwing your vote away.

Not necessarily. Enough people voted for Gore in the non-swing states that he was safely able to say he won the popular vote. This fact took away a good chunk of credibility of Bush's administration.

I'm voting for Kerry this time around, and I want my vote to count for this popular vote, even though the popular vote has no political power. It does have the ability to send a message, though.

Re:Non-swing state?

[tehdaemon]

Nonesense. Bush II got more of the vote than Clinton did. It didn't stop either of them from doing whatever they wanted. This 'lack of credibility' existed only in the minds of hard-core republicans (in Clinton's case) and hard-core democrats (in Bush II's case)

Neither party gives a #%!# about messages, unless the message is 'the other guy won, you lose!!'

Re:Non-swing state?

[wass]

Clinton still had a clear plurality, both in the popular and the electoral votes. There wasn't a sense of unfairness (and this is before the whole Supreme Court deal).

Re:Non-swing state?

[tehdaemon]

So that's why Bush didn't invade Iraq!! He didn't think it would be fair to the American people to ... Oh, wait ..

Like I said, I don't think the Republicrats care. Get in power, stay in power. Thats all they care about.

Re:Non-swing state?

[LilJC]

Reminds me of the first thing I was taught about politics in schooling...

That is, third parties never win, but they always get their way.

We mainly hear extreme opinions in the media, but that's not where the bulk of the people are. That's why the candidates fight so hard over the swing states, the number of which seems to be growing.

What happens is as a third party gets enough support (read: your vote) the dominant two parties will fight for that support by adopting part of their platform (or at least campaigning it). Bush's visit to VA this week (weekend? I forget the exact date) is proof that nothing is truly in the ballot box until after the election. Maybe there's only one (or even zero) parties with real campaigning in Utah this year. Do you want it to be that way for the rest of your life? Your childrens' lives? Don't confuse "the election" with "this election," lest you want to perpetuate the feeling of being a voiceless citizen.

People don't seem to understand...

[foreverdisillusioned]

That this sort of system is an absolute necessity for any nation that has embraced the concept of progress. There's only ONE way to stay the same, but there's an infinite number of ways we can change. If 25% of the American people are apathetic enough to think things need to stay the same, they can still manage to beat out the other 75% of the country if no one else agrees on a solution.

And we shouldn't HAVE to agree; we shouldn't have to unanimously agree on the solution in order to agree that there should BE a solution. But in a single-elimination voting system such as ours, we have no choice. We rally around the candidate closest to our view, lest we give the election to the man who is not even in the same zipcode as our beliefs.

Saying that we should vote for Nader (or whoever) anyway just so he can get federal funding for his next attempt is absolutely ludicrous. Conventional voting is fundementally flawed, fundementally biased AGAINST PROGRESS and unless people start to realize this and write their congressmen en mass, things will never change. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will lay down their collective power without a long, hard fight.

Your Vote

[PsiPsiStar]

Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood).

Vote Libertarian?

Re:Your Vote

[dave420]

Libertarians are just republicans who are even more selfish than those who actually call themselves republicans.

What are the libertarian views on welfare? Gay marriage? Foreign policy? Nuclear non-proliferation? Environment? SEC? FCC? NRA?

Let's see...

Re:Your Vote

[PsiPsiStar]

You can find libertarians in favor of gay marriage and even pro-environment.

My biggest problem with the two major parties is all the money they take from special interests.

Re:Your Vote

[smithmc]

Libertarians are just republicans who are even more selfish than those who actually call themselves republicans.

Utterly ridiculous. The "just republicans", part, I mean. The most important difference is that libertarians believe in a truly free market, not the corporate-welfare fascism of the Republicans.

What are the libertarian views on...

Well, "libertarian" is actually a fairly large tent, and you may find people who call themselves libertarians who sit on either side of these issues. I'll give my own personal answers.

welfare?

Government-operated welfare, paid for by confiscatory taxes on the productive? Against. Of course, this is not the only form that welfare could take.

Gay marriage?

To the extent that government ought to involve itself in the domestic affairs of mutually consenting citizens at all (which IMO should be very, very little) I don't see why sexual preference should be a discriminating factor.

Foreign policy?

We wouldn't want other countries messing in our internal affairs, so why do we think it's OK to mess in the internal affairs of other countries?

Nuclear non-proliferation?

See above. I don't like the idea of other countries possessing nukes, but hey, we've got 'em. If we're worried about it, maybe we should pump more research money into that missile defense system and try to make it work.

Environment?

As much as I favor laissez-faire capitalism and private property, like it or not there is a commons - the atmosphere, the groundwater, the oceans, etc., and if we all own it in common, then we all have a right to see it protected.

SEC?

Corporations are an artificial construct of government power, and should not exist in the form in which they do today. The idea of a corporate entity being a legal "person" is ridiculous and contrived, and only serves to separate power from responsibility.

FCC?

Obsolete given the advent of technologies like CDMA.

NRA?

Its existence is justified by both the First and Second Amendments.

Re:Your Vote

[dave420]

So libertarians are against welfare. They suck, then. Selfish, selfish people. I mean, wouldn't they want help if they didn't have any money? Oh, wait. Most libertarians are well-off. There's a shock. It's hardly a political persuasion the whole country can get behind, seeing as it's trying to condemn those who need it most. I really can't understand how anyone can be against welfare. If your parents were starving hungry, you'd not give them any money? You'd not want anyone else helping them out? Sheesh. Selfish, selfish people.

Political Compass

[CompSurfer]

Do you know where you stand?

Political Compass (2 Axises)

Another site: ontheissues.org

Re:That's why majority should rule

[demachina]

"Oh, and the reason we have to go with Israel is because they don't strap bombs on kids and have them walk into pizza parlors full of other kids and blow themselves up."

Not sure I follow your point. They don't need to strap bombs on kids, instead they can just drop them from an F-16 or shoot a missile from an Apache. Remember the 500 pound Israel dropped on a crowded apartment building in Gaza, as a ham handed way to assassinate one guy. It ended up killing, inevitably, all the innocent women and children in the building. A number of loyal Israel pilots sacrificed their careers, and lives, to protest that incident, along with targeting of cars with missiles on crowded streets because it shows Israel is no better or different in the indiscriminate killing department.

The world needs to realize that both sides in that conflict have issues. As long as the world divides up in two camps and chooses to pretend one side is always a saint and the other is the devil, and vice versa, its going to insure perpetual blood shed and a breeding ground for extremism on all sides.

This is a key reason why the U.S. can't win the "War on Terror" on its current path, because it can't fathom it has to fix the root causes of the animosity of the Arab world towards the U.S. and Isreal. Doing that would deprive the extremists of much of the support they are now getting from more moderate Arabs.

WRONG QUESTIONS.

[aussersterne]

It's not about what Kerry will UNDO. The damage is DONE. It's about what Bush can still DO.

Do you think Kerry will invade Iran, Syria, and North Korea using troops gathered by a reinstated draft?

Do you think Kerry will finish the job of severing all diplomatic ties with Europe?

Do you think Kerry will Kerry will seek additional restrictions on speech and behavior among the citizenry?

Do you think Kerry will fight for an even greater "trickle-down" imbalance in economic policy?

Do you think Kerry will take every policy initiative championed by the evangelical right and make it a legislative priority?

Because Bush will do all of these things. If Kerry governs in exactly the same way that a rotten tree stump would, he's still twice the President G.W. is.

MOD PARENT UP!

[ryen]

finally, someone with some values.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[ryen]

damnit, replied to the wrong post.... obviously.

I'm looking for a great flame warrior

[agotterba]

Heh. flame wars not make one great.

GNU General Speech License

[KrisCowboy]

License is granted to distribute this speech in any medium, provided the contents are not altered and this notice is preserved verbatim.

I liked this guy too.

[PotatoHead]

Kind of off topic, but this reminded me of another way to express your political views besides throwing away your vote on a third party.

Vote for people like Dennis Kucinich in the primaries. Kucinich and someone from hollywood came to Oregon and advised people to do just that. Ran a very nice little rally. I still see plenty of bumper stickers.

Their point was this: Kerry was the likely nominee, but a strong show of support for Kucinich in Oregon would sway his views a bit.. This was a nice bit of creative thinking. Kucinich saw a lot of support here in Oregon, and probably set himself up for a much stronger showing later on at the same time.

Something to think about anyway, particularly if you are in a State that is not a factor in the primaries, like Oregon.

Oh, it was Sean Penn working with him.

Re:Yeah, right... I Call Bullshit AGAIN

[jmo_jon]

to utilise a loophole designed to get outta hell a lot quicker than our other fine veterans

What's fine about the people who fought in Vietnam? Doing everything your gov say isn't right, and when you decide it's worth killing people for it rather than spending some time in jail you must make sure you're killing the right people.

It's time to stop sobbing about the fine veterans, they made a bad choice, just like the people who fought for their gov in Afghanistan.

I think you missed my point.

[Veridium]

I'm an American and yes I'm voting third party. I tend to disagree with people who vote for one of the two parties, failing to learn from history. But that's my beef.

And Kerry isn't going to undo the patriot act. And yes he will invade other countries, mark my words. It's just you'll be offered reasons that are more palatable to you to get you to support it. That's how it will go down.

Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[PsiPsiStar]

Are you refering to Sheik Yassin of Hammas?

Bear in mind that pro-palestinian news sources give Hammas members and bodyguards of terrorists the deceptive label of 'civilians.'
From http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2527.shtml
( a pro-intifada site)

In addition to Sheikh Yassin, 7 Palestinian civilians, including 3 of Sheikh Yassin's bodyguards, were killed and 17 others injured, including two of Sheikh Yassin's sons.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[demachina]

I guess I'm not following your point. I guess you are saying all of Israel's killing is justified, they only kill terrorists, never civilians, and its just the Palestinian's who are the indiscriminate killers? Anyone who says Isreal kills civilians is a Palastinian propagandist?

You are saying bombing an apartment building was justified because someone you don't like was in it. I don't remember exactly who the target was in the incident I'm thinking of. If it was such a noble act I doubt the U.S. would have condemned it as much as they did or not would 20 or so Israeli Air Force pilots would have forfeited their careers over it. There are so many civilians killed by both sides I lose track.

To make of for my bad memory here. is an article on another bombing that just happened, 17 dead, 15 civilians, 11 children. Is Haaretz Palastinian propaganda? Perhaps the children were body gaurds or relatives of some terrorist so maybe its OK they were killed too.

You see I don't think you should, with good conscience, try to pretend one side is always the right one in this particular situation. Its reached the point both sides are very wrong and they should both be very ashamed.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[interJ]

The article you linked to isn't about a bombing that just happened. It is about a bombing that happened in 2002, and is probably the same bombing you referred to in your previous post. The target was the leader of the Hamas terrorist organization, not just "someone Israel doesn't like".

And there is a difference between bombing a terrorist that constantly surrounds himself with children as a human shield, and setting out to intentionally kill innocent civilians.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[PsiPsiStar]

My point was specific to your assertions. I didn't say 'there have never been any civilian deaths on either side.' Of course there have been. I was saying that it was incorrect to describe bodyguards as 'civilians.' Because I didn't know event you were refering to, I had to guess.

If a wife aids and abets her husband in committing a crime, she can be found guilty of that crime in an American court as an 'accessory.' I'm not saying "bombing an apartment is justified because someone I don't like was in it." I'm saying that if someone's wife participates in millitary activities, then she is millitary and not a civilian.

If you're going to protest the accidental deaths of children from bombing (which you should) you should also protest the deliberate Palestinian use of children as young as 13 and sometimes younger in various attacks.

To put it simply, if a group of people chooses to involve 'civilians' in offensive warfare, then it is dishonest to continue to describe those people as civilians. They are either millitants, or militia.

While I agree that 'mistakes have been made on both sides,' the notion by itself doesn't solve the problem. Any effective plan will have to involve specific detailed proscriptions.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[PsiPsiStar]

A foreign land where Jews have lived for over 2000 years. Perhaps Israel is ending a long Arab occupation?

The arab states have broken so many UN resolutions that the ones they make against Israel aren't even funny. The UN ruled that "Zionism was a form of racism" but noone utters a peep about Saudi Arabia forbidding Jews to even set foot on their soil. Why? Lots of Arabs in the UN. I think you overestimate the moral legitamacy of the United Nations.

Palestinians talk about a 'Palestinian right of return' but who gives a damn about an Israel's right to return to the land they owned in Iraq or Jordan before 1948 when they were forced out.

Palestinans talk about human rights after participating in an attack intended to 'push the Jews into the sea' in the words of Nasser, and after abandoning Israel so that slaughter of its citizens would be easier, and after supporting the PLO's terrorist attacks, back when Lebanon still held the west bank.

The Arabs who stayed in Israel and fought to defend it still live there.

Hell, if someone had left the US to fight against it in favor of some other nation bent on its destruction, I'd say the same thing Israel has. "Don't come back. You don't live here anymore. Stay with the people you fought for."

I sympathize with those Palestinians who protest West Bank settlements, but until the Jordanians and Egyptians living in the West Bank stop bombing marketplaces in an attempt to get a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel I'm not going to take any of their 'peace proposals' too seriously.

Japanese zero pilots Kamakazied their planes into American aircraft carriers during WWII.

That didn't make them "right."

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[Sique]

Of course he is anti-semite in the pure sense of the word. Semites are the descendants of Sem, which both Arabs and Jews claim to be their forefather. Semites in the scientific sense of the word means: people speaking a semitic language, which includes (for instance) babylonian, assyrian, arabian and hebrew. Even from a racist point of view both arabs and jews are Semites, meaning they belong to the same human race. The Third Reich failed to stirr an all arabian war against the british administration in the Middle East during the World War II because the arabs were well aware about the anti semitic propaganda of the german leaders and turned them down for being anti-arabian.

Accusing both Israelis and Palestinians of atrocities and telling both are equally guilty in continuing the conflict is thus anti-semitic.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[wfberg]

A foreign land where Jews have lived for over 2000 years.

Hey, there are a lot of Jews living in my neighborhood too. Their families have been living here for hundreds of years. That doesn't mean they get to bomb the shit out of an Arab that moves into the neighborhood. Or vice versa.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[demachina]

Maybe you will sway some people reading this thread but not me. You see you keep saying it was the Arabs that did everything wrong and the Jews are right, right, right. The Arabs have to stop doing this and must do that and then maybe we will treat them as human beings again. All their misery and suffering is their fault, they are just getting whats coming to them.

You see your Palestinian favoring counterpart is going to have a list just as long as yours listing all the things Israel and the Jews have done and how they are wrong, wrong, wrong and the Arabs are right, right, right.

To break the deadlock in the Middle East everyone involved needs to admit both sides have reached the point that they are just wrong, wrong, wrong, do a master clear, get over it, move ahead and and reach a settlement where they are both equally unhappy and learn to deal with it.

I will grant you Arafat deserves to burn in hell for passing on Clinton's peace proposal. It was about as good as he could hope for and by passing on it he's just got countless thousands more people killed for no good reason. Unfortunately the only way Arafat can define himself and hold power is by defying Israel. It appears he will always be a guerilla and he passed on his once chance to be a great statesman. If the Palestinian's ever get a clue they will get rid of him and maybe they can move forward. Of course Israel needs to get rid of Sharon for pretty much all the same reasons.

"Japanese zero pilots Kamakazied their planes into American aircraft carriers during WWII.

That didn't make them "right.""

Again I'm not seeing your point. You seem to be saying they are wrong because they were willing to sacrifice themselves defending their country in a declared war. Most nations would define that as heroic behavior by a soldier, they were attacking military targets after all. Of course most adversaries would try to paint it as "wrong" but its a weak argument.

Probably shouldn't throw in another match in a thread soaked with gasoline, but if you want an example of the kind of "wrong" in World War II you seem to be grasping consider carpet bombing, and nukeing, cities. Germany did it to an extent, inviting reciprocation, but the allies took it to a new level in intentional and massive killing of civilians in both Germany and Japan, and later in Vietnam, under the guise of "strategic bombing". Its a little hard to stomach America's hypocrisy on its holier than thou rhetoric on killing civilians because the U.S. Air Forces has killed millions of them somewhat intentionally over the last 65 years.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[demachina]

I should clarify my main issue is not with the fact that civilians get killed in armed conflicts. In fact I think I'd say there is just a degree of inevitability in it unless the war is being waged in the middle of an empty desert, arctic wastes or the middle of an ocean.

The problem you have using heavy weapons for targeted assassination in Gaza is its one of the more densely populated strips of ground on earth. You simply can't kid yourself that you are going to be able to use high explosives there without killing innocent bystanders.

If you don't want civilians killed then don't wage war.

The thing I can't stomach is the hypocrisy of one side saying, "we don't kill civilians", its only the other side that does that. We are saints, they are devils. Its normally just empty propaganda and the only reason you do it is because it works to further inflame the passions of the people who are already on our side so they are more willing to kill some more.

Its the nature of war for both sides to commit atrocities and kill civilians. Any side that tries to deny they do it is probably lieing.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[PsiPsiStar]

Look at things in historical context. If the KKK was worried that too many black people were moving into the neighiborhood and started picking them off and telling them to leave, don't you think they would fight back?

Prior to the Israeli war for Independance, Israelis were buying land in Israel. Arabs answered with force.

Later, the arab nations answered the creation of Israel by ganging up on it 10 men to every 1 Israeli and trying to destroy it.

There are arabs that live in Israel. But try being a Jew living in the West Bank, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. The arab nations aren't exactly playing by their own rules. The IDF is the only thing that has prevented the wholesale slaughter of the Israeli population, which the arab nations specifically declared was their intention.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[PsiPsiStar]

I'm not arguing with what you've said in your post. Consider my posts in the context of what I was responding to.

Zero pilots were brave men attacking millitary targets, yes. But their sacrifice does nothing to justify Japan's decision to declare war, which was the logic of the original poster. His assertion was that suicide bombers are willing to give their lives, so they must be "right."
That doesn't fly.

Re:Well Duh... I Call Bullshit

[quixotic411]

three strike laws apply to felonies. One gets felonies in protests by committing grievious assault or a crime of equivalent severity. Mere presence is unlawful assembly, a misdemeanor.

the constitution has never been an allowed defense. Juries are to find guilt or innocence according to the law (aside from jury nullification, which is usually viewed as illegitamite). Appeals courts handle the constitution

and yet

[N3wsByt3]

It isn't.

Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries. While I fully endorse anti-racism as my own worldview, I do not agree with any anti-racism laws that ptohibits the mere expression of thoughts, EVEN when they are racist.

Freedom of speech is something that you can not (or at least, should not) make dependend on ones own views, or else you have no freedom of speech. I mean, it's always easy to let others speak when you agree with it, but that's not the point of it; rather it's meant to let other people be heard too, even though you fully and utterly disagree with them.

This argument is mostly lost in europe, where politicians somehow think they should muffle and forbid speech they don't agree with and which may offend some group.

Re:and yet

[Jedi Alec]

sorry, but in this case I can't help but feel that the right to be treated equally despite gender, race or religion supercedes the right to express one's thoughts. one does not choose the color of one's skin, one's sex. fair enough, religion is chosen. one can chose, however, no matter how racist one is, to keep those thoughts to oneself or at least not express them in such a way that it offends people.

sorry, but one's views have nothing to do with it, unless you want to argue that whether or not racism is a good thing is a matter of opinion.

Re:and yet

[Jedi Alec]

soz for doubleposting, but replacing "despite" by "regardless of" would be a better way of phrasing it :/

Re:and yet

[Halo1]

Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries.

Consistency should not be a goal on its own, or you get totalitarian situations. And I don't know whether it's more fair.

As they say: your rights end where someone else's rights begin. IMHO, inciting people to ignore this rule as far as certain groups of people are concerned can be seen as a first step to abandon that rule (at least in practice; in theory, that rule may still hold, but what use is it if it's largely ignored?), just like others argue that banning this kind of speech is (a first step towards)/(the same as) banning all free speech.

It's all a matter of trade-offs, and which trade-off you are more likely to accept depends a lot on history I think. I know I much prefer the European to the US system, but maybe unconsciously that is because my grandfather was captured as soldier and put on a train to a concentration camp? (although he managed to escape from the train, fortunately, or I wouldn't be here)

Snoped.

[Space Coyote]

Two wounds were self inflicted in non combat situations, the third was a superficial cut on his thumb. I suggest you actually read up on this man and stop buying into the fluff your friends tell you about him. Like the naked teenage boy who was fleeing that he shot dead.

From the good folks at snopes: link.

Claim: John Kerry's Vietnam War service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.

Status: False.

I trust you won't be repeating such bullshit lines again.

Re:Snoped.

[Richard M. Nixon]

I trust you won't be repeating such bullshit lines again.

When you are talking politics, it is all bullshit.

Re:Snoped.

[RogL]

Even Snopes may occasionally get things wrong...

Check out the SwiftVets site, then check out FactCheck.org. Sure looks like 2 of 3 of Kerry's Purple Hearts, were self-inflicted thru his own carelessness with weapons. (fired grenade-launcher too close to boat, later hit in ass by shrapnel from grenade tossed to destroy rice-sacks)

After reading multiple, pro/anti/neutral accounts, sounds like Kerry did some stupid things in Vietnam, also did some brave things. Even if you ignore 2 of his Purple Hearts, he's got a third!

OT: waco

[PsiPsiStar]

To portray Waco as somthing that had a groundswell of support from the Democratic party is pretty ridiculous.

Copyright isn't the biggest enemy...

[scoobrs]

It's the mass media that hides stories so blatantly.

Even Slashdot is incapable of demolishing the most creative inventions of the mass media. Watch "Outfoxed" (outfoxed.org) if you don't believe me. Imagine all those FOX News viewers hearing these deliberate falsities repeated everywhere and having their world picture altered to include all of it. Or to include SCO's latest fabrications? What room does this leave blogs and the alternative media to reveal to the mainstream that Kerry really isn't that French and that the Bush administration really wanted invade Iraq long before 9/11?

I wrote a decent essay on this topic four years ago.

My God, it's deep in here

[quixotic411]

I'm Calling Bullshit on all the posts here: Everyone is so damn mired down in the fricking bullshit that is Kerry and Bush. The sad thing is, Only a few of you actually speak any sanity, while everyone else trounces Bush or tries to be lillylivered about the issue. And the Moderators suppress truth and sanity in favor of debate htat is meaningless.

Everyone chant along with me.... Y'all Full of It.

--
Boy, this is going to kill my karma

A better democracy, alternative systems?

[Spekdah]

You need a better democracy. Nothing wrong with trying to improve a system to have a better representation of its citizens, and the old two party split is far from perfect. Not that I know much about America's voting system and structure but there have been many new systems that have evolved over the years, like those proportion systems vs first past the post etc. I'm out of my depth here heh. Anyone have a list of alternative systems and what Americans here would want instead to give better representation? I remember NZ moving from first past the post of MMP with mixed results, then again I have been an ex-pat for so long I'm likely not the best to comment :p

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[jvv62]

People don't seem to realise that voting for a third party is not simply throwing your vote away.

In fact, Perot's performance in the '92 election was a lot better than Nader's last time around. His presence helped push the whole economy and deficit issue to the fore. And those voters were clearly on Clinton's mind going into '96.

I live in DC, so my electoral votes are going to Kerry, no matter who I vote for. But even if I lived in Florida, I would vote for a 3rd party candidate who represented me better than one of the majors, because that's how I can tell the winner of the election how I feel about the issues in a way that really matters to them.

If you don't want to vote for the same lousy two choices time after time, then don't. You won't get results right away, but after a couple or three election cycles, I bet you will see some change. Only after Perot won all those votes, did the Democrats become deficit hawks. The Republicans will learn, to their regret, why that is, soon enough.

Re:Instant runoff?, Electoral college fix

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the electoral college is winner of state gets ALL the votes for the state, not the proportion that they won.

Re:Yeah, right... I Call Bullshit AGAIN

[quixotic411]

what's fine is that they served. their leaderstold them to protect our home by going 10000mi away and fight an enemy we had no business fighting. The fineness is that they risked themselves to defend us, no matter how flimsy the rationale was.

Obviously killing unarmed civilians isn't fine, but not every veteran went raping, murdering, and pillaging. Is that what you think? Hmmmm? Commie.

Herman Goering Once Said

[Soporific]

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." ~Herman Goering speaking at the Nuremberg trails after WWII

~S

Re:Herman Goering Once Said

[clandestine_nova]

That's ridiculous. That's like saying just because the cows can't defeat us in combat means they deserve to be killed, or the trees because they're defenseless, too. Just because people are stupid gives you no right to abuse them. That's why we've evolved towards a more humanitarian form of government, in case you didn't know.

Seriously, do you actually believe what you wrote?

Re:Herman Goering Once Said

[phoenix.bam!]

But people can defeat politicians..... we aren't defenseless cows... (or better yet, sheep). The grandparent is completely right, have you been part of a million man march to protest bad government? No? Well neither have I, or anyone I know for that matter.

Re:Herman Goering Once Said

[wolfemi1]

Heh, I invoke Godwin's law! First mention of the Nazis!

Re:Only in America

[MemoryDragon]

Cultural thing out of the past... In germany nobody arrests a womand lying bear breasted on a beach.

Gardner not exactly credible.

[Space Coyote]

From the Washington Dispatch:

Steve Gardner didn't like Kerry because Kerry didn't like him, allegedly cussing him out when he mowed down a little twelve year old boy who he said had a gun, upon which Kerry rushed out, looked up at Gardner in the boat tub operating the 50 caliber machine guns, called him a son of a bitch, and said, "I ought to court martial you." No, that didn't make for a fast friendship.

But every one of his crewmates but this one man...every one, had glowing words of praise for John Kerry, saying things like: I knew back then in Vietnam that the skipper, John Kerry, was bound for high places. Stand up for John Kerry the same way he stands up for veterans. He took care of all of us...he really did. He made good decisions, I believe proper decisions, and the fact that we all returned alive is a good indication that they were the right decisions. Always, when there's a new guy on the boat, you check him out...It only took me a few days...we knew we had somebody special that cared for us...we bonded! What I saw back then was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues...and he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way. I figured with the abilities he had, he was going to go high, but I didn't have any idea about him running for president. Humble seaman. The decisions that he made saved our lives. He never shot from the hip when it came to decisions...he'd always confront problems head on. I never saw John back down from anything. He wouldn't let you go randomly down the river shooting up everything in sight.

From Pendagon:

The One And Only

When Swift Boat Veterans For The Truth leapt out to savage Kerry's military record, I thought they'd have more people who actually served with or on Kerry's boat. Here was O'Neill on Monday:

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

Somewhere in there, I thought they'd have actual people who served with Kerry. You know, to add some shred of credibility to the obscenely partisan attack on his record. Via the Boston Herald:

The only of Kerry's crewmates to criticize him, Steve Gardner, yesterday said Kerry "made indecisive moves'' that put their boat in jeopardy.

But Kerry crewmate Drew Whitlow called that charge "totally false.'' "They're entitled to their opinions, (but) I served alongside him,'' Whitlow said.

Yes, of the people to actually serve with Kerry, a single one is now criticizing him. Of the people who had direct knowledge of his actions and activities, only one is speaking out against him. Out of two hundred people plus in this group, only one actually served with Kerry. That, to me, says more about this entire enterprise than anything else.

Re:Yeah, right... I Call Bullshit AGAIN

[Jesrad]

I suggest you go read this before writing any further on the subject.

Kerry did get self-inflicted shrapnel in the buttocks, but then continued fighting. Later he got his arm injured (and bleeding) from the explosion of an ennemy floating mine, and this is what earned him his third purple heart. Also, that Letson guy in the ad did NOT treat his wound, Carreon did.

Re:That's why majority should rule

[corian]

Face it, no one is going to vote for Nader or any other third party candidate because they know he can't win. Still, we need third parties.

That's circular. If everyone who claimed they WOULD vote for Perot/Nader/Whomever if they had a chance of winning HAD voted for Perot/Nader/Whomever, the third part candidate would have had a chance of winning. You're just supporting a self-fulfilling bias, which doesn't really exist. When you enter the voting booth, it's just as easy to vote for any of the running candidates. At least...if you're not Floridian...

Re:Yeah, right... I Call Bullshit AGAIN

[jmo_jon]

My point was, there's nothing fine in going 10000mi away and fight just because your leader wants you to. By your standard every soldier or terrorist who obeys someone claiming they do it for the safety of their people are heroes, and they aren't. What they should have done before going away to kill (no matter if it's people in uniforms or people without) is to ask themselves why. Every person has a duty to see the consequences of their actions, including people wearing uniforms.

I'm not talking about the rapists and thoose who killed civilians. I mean Joe Sixpack, going there for money or becouse 'his country needed him'.

Uh, just to keep the 'bullshit' straight...

[Chordonblue]

How about reading the second paragraph of the article where they demand that Kerry open up his records (as the media and the Left forced Bush to), to clear the air.

What's fair is fair, right?

Re:Uh, just to keep the 'bullshit' straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

if fair is fair does kerry get to destroy his records and get away with drug abuse too?

GOP donor helps finance anti-Kerry veterans group

[Space Coyote]

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record

A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts. But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen. One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

Texan, GOP donor helps finance anti-Kerry veterans group

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A wealthy Texan and prolific Republican donor is helping bankroll a television ad assailing Democrat John Kerry's decorated military record in the Vietnam War.

Houston homebuilder Bob J. Perry has donated at least $100,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a suburban Washington-based group airing a new ad in which Vietnam veterans who served on swift boats accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his war record.

The group bought $500,000 of airtime for the 60-second ad to air in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia.

The effort is reminiscent of a 2000 effort that helped drive George W. Bush's then-rival John McCain from the presidential race.

Four years ago, Dallas brothers Sam and Charles Wyly financed $2.5 million in ads run under the auspices of "Republicans for Clean Air" criticizing McCain in the week before GOP presidential primaries in California, New York and Ohio. Those ads promoted then-Texas Gov. Bush's environmental record and criticized that of McCain, the Arizona senator. Bush won the primaries in all three states.

Obligatory Simpsons reference

[Zog The Undeniable]

"It makes no difference which one of us you vote
for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!" - Kang

Re:Where was the outcry?

[sparrow_hawk]

Okay, bub, I don't care what Bush knew or didn't know about the torture of the Iraqi prisoners. When a president asks his people to find some legal loophole to justify using torture on the prisoners he's already declared "enemy combatants" and stripped of rights held dear by Americans, I don't think it matters.

Wrong

[rsilvergun]

Because when people join the ruling class, they don't become happy go lucky champions of freedom, they become greedy little bastards like Bush, Cheney, and hell Kerry too.

That upward mobility is largly an illusion. It took a while, but the rulers have finnally figured out how to keep people down (and preserve their God like standards of living). The trick is to have a small middle class, and the occasional new entry in the ruling class. The poor of the world end up spending all their energy trying to move up, and the middle class are wasted just trying to stay middle class.

The large amount of upward moblity seen in America/Europe around 1950 was largely due to the population crash following WWII. Now that the baby boomers have fucked thier way back to a surplus of laborers (and the cold war's ended) Globalism can kick in full steam with all it's truely nasty implicatons. Capital flows to where ever labor's cheapest, and just the mere threat of closing factories will keep unions from ever exisiting. That's the real scary thing actually. When unions form, the bosses just leave. No workers protests, no beatings, no sensational stories about worker abuse. Just a bunch of starving people nobody cares about.

I guess the point I'm driving at (albeit poorly) is Capitalism is perfecting itself. It's approaching a perpetual system of hard working fools and the Capitalist Kings they work for. The only thing I see stopping the trend is another population crash. Which is all well and good, unless you happen to be a member of the crashing populace.

Re:Wrong

[cherokee158]

The way corporate Amerika is screwing with the environment, that population crash shouldn't be long in coming...

Re:Wrong

[ratamacue]

I guess the point I'm driving at (albeit poorly) is Capitalism is perfecting itself.

Don't even go there. What we have in the US today is NOT capitalism, not by a long shot. Capitalism is founded on individual liberty, namely the right to property (including your own body and the fruits of your labor) and the right to decide for yourself how to manage that property. Capitalism depends on voluntary association, not force (the tool of government).

Today in the US, the average citizen forks over nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, local, and state taxes combined. Citizens don't truly own their land, home, or posessions. Government has granted itself the "right" to confiscate everything you own, if it deems necessary -- even if you are a peaceful individual who has initiated force against nobody. (Refer to the widespread abuse of eminent domain.)

Capitalism and big government are not at all compatible. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both at the same time. What we have in the US today is a mix of fascism and socialism. Capitalism? Not even close. You can't even begin to call our society "capitalist" until government gets out of business, and business gets out of government.

Re:Wrong

[ratamacue]

It's approaching a perpetual system of hard working fools and the Capitalist Kings they work for.

Just to illustrate how silly this sounds, let's consider the mode of interaction between citizen and government. It is pure force, not voluntary trade! Are your taxes voluntary? If you don't want or need a particular service from government, are you free to deny the offer and spend your earnings on something you find more important to you? Do you have a choice in law enforcement services, and patronize the organization that suits your needs best? Of course not. You are forced to accept the services government provides, on their terms only. There is no other option, short of jail or banishment from the very land you were born on. You can't just walk away and refuse government's "offer". If you could, it would be free enterprise, not government!

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

What we have in the US today is a mix of fascism and socialism.

Not exactly. We are a capitalist country, albeit an authoratarian-leaning one. The fact that we are heavily taxed does not make it socialism. We are not a socialist country, just as the Soviet Union never really was. Socialism means the government provides for the population. If you've ever walked through a "bad part of town", it's hard to believe that our government is providing for anyone other than huge multinational corporations (the capitalists).
Social welfare in this country is almost nonexistant, especially compared to corporate welfare. That's not socialism, it's publicly financed capitalism. We foot the bills for R&D, they (corporations & stockholders) reap the rewards.
Our tax dollars go to finance new technologies, which get turned over to private corporations, which serve to enrich a very small group of people. In socialism, we would get the money back. At least in theory - in reality, most countries which call themselves "socialist" are just authoratarian command economies. This leads to an inaccurate perception of what socialism is. Kind of like how people in the Middle East think democracy means us bombing them and controlling their oil.

Re:Wrong

[Qrlx]

I'm sorry but I don't see how you've demonstrated the silliness in the parent comment. More like you've just restated it.

Re:Wrong

[Qrlx]

Well, your fairy tale Capitalism, with liberty and all that hoo-haa, will simply never exist, so stop carrying on about it every chance you get. A more pressing concern is: what to do with the so-called Capitalism system we've got.

Re:Wrong

[ratamacue]

We are a capitalist country

How so? I just explained that the core principle of capitalism (voluntary association) is incompatible with the core principle of government (association by force). So the level of capitalism is inversely proportional to the scope of government. The wider the scope of government, the less capitalist the society. The more limited the scope of government, the more capitalist the society.

I noted that in the US today, the average citizen pays nearly 50% of his yearly earnings to government. So, judging by the raw cost of government and the impact on the individual's ability to control his own wealth, the US is about 50% capitalist (and that's not taking into account the loss of individual liberty). If the other 50% is not capitalism, what is it?

BTW, on the definition of "socialism" -- I would argue that everything government does is supposedly "to provide for the people". That's how they justify all the expansions of government, is it not? Anything government does could be classified as socialism -- so it's really a meaningless term. That's how government justifies all of its programs, right down to the local police service. It's the core business model of government: Rob Peter, give to Paul, and take a cut for yourself. Socialism is really just a sneaky way to say "government control", and paint it as "compassionate" or "nesessary".

You may say that welfare is "providing for the people", but your neighbor might say that a huge military power is "providing for the people". In the end, both of you are conveying pure opinion. See what I mean?

Re:Wrong

[ratamacue]

Specifically, there can be no such thing as "capitalist kings", because the term "capitalism" implies voluntary association, while the term "king" (or "government") implies association by force. It's an oxymoron, and that's why it's silly.

Re:Wrong

[incom]

Fascism and socialism? Not quite, I'd say it's more feudalism and capitalism.

Re:Wrong

[ratamacue]

No socialism?

1. Compulsory education
2. Compulsory retirement planning
3. What exactly is that "medicare tax" I see on my pay slip?
4. Welfare
5. Corporate welfare

Those are all examples of robbing Peter for Paul's sake (and taking a cut for administration of course). That's socialism, plain and simple. Of course, I would argue that ANY instance of government could be classified as socialism. What exactly does government do that they don't claim is "providing for the people"?

Re:Wrong

[incom]

Every one of those are possibilities of feudalism as well.

Re:Wrong

[Qrlx]

But in your comment, you have taxes as an example of the "kingly" power of government. And yet that government exists to provide the necessary framework for a capitalist system, no?

I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive. China's entrepreneurs for example. Or do you consider that to be fascism?

Anarchy is also a voluntary association, is that what you're getting at?

I don't see what's wrong with the term "capialist kings." It may not be literally (academically) accurate but it makes the point. Our government is barred from dispensing titles of nobility, but Gates, Rockefeller, and Carnegie are certainly more "kingly" than the squabbling masses they exploit.

Re:Where was the outcry?

[DynamiteNeon]

Plenty of people complained about waco, but they were drowned out by the media that was too busy focusing on the blowjobs Clinton was getting in the oval office.

I don't like Clinton much either, but let's be real here. Political protests and dissent are generally ignored by the media for the most part. Just look at the way the media was practically kissing Bush's ass during the Iraq war. Don't get me wrong though, it's almost always been like that.

"Democrats seem to think they know how people should act, should live, and should believe and they aren't above force in seeing people comply."

That's one of the most amusing statements I've ever read considering how often Bush and other conservatives have suggested they know how people should act and live (gay marriage anyone?), or are you not paying attention?

There are too many idiots on both sides of this team sport, which is part of the whole point when people talk about voting for 3rd parties.

That depends.

[raehl]

the real world is much more complicated than that

Not if you're George W. Bush.

Re:That depends.

[cabraverde]

>> the real world is much more complicated than that
> Not if you're George W. Bush.

Well, "real world" is the key phrase here.

Re:Where was the outcry?

[DynamiteNeon]

Actually, I realized after I posted that I used a bad example since the two events did not overlap. My point was that the media hardly ever focuses on the important issues and generally ignores those that actually try to ask the tough questions.

That is all.

Re:Where was the outcry?

[Veridium]

by the media that was too busy focusing on the blowjobs Clinton was getting in the oval office

Ah yes, that really pissed me off. Republicans wanting to be for the truth and justice and all that crap, and they focused on the lying under oath and ignored Waco. And still the democrats held Clinton in high regard. Janet Reno remained supported. What exactly did democrats want down about Waco anyway?

That's one of the most amusing statements I've ever read considering how often Bush and other conservatives have suggested they know how people should act and live (gay marriage anyone?), or are you not paying attention?

Yes I am paying attention. Have you followed how this conversation evolved? I know damn good and well what republicans are about, that's why I'm not voting for them. But democrats think they are so much different, but if they sat down and objectively analyzed their attitudes towards people they don't agree with, they'd figure this out about themselves too.

yes

[N3wsByt3]

I know that you feel that way, and the problem with this is, as I've already pointed out, that you mix 'treating' with 'expression'. People that can't see the difference between acting (by doing) on a conviction and expressing (by speech) that conviction rarely see the point I'm making.

Whether one has the ability to not express one's thoughts do not matter and is, as an argument, completely irrelevant. A dissident in China can also keep his mouth shut, it doesn't mean he shouldn't open it, whether or not he offends the government or anyone else.

And duh, of course it a matter of opinion. Racists think people should be treated different based on the color of their skin, while I think that's bull. It should be clear a racist and I, thus, have different opinions on the matter.

I let him have his opinions, and the right to express them. As long as he doesn't act on them and actually discriminates, we are both expressing our opinions.

It always surpises me a bit how ppl can disregard a perfectly sensible and rational argument, just because they don't like it. Is it that difficult to see the validity of the point?

Imagine ultra-right-wing wins with 2/3 of the electorate and can change the constitution, and they decide they don't like the anti-racism opinion and equally forbid it. Well, then...what's your point going to be, in that case? Are you going to accept that you can't speak up about anti-racism, because they made it illegal to do so? Will you think it's a good argument that you can't speak against racism, because it offends the ultra-right?

Me doubts so.

Re:yes

[Jedi Alec]

It always surpises me a bit how ppl can disregard a perfectly sensible and rational argument, just because they don't like it. Is it that difficult to see the validity of the point?

My point was that in the case of racism there's really no room for argument, it is just plain wrong. I'm not pretending to be the highest authority on, well, on anything really, but some things are just plain wrong.

Imagine ultra-right-wing wins with 2/3 of the electorate and can change the constitution, and they decide they don't like the anti-racism opinion and equally forbid it. Well, then...what's your point going to be, in that case? Are you going to accept that you can't speak up about anti-racism, because they made it illegal to do so? Will you think it's a good argument that you can't speak against racism, because it offends the ultra-right?

Well, first of all, I don't live in the USA, so this doesn't really apply, but assuming I did, and this scenario came to pass, I'd be gone faster than a skinhead who accidentally strolled into Harlem at 3 am. Once again, I can't help but argue that racism being wrong is fact, not opinion.

I let him have his opinions, and the right to express them. As long as he doesn't act on them and actually discriminates, we are both expressing our opinions.

But the very act of expressing a racistic opinion is an act of racism in itself. Maybe calling people names about the color of their skin is less painful than denying them a job because of it, but both are, once again, just wrong...

See?

[raehl]

If Kerry governs in exactly the same way that a rotten tree stump would

Who says we can't get a second chance at Gore?

Too Easy

[Kris_J]

please elaberate a little mor on that.

Why don't you read the report, or find someone who can read it to you?

Re:Too Easy

[sumdumass]

because your making the statment and i want you to explain a little about it.

Or are you afraid your stepping into somethign you can't back up. you said blatently mis-informing your viewership and i want an exapmle.

I don't think ther is one. or that you can prove it. is it just somethign because don't like non slanted spin?

Re:Too Easy

[Veridium]

I'm not the guy you're replying to, but if you really want to read how FOX is setup and some of the ways they spin things, read through this site:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

And for the record, CNN is as useless as FOX in my book, so if you're going to bash/attack me, don't do so through attacks on CNN because you'll likely end up with me agreeing with you, depending on what you say.

Re:Too Easy

[sumdumass]

Thank you for the link. I don't intend to attack or bash anyone. I just find it outragous that a news organization would falsly mislead/missinform it's veiwers in a way the grandparent sugested. Further i find it dificult to believe the if it did do this, cnn, abc, nbc or any other news orgaization wouln't have picked up on it and ran it to thier advantage.

For a scheme like this to be possible it would have to involve the whole mass media racket from newspapers to radio to television. The conspiracy is just too crazy to actualy be there. I really disapointed me when i ask for an example and was told to read some report. I figure the grandparent poster could give me the cliff noites version and then i would decide wether it was worth my time. Apearently he is having a dificult time doing that. Maybe because he hasn't read the report himself? maybe because there isn't a real example, maybe because he is afraid the thought police or the secrete service is monitoring his every move.

Re:Too Easy

[localman]

I just find it outragous that a news organization would falsly mislead/missinform it's veiwers in a way the grandparent sugested.

Are you serious? There are countless examples of this over our history. You're basically saying you can't believe that a huge corporation would ever lie? For heaven's sake, what about the completely fabricated stories in the New York Times just last year? No conspiracy is needed -- just someone acting inappropriately and others too busy to notice.

You are way way way too trusting.

Best of luck to you.

Re:Too Easy

[Veridium]

For a scheme like this to be possible it would have to involve the whole mass media racket from newspapers to radio to television. The conspiracy is just too crazy to actualy be there.

I have to ask you, would you believe me if I told you that both democrats and republicans were giving two different public positions on things, and behind the scenes were working towards the same goals? Would that sound too crazy for you?

Well it actually happend and was well documented back when it did happen, documented by our own government. Google for the Pentagon Papers and read up on it. I think the same thing is going on now.

I'd also recommend researching who owns the major media outlets and then looking for what the interested parties have in common. I could give you the cliff notes version, but if you research it for yourself, it will be alot more believeable than some guy on slashdot telling you stuff.

Take care.

Re:Too Easy

[sumdumass]

yes i could believe the government would or could do somethign like that. As a matter of fact it is noticable when they publicaly state how they are going to vote one way or another because they need to make a show for thier constituants and indecating they would vote otherwise if needed.

I just find it hard for the press, to be in some conspiracy to allow fox news misslead the nation with the news. I can't however see some government coverup going on and all the news stations not reporting somethign or reporting it wrong for severaly reasons. I dunno. i didn't buy into the y2k end of the world syndromn. (actually i went out with a shot gun trying to hit transformers to cause power outages so i could watch what happened) and i don't buy into the fox news misleading their veiwers and no one else can give an reference to when it happened.

I understand that the showed on fox is slanted to the republicans but thats not the news itself. oriely factor is basically the same as reno911 as it is an independent entertainment/show with its own values.

Re:Too Easy

[Veridium]

I just find it hard for the press, to be in some conspiracy to allow fox news misslead the nation with the news.

I have to agree with you on one point, it's absurd to think that only one media outlet is misleading people and the others just magically ignore it. I wouldn't suggest that.

I can't however see some government coverup going on and all the news stations not reporting somethign or reporting it wrong for severaly reasons.

What went on with southeast Asia, went on for years without any media reports. Study up on the Pentagon Papers and you'll see how it works.

i didn't buy into the y2k end of the world syndromn.

I didn't, but I did get nervous towards the end. I hadn't unplugged from the major media yet, so I was still influenced by the deluge.

i don't buy into the fox news misleading their veiwers and no one else can give an reference to when it happened.

If you read that link I gave you previously, there are examples. There are different ways to mislead people. One way, is to get up in front of them and batantly lie. Another way is to simply tell them only part of a story. Another way, is to report a story with a straight no spin news, and immediately follow it up with a huge chunk of commentary that interprets the story a certain way. Take the "homocide bomber" label fox news uses. What is the purpose of calling people who strap bombs on themselves to kill others "homocide" bombers? Most news outlets use the word "suicide" bombers. If I plant a bomb in a building, and it kills people, wouldn't that make me a homocide bomber? How is homocide bomber an accurate term for when people strap bombs to themselves and try to kill people?

You may be tempted to think "what's the big deal". The big deal is, it's one of the many subtle ways to influence peoples thinking on a subject. It's designed to hide an element from your concious and subconcious thought about what is really going on. They do not want people realizing, that things are going on in another part of the world where people are so desperate, that they are willing to strap bombs on themselves and fight in anyway they can against what is going on. This doesn't mean I think suicide bombing is nobel, far from it. But thinking about things as they are really happening, is the only way to have an informed opinion based on reality. In every way they can hide bits of reality, and slightly alter descriptions of what is going on, they can alter your opinion about it, especially if they're your only news source. This is one SMALL example.

I understand that the showed on fox is slanted to the republicans but thats not the news itself. oriely factor is basically the same as reno911 as it is an independent entertainment/show with its own values

Ouch, that's funny. O'reilly is a bit more integrated into Fox's presentation of the news than just being an entertainment show though. The coverage of the DNC heavily involved him with commentary. Further more, he isn't offered as a Reno 911, he is offered as a serious political commentator and brands his show as "the no spin zone". I think, going by your post, you are well aware of the spin he puts on. It's very heavy and thick and undeniable to all but the most unobjective person. Take care.

Re:Too Easy

[sumdumass]

Not too trusting but currious to why it isn't reported or countered by other news sources. CNN the newyork times, some other news sorce should have published somehtign about the purposly fals and missleading statments made by for news.

Thats what i find outragous. It is supposedly happening but none of the other news sources are reporting it (wich means they all have to be in on it) when it happened at the NY times, all the other media outlets picked it up and ran it. In other words if it is happening, i should read or hear about it on other places then a slashdot storie from a poster with an axe to grind

Re:Too Easy

[sumdumass]

Thank you for sheding some light on it. I read thru the link you posted but didn't actually place 2 and 2 together until you spelled it out. I guess in a way all the news outlets do this in some form or anothers. Fox must either do it oposite of the rest or more blatenly then the rest.

Before reading this post i was expecting someone to quote statments like ones made from "iraqi bob" who was denying troops were at the airport while video of the troops at the airprot was being shown.

I also see the tendecy to group oriely into the realm of news as they are promoted that way. I guess it also serves to shape the opinions of the news flowing back to the way it is presented. I don't mind watching Bill O'riely cuase i know he is biased. It is kind of like listening to rush, i don't in any way agree with most of what he says but, some comments make you think. I think i view it more of an enterainment value then a news source though. Maybe i have been corupted and thats why i was always pro war with iraq and think we should have done it durring the clinton years.

Oh well.. thanks agian for taking the time and putting up with me. I do see what your saying now and mostly agree with you. Now that you brought it to my attention, I think fox isn't the only organization doing it.

BTW

I can't however see some government coverup going on and all the news stations not reporting somethign or reporting it wrong for severaly reasons.

should have been I can see it happening. I think the government has covered alot of stuff up, some for the good of the people while others for the good of the pockets being lined. I have a strong distrust for the government in general and when ever the government tries to give me somethign i feel like i should beware of Greeks bringing gifts or something.

Re:Too Easy

[localman]

You only found out about the NY Times one years after the stories were published. Had the author had stopped before he was caught I am quite sure the story would not come to light.

How many writers have fabricated stories and never been caught? How many will be caught in the future that we don't know about now.

Here's the deal: if you can find it on multiple news sources from different angles (not just parroting each other, then it's probably legit.

Cheers.

Re:Too Easy

[Kris_J]

I figure the grandparent poster could give me the cliff noites version and then i would decide wether it was worth my time.

You do need someone to read it to you! Okay, here's the "cliff noites" version. People who claim that Fox News is their primary source of news are substantially more likely to be mis-informed on any given topic. The main example given is "Were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq". 33% of Fox viewers believed, incorrectly, that WMD had been found. CBS viewers were next with 23%, NBC 20%, CNN 20%. "Clear links between Iraq and al-Qaeda": A whopping 67% of Fox viewers were wrong.

Now that I've wasted my time with that, let's address your statements directly.

I really disapointed me when i ask for an example and was told to read some report. ... Apearently he is having a dificult time doing that. Maybe because he hasn't read the report himself? maybe because there isn't a real example, maybe because he is afraid the thought police or the secrete service is monitoring his every move.

It's a short report, only 23 pages. It is the evidence. Refusing to read a report that is the evidence you ask for then claiming that I have no evidence is bizarre.

Read the article, then rebut it. I'm not going to debate you further if you refuse to address it.

Re:Too Easy

[Veridium]

I think fox isn't the only organization doing it.

Wish I saw your reply sooner... But I think anyone who thinks it's just Fox doing it, has really deceived themselves.

I have to admit about O'Reilly, he does have entertainment value and he also is known to make some strong good points and offer perspectives that some may not consider at times. If someone were to ask me how I would watch O'reilly in the context of understanding issues, I would say watch him, and then go read/listen to what other people have to say as well.

Personally, that's why I like google news. news.google.com you get your headlines, and links to 3 most recent stories about those headlines, from different media sources(including Fox). Plus, if you don't like the 3 that show up, you can hit their "related" links, which will bring up a list, typically of over a hundred other sources for the same story. This allows me to read several different spins on the story. I don't currently know a better way to get past the biases single outlets have.

Re:Too Easy

[Veridium]

I screwed up the google link...
http://news.google.com/

Re:Too Easy

[sumdumass]

well you didn't give an example of were they mislead the viewers. You showed statistice stating about 1/3 of the viewers are not very bright. That is a trait of the viewer not of the channels (becuase more people got it right then wrong). I would think the differences between the networks would follow along the amount of viewers each network has to some degree too.

As far as the report? i read thru that too and didn't find any examples of fox purposely or accitdently misleading it's viewers. 23 pages of some very interesting stuff but it doesn't validate you statment that i ask you to clearify.

I'm sorry if this is too trouble some for you. I too think the news services place a slant on the reporting and some report better then others. I find it dificult to belive without any examples, that fox was missleading or missrepresenting the news. They may be targeting a "higher or lower inteligence level of viewers" then what is actually viewing and they don't understand the reports but that not the news service making things up like you implied.

Re:Where was the outcry?

[Veridium]

Could you cite a source for that information?

Re:Why is parent modded as troll?

[Mycroft_VIII]

Probably because he accused people who favor Bush of trolling to take votes for Kerry when then post pro-bush, and then Posted a long pro-Kerry post. Pot-Kettle. Just a guess.

Personally I agree the stakes are a bit high, we have a choice between a religeous nut and a self confessed war criminal for the two major parties. I rather think both a BAD choices for president. We really NEED to vote for someone else.
Bush is blocking needed research on religeous grounds (I'm not 'pro-choice', but he's being stupid here) and trying to amend the constitution over what's essentially a private (usually religeous) issue. And unconstitionaly detains people in cuba.
Kerry can't tell the same lie the same way twice and testified in congress that's he commited 'atrocities' that qualify him for war criminal status and then tries to run on the 'war hero' theme (which is it?) using faked video and medals he did/didn't/sorta threw over the fence.
Both should be tried for thier admited crimes, would teach the next few people in office to tread lightly around the people serve (as in opposite of rule!).

Mycroft

ah well

[N3wsByt3]

We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent.

Inconsistent laws lead to hypocritical laws (where, for instance, a law aplies to a white man differently then for a black man), and hypocritical laws inherently breed unfairness.

Totalitarian states do not depend on the consistency of the laws, rather on the nature of those laws. If laws induce and promote more freedom, even when being consistent, it is doubtfull it will lead to a totalitarian state where inconsistent laws wouldn't.

I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws.

Re:ah well

[Halo1]

We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent.

Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law. Why? Because there are also fundamental differences with other mammals. The same thing can be argued about hate speech and other speech.

I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws.

I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history. No single human can be purely objective.

Re:ah well

[Halo1]

Then, in essence, you say that in social issues, an opinion of one group inherently can go above the opinions of another, even when there is no logic or rationality behind it.

I said "opinions based on facts", as in historical evidence. There is logic and rationality behind it (disrespect for the human rights they mention has resulted in great tragedies, while respect for them hasn't -> it seems logical to demand some basic respect for those rights etc), but a conclusion always contains some form of opinion, unless you are working with maths.

Saying that is not necessary, also means another group with oposing ideas do not have to show any logic, that their opinion is, in principle, enough, whether they can argument it in a correct way or not.

I never claimed you don't have to show any logic, I simply said you can't use only logic. And at some level it even is logical that we in Europe banned hate speech, given that we saw what it indirectly led to (regardless of what courts have said, speech is a very powerful weapon if used properly). It may not be impartial or without moral prejudice, but that's something else.

Given the choice between demonstrating they are wrong, and muffling them up (with obvious little results, seen the progress of ultra-right in Europe), it is more democratic to chose for the first. And a democracy should always strive to be more democratic, not less.

Have you seen the progress of extreme right in the US? They've been governing the whole thing for the last 4 years! I do not think banning of hate speech as such has a large impact on the progress or deterring of extreme right. I do think it can have a profound influence on the living quality of some minorities. Most importantly however, I'm convinced that in the case of Europe, it's an extremely strong symbolical thing, which makes it no longer "a ban on hate speech as such" but "a ban on hate speech with a further symbolic effect". See below for more on this.

You're axis does not make it that any better, it merely shows it's a step in wrong direction.

It moves us slightly more to the center (slightly, because as I said it's a trade-off of one basic human right for another). I thought you were the one that was against extremes? Keep in mind that the bottom is total anarchy.

While you seem to accept that step for a perceived benifit of peace, I don't.

I never said that. Really. What I said is that it is a symbolic action of society, to show that (at that period in time) people were willing to sacrifice part of their freedom (of speech) in order to try to do something to help preventing such atrocities from happening again. It's a symbol, plain and simple.

I also said that tearing down that symbol in the name of logic and consistency would have effects going much farther that what logic would dictate. It would not be the same as never having had a ban on hate speech.

It's like the patriot act in the USA: meant for protecting the US against those evil muslims that want to create a fundamentalistic muslimstate all over the world. Well, a few more of those terror attacks, and a few more of these laws later, and what ARE you protecting, at the end? Not the free and democratic country, that's for sure. What use is it, in an efort to protect oneself, to become a policestate of your own?

That's the stepping stone theory, which has proven to be false as far as the banning of hate speech in Europe is concerned. In the US, the terrorist attacks are merely used as an excuse by those in power to to get more and more power. I don't think you can say that of the banning of hate speech in Europe after WWII.

Well...ermm..I didn't see no evidence, just opinions. Social evidence of what, exactly?

Name one large conflict/war in histo

Re:Deficit spending vs. Tax the ()*&$% out of

[WindBourne]

I think I'd rather see some deficit spending, rather than the lefties method of tax the SHIT out of everyone, then dance by the fire of burning money as they waste it away on foolish, poorly run government programs.

hummmm.

1. Carter inherited 25B/year defict and ran it up to 50B.
2. Reagan inherited 50B/Year deficit and ran it up to 250B/year.
3. Poppa Bush ran it up to 325, then back down to 250B, in an effort to start balancing it.
4. Clinton, did balance it . No deficit spending and loads of waste.
5. W. ran it up and has wasted more than any other admin in history.

I will take Clinton or Poppa Bush (he turned it) any time.

What the problem is, when a president and congress are ruled by the same party. What is needed to solve this is

1. Line item veto
2. Balanced Budget except during times of formal war (as opposed to more of this vietnam shit).

I do not care if kerry ever voted for a tax cut. I want to know if he pushed in waste. Did he push in haliburton? Did he spend his time lieing to us and blaming everybody in his administration. So far, W. has blamed everybody in his admin and not taken one bit of blame. Not "the buck stops here". It is always, "fire that bastard there, he caused it".

There is one major thing that sets them apart #2

[Teun]

Or for Clinton and Bush:

Clinton had to appologise to his wife.
Bush will have to appologise to the nation (and the world).

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[waterbear]

I've made a commitment with some of my friends that we will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils
but instead we will vote for who we really want to be in office.

My democrat friends all want to vote for Kerry because they hate Bush.

And my conservative friends all want to vote for Bush because they like Bush.

I hate them both.

Well, do you hate them both equally? If not, you could (on probability) improve your position by voting for the candidate most likely to prevent the election of the one you hate more.

In a world without rational preference-voting (IRV, STV), that can sometimes mean a vote for a candidate who is not the closest to your own best preference. But that is because of the risk of splitting an opposition, in which event your vote could end up inadvertently helping the one that you really want to stop the most.

-wb-

On Gay Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

If I never see two guys making out, sweet. I'll have done at least one thing right.

But, it would seem to me marriage is a legal contract between a small group of people (polygamy), the society in which they reside, and each other. They stand before their society and seek to be recognized as group that will uniquely act in the interests of each other and share in all things. For this, they're granted certain short-hand privilages with respect to each other and their combined property. They're bound to and empowered by each other to make decisions that only a person's most trusted allies, and confidants could possibly make in the most dire, intimate, important and final moments of a person's life. It's not inherently religious, though a power higher than that of a society is often appealed to during the creation, recognition, and declaration of such a bond.

And that should one, on religious grounds, object to two dudes or two chicks making such a profound agreement, one must necessarily object to any element of the state presiding over such an agreement in any capacity. And should spend their time campaigning to judges from marrying people, or allowing the state to presume to authorize such wholly divine blessings, to say nothing of the sacrilege that is common-law marriage, and divorce. How can the laws of man rip apart what the magic sky man has seen fit in his wisdom to join?

Just the fact that Bush thinks that good, patriotic, tax paying, americans, who aren't incorprated in the cayman islands, should be denied to take on and delegate such responsabilities to expediently appease people who just haven't thought it through, well it says a lot about him. He doesn't like freedom. He doesn't think people should be able to live their lives in peace without government telling them how to do it. In reality, he doesn't like families or communities. He likes bullshit, and thinks people are easily distracted by fear and shiny objects. I think that if for one week journalists did their job, Americans would prove him gravely mistaken.

Re:On Gay Marriage

[sdjunky]

I'm going to post this no AC and take the hit on Karma.

You're assuming that marriage is infact a bond that is created/endorsed by society or government or the people who make up those 2.

The tricky issue is that there are people who don't agree with you and believe that marriage is created/established by one of the following

God/higher power - not just endorsed by established by a higher power who has established rules for marriage (Jews, Christians, etc)

Society - In this case the majority rule would win out but then this might go against what people refer to as their civil right to marriage as the majority may not agree with it and thus be prejudiced in restricting this right.

Cultural - Based on the beliefs of the people and can thus change with the cultural shift of the people.

This is why many people don't want the federal government to define what marriage is even if they don't agree with gay marriage. They believe that it isn't in the power of the government to determine/endorse what marriage is. That leaves a tricky spot though as you mentioned powers given to spouses (power of attorney, living wills, etc) that must be executed by the government.

Re:On Gay Marriage

[gfxguy]

That's right.....

And if you object on religious grounds, then your church (and you) can feel free to not accept somebodies marriage (the Catholic church, strickly speaking, does this with divorcees already).

This is how I've always felt about religion - YOU can follow YOUR religion, but don't force ME to follow it, too.

Re:On Gay Marriage

[sdjunky]

I agree. If you are going to go so far as to say the government has no bounds to define marriage then it's other powers you defined above would have to be removed. No tax breaks or burdens for being married. legal documents giving explicit legal powers to another person, etc.

Just saying that there are those who are religious who hold to this belief. There are also those who are atheist who believe it's a cultural and not governmental thing as well. Same things applies.

"If voting changed..."

[JaJ_D]

If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it

Ken Livinstone, the current Major of London, can be a bit of a prat sometimes, but other times he has a point. When did voting (by all the people in the country), alone, last change something?

In the UK the 'opinions', and I use the term in the looses sense of the meaning, between the two main parties are almost identical. It's becoming like the US (or how the US is portried in the UK), of "(s)he with the most money" or "(s)he who is most photogenic" will be elected

It could be worse, much worse, but the present system of politics dominated by large corporations, almost buying their way (or their cronies way) into power cannot be good, in the long run, for the average Joe on the street

Jaj

Re:Only in America

[WindBourne]

Rather than picking something that is more than 100 years old and settled, try for something now. Go in front of the white house and wave a picket in favor of Al Qaeda. Put on the picket things like

• "America is killing babies in Iraq, and the world"
• "America is sending christian missionaries into Middle East"
• "America is raping our women and killing our children"
• "GWB screwed Iraq for Oil, now he is screwing you"
• Why is the group that spread anthrax running free?
• Why does this white house tolerate a traitor in the white house?
• Patriot act is fasicts
• What did Reagan and King George I really do?
  etc. etc.etc.
  Get a tv crew to come down, and then watch what happens.
  
  Also, ask any national news person how free things really are these days. Other than fox news, you might be surprised what these journalists would say.

Freedom is not the ability to bitch about a long ago war. Freedom is the ability to critize the current and even recent government. Think about Bush allowing Reagan and Poppa Bush to hide all sorts of things. The Freedom of Information act was put in place for a reason. Now Bush preverts it and allows them (and himself) to hide past actions. BTW, I do note that Kerry has not said that he would remove that presidential order. I find that sad.

PR for Parliaments, not for Presidents!

[doodlelogic]

You can't have a system of proportional representation in a presidential election, it's a contradiction in terms!*#

What you can have is a run-off system where the second (and subsequent) preferences of 3rd party voters are added to the votes of the leading 2 until one candidate has 50% + 1 vote.

Proportional representation would also not work for the US senate (hell that's not even a fair plurality system, given the different size of states), but could work for any state chosing to adopt it for their house of reps elections.

*(Although in the US it would be possible for states to send a proportionately representative set of delegates to the convention, the election of delegates is a fiction anyway, people are really voting for their next president, who can by definition only be one person. This would prove interesting though - what if there had been a dozen or so Nader and Buchanan delegates at the convention last time round, deciding to switch their delegated votes to Gore or Bush...)

# OK, OK, it can be proportionally representative if everyone votes for the same person!

Re:PR for Parliaments, not for Presidents!

[The Conductor]

You can (sorta) if you do it probabilistically. Everyone writes the name of the candidate they want on a piece of paper and then drop all the names into a really big hat....

Re:PR for Parliaments, not for Presidents!

[Paul Jakma]

You can't have a system of proportional representation in a presidential election, it's a contradiction in terms!

It is sort of yes ;)

But despite the contradiction in the name, PR-STV can be used for single-winner, AFAIK. Set the quota to 50%+ of votes and knock out all candidates bar the top 2 after the first round and transfer the surplus votes, or somesuch. I'm reasonably sure we use a form of PR-STV here in Ireland for our presidential elections.

Re:PR for Parliaments, not for Presidents!

[doodlelogic]

OK I meant electoral college not "the convention"!

IANAA

(IAAB)

Re:Why is parent modded as troll?

[wass]

Probably because he accused people who favor Bush of trolling to take votes for Kerry when then post pro-bush, and then Posted a long pro-Kerry post. Pot-Kettle. Just a guess.

not quite, just pointing out that there ARE repubs trolling sites masquerading as lefties to encourage people to not vote for kerry. same as there ARE microsoft astroturfers posting pro-microsoft fud on various blogs. Of course not all anti-kerry or pro-microsoft stuff is such astroturfing or trolling, but it does exist, and i want to let people know about it.

no pot/kettle/black since i'm obviously pushing kerry and stating it. i don't see how i could have been a troll. I can see you someone either right or left of me would not like what i'm saying, but that doesn't make me a troll.

Spoiler

[Mal-2]

Aside from that enormous thing some cars have, a spoiler is a person, team, or organization who has no chance of achieving a top ranking, but acts to prevent others who DO have that chance from doing so. This is not always deliberate -- see the Tigers trying to win meaningless (for them) games toward the end last year? They were doing it for themselves but still could have seriously affected pennant races -- but if the spoiler sees what they're doing, they don't care. They put more priority on their own agenda than they might from outside the situation (have blinders on, deliberately or not).

Kerry can't be a spoiler if he has a realistic chance of winning, and he obviously does. The amount of mud and shit flying in his general direction is enough to prove that. I'm sure Nader could have every bit as much thrown at him, but why? Nobody else worries about him enough to shoot him down, yet he could have a very real effect on the outcome. That is why he's being called a spoiler.

Mal-2

Re:Scientology

[james11111]

A little off topic, but ... I believe the Church of Scientology did a similar thing. It obtained injunctions to stop the publication of materials critical of it, claiming that it owned the copyright.

Re:Yeah, right... I Call Bullshit AGAIN

[vespazzari]

Do you really think it was all that simple? you make it sound like all that they had to do was decide they didn't belive in the fight and they could go home. I cannot say that I am that great of man that could say that I have made that great of stand- Although I bet I could find something wrong/oppressive about the work you do, or what your job supports... and would you jump at the idea of quiting your job? And that isnt even as bad as going to jail... and I bet you dont have a family to support... or mabey you do, could you do it from jail? It is one thing to be rightous, and it is quite another to be dumb.

fundamental differences...hmmm

[N3wsByt3]

"Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law."

I think you are confusing 'consistency' with 'generalisation' a bit.

"I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history."

That can be, but I wasn't argumenting it out of that reason (fear). In fact, it would fail to explain why, embedded in the history of europe, I would agree with them, especially as I'm rather anti-USA (even if I say so myself ;-). I doubt if it wasn't for the fact that I can see it truelly *is* more of a rational argumentation, I would ever have supported their view.

But, despite my dislikings and their fear as possible (sub)reason, I think they are right, on this particular issue, for the reasons I mentionned in above posts.

Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden. I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them.

So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?

Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all. It's not even meant for those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech.

The (in)consistency does not lay in the premisse one takes on that, however, but rather in reversing (and implementing) the exact same reasoning, but then to oneself.

If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then?

In both cases it would be 'hate speech' (as defined by law)...thus where would that leave you, with your above reasoning? Unless you accept that, in that case, they are fully entitled to forbid anti-racism speech too, you would be higly hypocritical.

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[Halo1]

Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden.

"Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them.

As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common.

So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?

Because hate speech is something entirely different.

Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all. It's not even meant for those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with opinions, it's much more fundamental that that.

If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then?

If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you. They'll brand you a terrorist, dangerous to the public/state, whatever. It's very naive to think that absolute free speech will somehow protect you from that, just like thinking that the right bear arms can protect you from the government.

And I hope you will not try to take this argument to absurdum and claim that you can use this argument to justify all kinds of limitations to public freedom, because that's not true and not what I mean. I simply mean that you cannot use this argument to justify allowing hate speech, because it's bogus. On the one hand it won't help you one bit against an extremist government, and on the other hand you get hate speech on top of it.

And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need. If you think the need for absolute free speech is more valuable to society as a whole than the fact that hate speech can be free spread, then you keep hate speech legal. Otherwise you don't. In Europe (most?) governments chose for the latter option, in the US they chose the former.

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[N3wsByt3]

""Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre."

LOL...I KNEW you were going to come up with that ;-) I almost was going to write about it even on beforhand, but I figured it would take me too far...yet, it seems I'll have to anyways, after all.

The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech.

The argument in the analogy is therefor unvalid, and I'm rather amused by it popping up like clockwork, as a counterargument to 'absolute' freedom of speech; it is, in fact, not really a matter of free speech.

"As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common."

No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech. I do not agree that the difference is fundamental, and even if I would, it would still not entitle you to the conclusion it should be inherently treated different. Racist claim the color of one's skin is a fundamental difference too: could they thus, muffle some form of free speech?

I hope you get my point: your starting premise is already doubtfull. If the chinese government thinks the stability of the state and government is 'fundamental', following your reasoning, it can treat attacks (even as speech) on the government and state differentlmy from any other speech. You see? Once again, there is no difference in reasoning.

You simply take your opinion as 'fundamental' while it is not. There is no reason, on itself, why calling for taking away rights that some call fundamental, would entitle anyone to muffle up free speech any more then any other person that thinks calling to take away the rights of a government is a fundamental difference in regard to other forms of speech.

"Because hate speech is something entirely different."

No, it's claimed to be entirely different. As I've said, the chinese government can well be of the opinion, that speech against the government is 'entirely different' then the rest of free speech. Unless you claim universalism on the matter, which would be odd, because if it were truelly universal, the USA wouldn't allow said 'hate speech'. Yest, seen that it has a whole other viewpoint on it, one can hardly claim it's universal or fundamental.

"If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you."

I agree, but that was not my point. It's not whether it would protect me from a totalitarian regime or not, but simply the question if you would agree with the reasoning, then. If you don't, then the reasoning you used has no validity (if you don't want to be hypocritical, that is).

And while you claim I cannot use this, I'm inclined to use it anyway :-): a totalitarian regime could forbid whatever speech or freedom it (dis)liked, if it had full power and control. This is not an argument against allowing true free speech, while it still would be a distinctive characteristic that would devide closeminded totalitarian governments from openminded democracies.

"And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need."

That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system. :-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtf

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[Halo1]

The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech.

Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is. Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it.

As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common.

No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech.

No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food, ...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that.

That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system. :-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtfull to be in accordance with justice.

It simply depends what you want to be consistent with. You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law. We only have laws because there is a society and to keep that society functioning.

You can have great theoretical ideas of how to make an idealised "clean and pure" juridical system, but society does not work that way. Humans are not perfectly predictable or without exceptions, so the law can't be that way either... unless you are in a totalitarian system, where people are supposed to adapt to the needs of the law/those in power, instead of that the laws are adapted to the needs of society.

Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just.

This again depends on what you consider just (another quite subjective term). Some people find it just that rich people pay along to help cater for the poorer, others think this is very unjust.

So, in a way, making laws consistent is (or at least should be) a goal, and your fear that they will become absurd because of that is unvalid, because it's not the consistency that makes it absurd, but the (content of) the/some laws itself.

Law can also become absurd as a consequence of striving for consistency without taking into account why exactly there was/is an inconsistency in the first place. Although this is by no means always the case, it's quite possible that there was a very good reason for an inconsistency.

Consistency is not the highway to heaven. It's a good (and important) guide when making laws, but e.g. the whole debate about the directive on software patents in Europe (where they also want to treat "inventions in all fields of technology" in a consistent way) shows that if you treat it as a goal of its own, you miss a whole lot of other important stuff.

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[N3wsByt3]

"Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is." ;-)

I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before.

"Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it."

Note, however, that in many countries it isn't forbidden to say it on itself, it's just that you have to prove it afterwards, if you are sued.

Unless clear harm can be demonstrated, as a *direct* result of the 'slander/libel' (and it's demonstrated to be just that), I would do away with those laws too. (Well, actually adapt them, thus). It's noteworthy that on this issue too, many countries have a far more tolerant policy then in our country, so there is nothing fundamental about it.

"No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food, ...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that."

I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too. There are dictators and right-wingers enough that have a whole other opinion of basic rights. So saying "it should be so, because it is fundamental", is nothing more then saying "it should be so, because in my opinion, it is a fundamental right". But then, we can go back to my example of the chinese government, and if that is of the opinion that the stability of the state is a 'fundamental right', then you can not argument against it. You may agree to it being a basic right or not, but that has no bearing on their opinion of it.

So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right.

Many would disagree with that, however, making the reasoning and application hypocrite.

If, however, one is of the opinion that free speech should be absolute, then you must agree that another person can make use of that absolute free speech too.

Well, I agree another person can use that. :-)

So, you see, consistency DOES have an intrinsic value.

"You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law."

Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other. I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent; the two are not mutually exclusive. If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent.

I sometimes feel that people think 'generalistation' and 'consistency' are the same things, while they are not, at all. Lwas may be bad because they are (over)generalising, NOT because they are consistent. Take you example of "all mamals should be treated equal' and then saying; you can't be consistent, because you treat animals different then humans. Well, yes, but is it a bad law because it's not consistent, or is it a bad law, bacause it was generalisin

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[Halo1]

I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before.

You can easily find out who I am by searching for my real name. And the country I live in can also be found from my email address. Whether we mailed or not, I don't know.

I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too

Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative.

So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right.

As I said, this is not merely about my opinion. And article 30 of the above mentioned declaration nicely illustrates how racism and other hate speech goes against it, even though it also demands freedom of opinion and expression. And yet this document is quite consistent: it aims for protecting people, and therefore includes a clause for preventing abuse of one provision to get around another one. Both article 19 and article 30 are consistent with that goal, regardless of how one article may impose exceptions on the other.

Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other.

I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post.

I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent; the two are not mutually exclusive.

Not in all cases, but I place more value on being good for society/economy than on being consistent. If you can combine the two: more power to you. But one should never sacrifice society in favour of consistency.

If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent.

Maybe all laws are bad and you are right. Before I accept that, I would like to see your proposal for a new law system that is entirely consistent without any exceptions whatsoever, and under which a free society could flourish. Certainly, the current laws are not perfect. But I do not believe all problems can be solved by having only consistent laws, nor am I sure that society as a whole would suddenly be that much better of if we only had purely consistent laws. I mean, theoretically it sounds nice, but I'm not sure how it would work out in practice.

If it's at all possible, you'll probably end up with a lot more laws than we now have, each for their extremely limited field without exceptions, so that the system would probably become a lot more complex as it is now. And special cases you didn't think of will probably always pop up, so you'll almost endlessly keep refactoring your laws.

Just like in programing you should not refactor endlessly, you have to draw a line somewhere: now it's been simplified enough, what still doesn't fit will be handled by special cases.

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[bbc]

Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all.

I just wanted to repeat this, that's how important (and right) it is! Thank you.

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[bbc]

You can easily find out who I am by searching for my real name. And the country I live in can also be found from my email address. Whether we mailed or not, I don't know.

Perhaps you are both from the land on the IJzer, where neonazis gather every year at the monument for the fallen of the First World War.

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[N3wsByt3]

"Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative."

No, I'm only saying that when I actually knew you were going to say that, and this time, I didn't knew. I did went over with my thoughts before, however.

Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'. I agree, as an individual, with the priciple(s) and with most 'basic rights' as described, but that is something else. What it boils down too, is that it represents the greatest common nominator that the majority of people held as an opinion (and agreed to) of what constitutes a basic right. Am am quite sure they are thought of, quite extensively, by the best experts there are...but it still represents an opinion, even though a (presumed) generally accepted one.

Which brings us back to what I said about a country: while 'the majority' in an european country may consider the current 'racism laws' a good thing, it does not make it a universal or fundamental thing. When the majority would shift to right-wingers, the same reasoning could be applied by them to muffle our free speech up - and I mean not in the 'but they could do it anyways', but in the 'remaining within the same reasoning' way.

You counter that by argumenting it's not the same, because it's (not) about a human right. But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today.

So, 'basic human rights' are maybe basic in a contempory way, but they certainly are not 'universal' in the strict sense. If the islam had dominated the world in the 20iest and 21st century, our basic human rights would probably be based on the teachings of the shariat, and might include some things that you wouldn't deem a basic human right.

Ultimately, ALL rights are based on opinions.

"As I said, this is not merely about my opinion.[...]"

No, and I'm not alone with my opinion neither; but that doesn't amount to anything. What should china care if some article does not find the stabibilty of the state as fundamental, if they do? I mean, if a christian or islamic figure begins to site paragraphs out of the bible or koran, to show you what rights you have and what not, would you feel compelled to abide by it?

Only if you deem those paragraphs and books to be right (or authorative) for yourself.

I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll asume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement.

Well, that just proves my point, actually. I do not agree with that, then. Nor does the USA, in majority. And if the majority of the world, including those experts that thought so long about it, would see it the same way...well, what then? Article 30 would be scrapped or adapted, period. The authority it has is not carved in stone, nor is it truelly universal (meaning, of all places and times), it's only power is that which it has and is bestowed upon by people whome accept it.

"I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post."

You make, again, the mistake of thinking that consistency and a general rule-of-thumb are somehow intertwined. Being consistent can be catered to specific fields, and to gen

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[Halo1]

Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'.

Nevertheless they called it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and for good reason.

But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today.

Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation). I'm not sure how this validates your point in anyway, or makes my opinion hypocrite as you've tried to make me say two or three times already in this discussion.

The laws that rule a society are per definition conventions that are agreed upon. And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent. I really don't understand why you seem to think this perceived consistency is pretty much the most important thing and why all the rest is hypocrite. I'm not even convinced that the banning of hate speech as it is done in e.g. de Universal Declaration of Human Rights is somehow inconsistent with at the same time guaranteeing freedom of opinion and expression in the first place.

Social sciences simply don't work with pure logic, strict consistency etc. There are a bunch of people who argue and then get a general consensus, based on historic background etc (as I remarked in one of my first messages afaik). You cannot approach it from a purely rational point, because then you are arguing in the void and based on false premises (namely that social law is or should be created out of nothing based on some consistent rules of logic).

You start from society, make some rules and only then try to get them consistent while still meaning the same thing (and if you can do that: wow, fantastic, great!). Forcing society into a different ruleset simply because you want consistent rules (and before you reply with the same thing again: no, I do not think that consistency per definition leads to different rules) because you are convinced that will make a better new world for all without any backup for that: no, thank you.

Changing the world or society does not work like that.

I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll asume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement.

Strange, I just tried it again and it works fine here. Anyway, here's article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

And here's article 30:

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

It does not say anything about hate speech, it just forbids the use of any rights granted by the declaration to be used for attempts to destroy other people's rights stemming from that declaration.

Following your reasoning, the project I'm working on (Freenet) has the potential of 'sacrificing' society, where I see it as a great oportunity for society to renew itself and become something better.

I guess you mean the fact that it can be used to a

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[Halo1]

Two points for figuring that .be stands for Belgium. And I suppose you are from that country where Brinkhorst is trying all he can to not do what the Parliament asked him to do regarding the software patents vote?

Sorry, I think I missed what your point was. Or mine for that matter.

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[N3wsByt3]

"Nevertheless they called it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and for good reason. "

LOL. Yes, they call it that. But by any name, a rose... ;-)

If the reason is 'good', or even valid remains to be seen. Surely, you will agree that calling something universal, does not mean it is, in effect, universal.

What they mean, rather, is that it constitutes a rather broad, though not total, consensus on what basic human rights should be, by the majority of the world population, in a certain timeframe. Not more, nor less. Do you agree with that?

It has nothing to do with really being universal, for which one would at least have to assert that a given human concept/attitude/behaviour/etc. would be present in all cultures and societies, in all time frames, to even try to make the claim it could be truelly universal.

There are, in that case, very limited examples where one could hope to establish that they are 'universal' human traits. Allowing (or not) free 'hate speech' is certainly not one of them, as is quite aparent in our own timeframe, even.

BTW, thnks for pasting the articles. Reading them, it's rather up to interpretation if certain forms of speech actually constitutes 'destruction of rights'. Free speech does not destruct the right of free speech of anyone else, but it does obstruct the possibility of destroying what others say. IMHO, it is better to destroy the ability of others to suppress opinions, then destroying the ability of unfeathered closure of opinions. In the first case, you have free speech, in the second, you have some form of censorship, where people are not free to make their own choice based on the 'unfeathered' information they can get.

All in all, I'm all for letting people gather information and make up there own decision - even if they come to another conclusion that you wished for... what you? Censorship tries to control, free information lets individuals decide for there own.

Re:fundamental differences...hmmm

[N3wsByt3]

"Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation). I'm not sure how this validates your point in anyway, or makes my opinion hypocrite as you've tried to make me say two or three times already in this discussion."

To merely have an opinion, can, on itself, never be hypocrite. It rather involves a contradictory discrepancy between, for example, what one says and what one does.

I was arguing that your reasoning could be deemed hypocritical if you use a reasoning to muffle up speech, whereas you would not accept the same reasoning, if others would muffle your speech up, but for things *you* think are right.

I'll try to explain one last time. :-)

In the beginning, I've said that, if you say that 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you think it is wrong and against the law, then, if the right-wing would make a majority, they could equally well deem anti-racism wrong and make laws to forbid *that*. My question then was: would you, in that case, accept that you couldn't speak about 'anti-racism' talk?

You tried to counter that by saying it is based on a 'universal' concept/basic human right... but as I pointed out, those are just a consensus on what constitutes basic human rights within our timeframe. It merely pushes my question further, but it does not answer it.

If rightwingers would have a majority in the worldpopulace, including the experts that think about what those rights constitute, and in those fantastic articles they make a lot of changes, and they add a clause that it is a basic human right to forbid anyone from making anti-racism speech... then, anti-racism talk will be against a 'basic human right' as well, and thus, following your reasoning, you should/would accept that they shut ppl up if they talk about anti-racism.

If you would not accept that reasoning in that case however - because of your own bias towards anti-racism - even when it's the same reasoning you used to forbid racism-talk, *then* you would be hypocritical.

very much agreed with your sensible arguments but

[doodlelogic]

unfortunately when it came to Kerry all you criticised him with was a racial slur: "Kerry has his skeletons ...For some reason the press lets everyone think Kerry is a Kennedyesque Irish Catholic when his paternal grand parents were actually Austro/Hungarian and Jewish.His name would be John Kohn if they hadn't changed their name to Kerry when the immigrated to the U.S....these little things...may color his decision making on Isreal in particular" This contains hints (probably subconscious) of old slurs: 1 Jews control the press 2 They are deceitful (not merely sensible in those times of rising tension against anyone with a germanic sounding name) 3 Jew=Zionist (pro Israel)

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[bretharder]

Thats why I made my promise with my friends.
If everyone voted for the person they really wanted;
instead of voting defensively against the guy that they don't want;
maybe we could spark a new era of American Politics.

The democrats that I know don't like John Kerry.
And I'd say at least half the conservatives I know don't like Bush (Of course the religious ones love him).

But they're going to vote against each other because thats what the media gives them.
John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson.

If they'd only wake up and vote for someone who really represents what they want;
Maybe our political system would change;
Maybe people could control the government rather than business;
Maybe common sense could prevail.

Re:Yeah, right... I Call Bullshit AGAIN

[jmo_jon]

No it's not simple or easy, but they are not fine or heroes for doing the 'simple' thing. I'm not the perfect human either but at some point does one has to take the responsability of the actions done. I guess there's a point when you also would think "hmm this isn't quite right and I might have to sacrifice some of my priviligies in life to do the right thing". I think when you have the choices of either killing anonymous people (who also have families btw) or spending some time in jail in a developed country is one situation where the choice should be pretty simple for everyone.

And no, I don't mean that it was a holiday in Vietnam for American soldiers by using the word simple. I mean simple as not going against the (then) current society.

Re:Censorship at slashdot even

[NeuroManson]

I ask you then, what of the so called "Swift Vets For Truth"?

They were exposed just days ago as schills, paid for by a major Republican contributor. Why, in you and yours delusion of "liberal media", hasn't this appeared on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al?

racism (part 11 ;-)

[N3wsByt3]

"My point was that in the case of racism there's really no room for argument, it is just plain wrong. I'm not pretending to be the highest authority on, well, on anything really, but some things are just plain wrong."

That's a fundamentalist viewpoint. There is (or should be, anyways) ALWAYS room for argument, as long as it stays with arguments. Cleary you think it's wrong (as do I), but that's because we think and feel strongly it's wrong...but a racist may think and feel equally strong it's right and we are wrong; surely you can acknowledge that point?

Thus, we (anti-racist) both feel strong and think we are right and the other (racist) is wrong and vice versa...which makes it, without 'room for argumenting', nothing more then opinions. Unless you claim that forbidding free speech when it comes to 'racist speech' is universal, but then, if it were truelly universal, the USA wouldn't have a totally different view on the matter, would it?

(Besides, a claim of 'universalism' always makes me frown, in almost every conceivable case; I think that, in reality, there are very few human sociological concepts that are truelly universal)

"Well, first of all, I don't live in the USA, so this doesn't really apply, but assuming I did, and this scenario came to pass, I'd be gone faster than a skinhead who accidentally strolled into Harlem at 3 am. Once again, I can't help but argue that racism being wrong is fact, not opinion."

Neither do I, and in fact, ultra-right is far stronger in europe, with all it's anti-racism laws and muffling of free speech in this regard, then the USA; a thing that maybe should be considered, when arguing the perceived benefits of such laws.

That said, fleeing the country does not answer the question whether or not you would accept that you can't speak up about anti-racism, because they made it illegal to do so, norif you think it's a good argument that you can't speak against racism, because it offends the ultra-right. Seeing that fleeing is a bit drastic, I'm assuming you would not agree..yet, it would be the exact same reasoning as what you think should be entitled to shut up others in those instances...

"But the very act of expressing a racistic opinion is an act of racism in itself."

No, it isn't. If it were truelly the same, no1 could make a distinction, yet the courts in the USA have made that distinction quite consistently. And with reason: there should be an obvious-to-everyone distinction that it's not the same saying "I don't think niggers should be allowed to work" and firing or refusing black people, because of the color of their skin. He may say what he wants, as long as he doesn't act upon it. I can see that distinction, a whole lot of other people can see that distinction, the courts of the USA can see that distinction, and thus I'm rather inclined to think the two are not entirely the same.

Now, I'm fully agreeing with you that racism is wrong, and I'm applauding your viewpoint on the matter...only, I'm not deluding myself into thinking not allowing that form of free speech is somehow universal in nature and that my opinion is a fact where there is no room for argumentation. While I applaud your stance on racism, I would advice you to keep an eye on these kind of fundamentalistic traits.

Problems with Libertarian Party platform

[0x0d0a]

I have a couple of pretty severe issues with the the Libertarian platform, which I finally got around to reading last night.

First, they oppose "victimless crimes". This means some changes that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Plutonium is a controlled substance in the United States, and an elimination of consentual crimes would make it uncontrolled. I want possession of plutonium to be controlled, frankly.

Second, the libertarian approach toward justice is somewhat different than that I approach. I view justice as a dissuasive mechanism, something that can be used to stabilize situations. Libertarians view it as a restitutive mechanism, a method of restoring the state before the crime was committed. I believe that this approach leaves crime profitable unless law enforcement operates perfectly and 100% of damaging crimes are caught.

Third, I very, very strongly disagree with their proposed changes to jury trials. They propose a combination of juries being volunteer and having the ability to override existing law. This effectively reduces the value of a written code of law, means that laws may basically be retroactively changed after a crime was committed, and means that extremists may use jury trials as a political platform, which I do not think is an appropriate place for rational and open discourse. I can understand how frusterated they are with being a minority party and wanting minority parties to have more political power, but I do not think that this is a good mechanism. I am particularly surprised that vote reform, one of the most valuable changes that would allow minority parties to gain political influence, is not a fundamental part of their platform -- I guess that if they ever get into power, they are unlikely to want to give up power to minority parties. Sigh.

Fourth, their platform on American Indian Rights -- the return of Indian lands to Indians -- is simply ridiculous. It might sound nice, and there might have historically been some nasty games play ed to obtain land ownership, but you can hardly kick people off of land where they now live.

Fifth, I utterly disagree with their "zero regulation" model of business. Their claims that all monpolies arise from government intervention is, frankly, wrong. I can't see how they intend to deal with natural monpolies, unless they expect to simply ignore them. They do not deal with artificial mopolies, which I can't believe the government directly causes in all cases...unless they want to also repeal all forms of IP, which will be, well, overly extreme in my book and almost everyone's.

Sixth, their "no taxes" model makes no sense. It's just ridiculous. We've tried not having *federal* taxes, and that just didn't work. The mind boggles at the thought of local and state taxes being eliminated. How do they expect to have a functioning government? Even they must allow for the operation of certain skeletal structures, like a judicial system, or their own rules will not be enforced.

Seventh, their proposed method for dealing with pollution simply ignores the game-theoretic models that have convinced people that pollution is a public-good problem that requires intervention. Who cares if the children 100 years down the road get screwed over? The person causing the damage will be gone!

Eighth, they propose deregulating the postal service. This would probably mean an end to mail that can reach anywhere in the United States, even if it reduced costs to the other people.

Ninth, I think that their policy on secession is stupid. Sounds very idealistic, but why doesn't, say, GM Seattle secede from the United States, and avoid paying business taxes? Their workers can still *live* in the United States and enjoy the no income taxes that the Libertarian party promotes. I just don't see it working.

Tenth, their policy on annexation is like the Guano Act plus a million. It would produce an unmanagable United States if a

Re:Problems with Libertarian Party platform

[joonasl]

Social Security Replace the fraudulent, bankrupt Social Security system with a private, voluntary system. This is just the most silly thing I have ever heard. The people in need of social security are the ones that could never afford a private system and vice versa.

Re:Problems with Libertarian Party platform

[Ripped_edge]

They propose a combination of juries being volunteer and having the ability to override existing law.

You sir, have not read your jury pamphlet. Jury Nullification. Juries are _supposed_ to override unjust laws. It's in their mandate. The judges just don't tell you.

Re:Problems with Libertarian Party platform

[0x0d0a]

Yes, but the juries are not composed of volunteers. (Also, it's unclear to me whether the Libertarian stance is simply that of nullification, or that of jury *modification* of law through case law.)

The current system makes it very hard for activists to use the courts to promote their views; I view the current role as appropriate.

Re:Problems with Libertarian Party platform

[NetCynicism]

They propose a combination of juries being volunteer and having the ability to override existing law. Too late. Juries have been able to override the law since before the dawn of the Republic; it's an English Common Law tradition. Justice Samuel Chase was impeached at the end of the 18th century because while he was presiding individually over a circuit court (justices did that then); he neglected to instruct a jury that they had the duty to judge the law as well as the facts. That duty still exists, though modern judges would prefer you didn't know it or use it if you're on a jury.

Re:Problems with Libertarian Party platform

[yourmom16]

Second, the libertarian approach toward justice is somewhat different than that I approach. I view justice as a dissuasive mechanism, something that can be used to stabilize situations. Libertarians view it as a restitutive mechanism, a method of restoring the state before the crime was committed. I believe that this approach leaves crime profitable unless law enforcement operates perfectly and 100% of damaging crimes are caught.

That's not what it sounded like to me. They were just saying if you are caught stealing something, not only should you go to jail, but you should also give it back.

Third, I very, very strongly disagree with their proposed changes to jury trials. They propose a combination of juries being volunteer and having the ability to override existing law. This effectively reduces the value of a written code of law, means that laws may basically be retroactively changed after a crime was committed, and means that extremists may use jury trials as a political platform, which I do not think is an appropriate place for rational and open discourse. I can understand how frusterated they are with being a minority party and wanting minority parties to have more political power, but I do not think that this is a good mechanism. I am particularly surprised that vote reform, one of the most valuable changes that would allow minority parties to gain political influence, is not a fundamental part of their platform -- I guess that if they ever get into power, they are unlikely to want to give up power to minority parties. Sigh.

It sounds to me more like they are saying that juries should use the right of jury nullification that they already have more than they do now. Jury nullification basicly means that the jury thinks that the law shouldn't apply in this particular case, so they vote innocent despite the evidence.

Seventh, their proposed method for dealing with pollution simply ignores the game-theoretic models that have convinced people that pollution is a public-good problem that requires intervention. Who cares if the children 100 years down the road get screwed over? The person causing the damage will be gone!

You must have missed the part about strict liability. If they pollute on your property you will be able to sue them; If they can manage to limit the pollution to their own property somehow, then its their problem.

Tenth, their policy on annexation is like the Guano Act plus a million. It would produce an unmanagable United States if a large number of citizens just started claiming things outside US borders (and seceding inside). Free market models assume fluidity, but governments require some rigidity to function.

Their policy on annexation isn't that bad. It just says that you can claim stuff that nobody else has(which is just about nothing these days). How do you think people originally obtained property?

Eleventh, I *hate* their policy about space usage, which is liable to leave earth orbit full of debris and other crap (it's a public good problem, which free markets and hence the Libertarian approach, do not deal with well).

Whats wrong with leaving crap orbiting the earth? It's not big enough to block the view of the sky, and it's not going to fall and hit someone on the head. I don't see how it would harm anyone.

Re:Problems with Libertarian Party platform

[0x0d0a]

That's not what it sounded like to me. They were just saying if you are caught stealing something, not only should you go to jail, but you should also give it back.

Hmm. Could be. I wish their summary had hyperlinks.

It sounds to me more like they are saying that juries should use the right of jury nullification that they already have more than they do now. Jury nullification basicly means that the jury thinks that the law shouldn't apply in this particular case, so they vote innocent despite the evidence.

The problem is that when you *combine* encouragement to use jury nullification with (and this is crucial) volunteer juries ("yeah, *I'm* a member of the KKK, and I'd *love* to be on a jury!"), you now have a platform for activists. It tends to deemphasize the influence of moderates.

I don't have a problem with more community involvement in legislation. The problem is that the legislature exists for a reason -- it's somewhere that a point can come up, arguments for each side can be produced, and high visibility can be given to things that will affect people. There is accountability to constitutients.

While the jury nullification mechanism *is* a safety door, and a very useful one, it's not intended to replace the legislature, and attempting to do so can have some real problems.

You must have missed the part about strict liability. If they pollute on your property you will be able to sue them; If they can manage to limit the pollution to their own property somehow, then its their problem.

Ah, but the problem is that members of the world don't have complete knowledge of their environment. Secret polluting has happened before -- should it be necessary for people to constantly check to see whether someone is dumping pollutants into their drainage system, or should the EPA work backwards from their own testing sites? What if there is something that we have a concern about, but aren't yet certain of damage? I can't sue during such an evaluation phase. What about dumping into international waters, or putting diffuse air pollutants into the upper atmosphere? What if it's hard to track back sources -- who should be sued for the hole in the ozone layer? What if a land owner wants to use his land for the storage of radioactive waste? Perhaps he has sealed containers, but what about the risk *if* there's, say, a fire? He cannot be sued until he actually causes damages. I just don't think that lawsuits are sufficient to solve public good problems, to solve problems deriving from the fact that we have incomplete knowledge, and so forth. When the United States granted land rights, it did not do so with stipulations as to use -- what if we now realize that we can kill off a species permanently, removing a potential animal from the utility of everyone in the world, and the person that owns the land that that animal lives on has no interest in allowing it to live? How would you address this with a lawsuit.

Their policy on annexation isn't that bad. It just says that you can claim stuff that nobody else has(which is just about nothing these days). How do you think people originally obtained property?

Until two different people claim things for their country and a dispute starts. And what metric to you use to determine whether someone "has" something? Christopher Columbus claimed the Americas. What about a chunk of sea in an international shipping lane? What about an island that two countries both have claimed, but is unoccupied? What if I claim the Moon -- is it "mine"?

And if it's such a minor point, why is it a fundamental plank in the platform?

Whats wrong with leaving crap orbiting the earth? It's not big enough to block the view of the sky, and it's not going to fall and hit someone on the head. I don't see how it would harm anyone.

Another public-good problem. Orbit space known not to contain debris is an extremely valuable good. If private space exploration is allowed,

Re:Censorship at slashdot even

[dave420]

Hahahaha!!! A republican having a go at people for hypocrisy. That's freakin' RICH. "liberal ignorant masses" - hahaha! I've yet to hear an argument from a right-winger on /. that wasn't drenched in racism and blatant lies. However, most posts from left-leaning individuals at least contain a modicum more substance and direction.

Please, give up gracefully.

And speaking of redefining reality...

[leonbrooks]

Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no [...] their stance is [...] pro Hollywood

Which planet is the OP from? If there's anything outre happening in sex, Hollywood screens it ASAP.

toward a 3rd party

[whovian]

I voted my conscience (3rd party) in the 2000 elections with no effect. Since then it's become clearer to me that having a 3rd party choice at a top level just "magically" appearing isn't going to happen. The Dems and Reps and biased media would see to it that it not happen.

Rather, getting a 3rd party significantly represented at higher levels under the current system is a long-term prospect that begins by voting for 3rd parties at the local level (be it a city, county, or state representative). That's the only way that the idea of a viable 3rd party candidate is going to solidify in people's minds.

Re:toward a 3rd party

[nadabu14]

Absolutely. And thanks for pointing this out!

When I say vote third party, I don't mean just at the presidential level. Do that, of course, but also do it at the city, county, and state levels. If we don't, the third party movement will require far, far more momentum, money, and time to get off the ground.

Re:Why is parent modded as troll?

[v01d]

I can see you someone either right or left of me would not like what i'm saying, but that doesn't make me a troll.

But you're not saying anything; you're making vague unfounded accusations.

for his country?

[Djinh]

John Kerry fought for his country in Vietnam?

I didn't know he was Vietnamese...

Hobbesian choice

[Nick Barnes]

No, we do not. A Hobbesian choice is one in which no choice is actually offered. You can have any color Ford you want, so long as it's black.

No, that would be Hobson's choice. A Hobbesian choice might be between anarchy and tyranny, or possibly deciding which snow goon to attack first.

Re:Hobbesian choice

[admiralh]

I was going to make a "Calvin and Hobbes" reference too but you beat me to it. Nice job.

Where's my mod points when I need them?

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Well, do you hate them both equally? If not, you could (on probability) improve your position by voting for

First, you're basing your vote off of hatred? And not real "you killed mah daddy" hatred, but Hate Week hatred? That's lame, right there.

Second, where do you get off saying "improve" ? Don't you really mean "cause to deteriorate more slowly" ?

Not a lesser evil

[Animaether]

Find out who else is running and choose someone - anyone - that you honestly can say is not a lesser evil.

Wait.. hold on..
If we shouldn't vote for the lesser evil..
Do you mean to say we should vote for.. the greater evil ?

Re:Not a lesser evil

[Alien54]

All according to the dictates of your conscience.

I presume you are one of several evil mad scientists around here. Why vote to strengthen the competition?

Vote *against* someone...

[sonofagunn]

I wish we could cast our vote *against* a candidate, and subtract a vote from his final tally. After all, isn't that how most of us really want to vote? My voting opinion is not accurately reflected by voting for the lesser of two evils. I want to vote *against* one of them. This would be great because a 3rd party candidate would actually stand a chance of winning, since so many people would rather vote against Bush or Kerry than for either one.

For being "The land of the free"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it's been said millions of times before, but for being "The land of the free" you americans don't seem to have many freedoms...

Can't say I know of any other democratic country that has as little freedom as americans... Well, maybe France (where they actually want to forbid muslim girls to where a veil to school)...

What did he say on Meet the Press?

[mary_will_grow]

So what did Bush say on Meet the Press?
Anyone have a transcript?

Slashdot: Where you get your opinion told to you!

[PenguiN42]

Would you ever expect a serious news program to say something like "This just in: Bush and Kerry are pretty much identical on domestic issues, ie, Pro-Hollywood. Full story at 11!"

Though our current neo-conservative president being identical on the issues to the #1 most liberal senator certainly *would* be a story.

Re:Only in America

[Shihar]

Have you been to DC recently? I was down in DC few weeks ago and there was a constant stream of protests, pickets, and booths doing exactly what you described - with picture. This stuff happens all the time down there. You could do any of the above and you will not get arrested. Certainly they will likely watch you like a hawk, but so long as you are not standing in the middle of the road obstructing traffic, or trying to use physical force on anyone, they will allow it. If you just want to sit there with a sign that says "Bush is a murdering fascist", no one will stop you.

A strong argument could be made that when it comes to freedom in IP, the US lags. In terms of actual individual speech, I can't possibly see how it could get much rosier. You can say anything you want. I think you would be damned hard pressed to find another nation that is so liberal in terms of what the laws protect for freedom individual of speech.

People need to get a grip and get things in perspective. I am not voting for Bush in the upcoming election and I all around think he is dumber then a pound of bricks. However, I don't let my dislike of his policies fabricate disillusions that I am living in a fascist police state or that he sits around all day figuring out ways to kill babies for shits and giggles. People don't disappear. No matter how nutty and vocal you are, no one is going send the corporate death squad run by Dick Chaney after you. Get a grip and realize how badly the media (and politicians in general) has you hyped up into a frothing mess to the point where you will believe anything so long as it sounds bad for Bush.

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and was utterly blown away at how many people in the audience ate up some of the most one sided and utterly racist propaganda I had ever seen in my entire life. If at any point you can't at least understand the other side's argument and rationally see why they would think that way, then I 99% of the time it is because you have turned fanatic and will eat up any bullshit that fits in line with your beliefs. Nothing is more destructive to the political process then when people become a frothing mess that isn't able to at least understand the others sides position. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, but you need to at least understand it first. The worst thing about this election year is that both side's bases are so riled up that they are utterly blind to anything that lands outside their current pre-programmed views.

Why GW does few interviews.

[theolein]

I can see the reason why GW does not often do interviews:Bushisms. The man is so obviously unable to articulate himself in his own language, and very probably think in it (His latest one on Tribal sovreignty was really painful) that I'm am pretty sure his campaign advisors such as Karl "Goebbels" Rove almost crap themselves every time GW has to answer impromptu questions in public. A good deal of the USA might be unable to use their own language properly and appreciate the fact that their president is as dumb as they are, but I think the majority are probably more than a little worried now that GW "The Chimp" Bush is really an utter idiot acting as puppet for a group of far right fanatics.

Re:Why GW does few interviews.

[BranMan]

More's the pity: I voted for Bush. Actually I voted for the "group of far right fanatics" who I thought at the time were the right people to run the country. I knew GW was a figurehead, and didn't care.

But I didn't see 9/11 coming. That's what pushed everyone off the deep end and started it all. Unfortunately, Mr Bush didn't repond well to the preasure - but I never expected him to have to face that kind of preasure either. His cabinet is another matter though - they know better, and instead of helping to keep things on an even keel went nuts with every rabid thought they never dreamed they'd actually get the chance to indulge.

voting reform

[Heisenbug]

The system we have is very stable -- it's not going to change from wishing. The reason, of course, is that any successful 3rd party candidate does damage to the major candidate they resemble most. Practically speaking, to support a 3rd party you have to resign yourself to damaging many of the causes that 3rd party candidate supports.

What we need is a system that allows you to express your true preference without damaging the causes they support. I understand that this has been proved mathematically impossible, but there are definitely systems that approximate it, instant runoff, condorcet and the like, and they're not very hard. If you like Nader, why not support Kerry, who honestly is closer to Nader's platform in many significant ways, and then contribute to a group that's working for voting reform? As far as I can tell that's the best middle path in a situation with no morally clear option.

Voting reform isn't an impossibility. We just have to work up to it -- start with local elections, until everyone's used to it, and then finally switch the national ballot when it's not a scary idea anymore.

Incidentally, I liked Nader in 2000, but he's lost much of my respect. Based on credible polls, he's doing more to help Bush than any other single person in the country. If he acknowledged and made peace with this fact I might respectfully disagree with his reasons, but instead he apparently refuses entirely to recognize it -- along with the real negative results of electing Bush over Kerry. For a reformer to deliberately blind himself to the truth in support of his campaign, and do great harm to the country in the process, is, well, ironic for a start.

Salon interview in which Nader doesn't see any difference between accepting donations from prominent Republicans and Kerry accepting donations from prominent corporations:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/14/nad er phonecall/index_np.html

Why the hidden racism against Jews?

[denjin]

What was the point of bringing up him having Jewish ancestry? Are you trying to imply that he is somehow 'worse' just for being Jewish or that he has some Zionist ideas?

Aside from it all just seeming quite racist, not all Jews are Zionist. I know more than a few Orthodox Jews who are not, to say nothing of the conservative or reform Jews.

Re:Why the hidden racism against Jews?

[demachina]

I guess I've answered why the media never mentions the fact because you instantly get tagged for antisemitism and racism.

When you are running for President your life should be an open book. The fact that your surname is a fabrication is just a fact the people voting for you should now. I just find it amazing and interesting its NEVER mentioned. I heard it once on CNN in the middle of the night when their editorial control was probably weak.

When your country is engaged in a massive never ending war against Islam having a president who is to some extent Jewish is going to add a new and interesting twist. You see in the U.S. and Europe it may be brushed under the rug, but the rest of the world, especially the Islamic world will notice and it will be cited as further evidence of the reach of Zionism in the U.S. The implication will be someone who is openly Jewish, like Leiberman is unlikely to be elected President, so the next approach was to run someone whose Jewish ancestry is thinly veiled. Before you slam me for saying this I am again just outlining what you will see in the Arab press if he is elected.

I really wish I could say that there wasn't anything to Zionism and Jewish influence in the U.S. but its a fact that Zionism is a powerful global force and there is an extremely powerful Jewish influence in the U.S. Its a tribute to its power that you can't point out this obvious fact without being rabidly attacked and facing massive denial of something that is obvious. Like I said any politician running for a major office in the U.S. who isn't rabidly pro Israel has NO chance of getting elected in this country. That is an indicator of a lobby with massive power.

Re:Why the hidden racism against Jews?

[Jadrano]

I really wish I could say that there wasn't anything to Zionism and Jewish influence in the U.S. but its a fact that Zionism is a powerful global force and there is an extremely powerful Jewish influence in the U.S.

Of course, there is a relatively strong Zionist lobby in the U.S., but its influence should not be exaggerated and many Jews don't support it. But what I find really worrying as far as US-Israeli relations are concerned are the extremely influential Christian fundamentalist who support exetreme Israeli right-wing policies because of their ideology, which is ultimately directed against Judaism (according to them, Christ can only come back to the earth when there aren't any Jews left who haven't converted to the Christian religion, in order to win them over later, their state has to be supported now). They don't want any peace for Israel and Palestine because, in their view, war is needed before the second coming of Christ.

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[PainKilleR-CE]

I think you'll find, though, that those of us that don't like Bush primarily because of his mixing of religion and politics don't really have anyone else to vote for. The Libertarian candidate, for instance, went on TV and told people to vote for him so that John Kerry would win, and the mixture of a Democrat president and Republican congress would revert the government to a stagnant state. Then there's the views against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is likely to grate on those people which don't want to vote for Bush primarily because of his legislation of moral issues (or things like expansion of government services like medicare).

Re:People get exactly the leaders they deserve

[gorbachev]

You can't get rid of the leaders until the next election in the US unless:

a) the leaders do something extraordinarily stupid and commit an illegal act (Nixon)
b) you ovrethrow them violently
c) public protests lead to early elections

Option a) is the only option that could possibly happen. The last two are so extremely unlikely it's not even worth considering.

That's why politicians can lie through their teeth all throughout their campaigns, then get elected, do a 180 and continue to remain in office.

Re:Censorship at slashdot even

[argent]

Goodness.

First of all, I don't see slashdot moderators modding down other people's websites.

Second, I've even posted articles supportive of Microsoft and didn't get modded down.

Perhaps it's the way you present yourself?

Hypocrisy in politics--was Re:Yeah, right...

[JInterest]

This brought to you by the Republican party, the political group led by an imbecile cokehead who didn't even have the balls to turn up to his cushy National Guard posting. I have little sympathy for their copyright complaint...

In other words, your view of an abuse of copyright is tainted by your politics. This is precisely why those who are abusing copyright law in this instance feel free to do so. They know that the hopeless zealots on both sides will provide them cover (and mod points on Slashdot) for changing the subject.

If Kerry and Bush have nothing to hide, then there is no reason to suppress the information in question. John Kerry has chosen to run on his war record. That makes his war record fair game, and photographs that remind people what he did right after coming home should be seen. Bush has been called on to defend his decision to go to war with Iraq, and as president, it is his duty to explain that decision. If he has given an awkward or unconvincing explanation, it is the the right of the American people to see that and make their own judgments.

Either way, the subject was the misuse of copyright law to suppress political speech and political debate. Your posting and those following it in the same thread which are discussing everything other than the issue of how copyright is being used to suppress free speech are all seriously off-topic, and should have been modded as such.

Not About Free Speech

[balaam's ass]

The title for this /. forum is all hype. The lawyers are not saying that the maintainers of the website are not allowed to use ANY photographs of Kerry. They're just saying that this photographer --- who has every right to protect his copyrighted woks --- doesn't want them using HIS photographs. Are the people that run the website paying him for using his content? No? Then they should find a photograph that's in the public domain. This is not about free speech. They're not being told not to say what they want about Kerry, they're just being told to stop using this guy's content royalty-free. Why don't they take their own photos of Kerry?

And as far as domestic issues: How are two issues "most" issues? ...and I'm happy to support a candidate who'll prevent the state from *forcing* me to accept gay marriage.

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[BigNumber]

SSSSHHHHH! Don't wake him up...he's having such a lovely dream.

Kompressor 2004

[apanap]

Yes! Vote Andreas Kompressor this November! Check out his issues-page, I think everyone will agree!

A few examples:

Children: "Do not have children, soon you have no money and the teenager hates you."

Homeland Security: "If I am elected president, all current politicians will be converted to searching bags at airports. This makes all people glad to use airports."

AIDS: "This disease is deadly, you should try not to get."

Abortion: "Everyone must do this, a restaurant full of children is very difficult to eat in. It is loud and you do not eat."

Kompressor for President.

100% of society

[maximilln]

There are 100 people in society

There are 2 brilliant people
There are 20 greedy people
There are 20 gullible people
There are 10 who are opposed
There are 48 apathetic people

5 greedy people ambush 2 brilliant people
5 greedy people convince 20 gullible people
20 gullible people make lots of noise
38 apathetic people restrain 8 who are opposed to restore calm
5 greedy people, 20 gullible people, 10 apathetic people, and 2 who are opposed vote
5 greedy people sit back, enjoy the show, and profit.

Using copyright to quell political speech is a tactic of the greedy people perpetuated by the apathetic people who simply want things to quiet down so we can go back to trying to pay bills and keep up with rising taxes.

Re:100% of society

[cherokee158]

U.S. smart bomb kills 98, remaining 2 survivors given Nike t-shirts and jobs at new local oil refinery.

Go team!

Sound Recording

[pommiekiwifruit]

As on breakfast television today, the music industry decried the terrible state of UK copyright law, whereby sound recordings are only copyright for 50 years (the songs themselves are still under copyright, natch), which means that some of Elvis's recordings are about to become public domain in the UK. How could such a thing be allowed they asked indignantly? People would only have to pay royalties to the songwriter and not to Elvis! The recording industry would lose a valuable revenue stream which is their property, and the pirates will have won!

Lessig's View & Arguement

[KrisHolland]

Copyrighting the President

The US president owns neither his words nor his image - at least not when he speaks in public on important matters. Anyone is free to use what he says, and the way he says it, to criticize or to praise. The president, in this sense, is free. But what happens when the commander in chief uses private venues to deliver public messages, holding fewer press conferences and making more talk-show appearances? Who controls his words and images then?

Re:Lessig's View & Arguement

[mrchaotica]

Then in my opinion, that private venue turns into a public one, regardless of what copyright law says.

Re:Lessig's View & Arguement

[Arcane_Rhino]

I wonder if the President has to get permission from these corporations to use the recordings of his own words and images? I do not know the legal answer to that question but suspect it might tell us more about our "republic" than we wish to know.

not really.

[Darstig]

the code os pretty clear as to the exceptions Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

The snopes article is out of date

[puppet10]

on that point. (Note last update Febuary 19, 2004)

From latimes.com April 22, 2004

The presidential candidate also sought Wednesday to answer critics of his military record, releasing 145 pages of official military documents that describe his trajectory from a privileged Ivy League student to a young Navy man who volunteered to go to Vietnam.

Kerry posted the documents on his website after several days of controversy in an effort, aides said, to quell criticism about his military service. Some conservatives had questioned whether the Massachusetts senator had earned all of his medals. Bush officials also questioned why he did not immediately release the records after promising to do so during an interview Sunday on "Meet the Press."

Senior Kerry advisor Michael Meehan said that campaign had requested the candidate's full naval record about a month ago. The 120 separate documents posted on http://www.johnkerry.com include all of the records released to Kerry by the Navy.

He also released a very complete list on lobbyist contacts he's had.

So anything else to find fault with?

Re:The snopes article is out of date

[Chordonblue]

Sure. As soon as we have real documentation as to what his purple hearts were REALLY for, I'd say it's all still hearsay.

Re:Parent post is a troll if ever there was...

[racer19]

I don't have the energy to go into a long-winded response on what I view to be the many gross factual misrepresentations in this post, so I'll just point out a couple:

1) "True enough. But anybody reading please keep in mind that republicans have started going around trolling liberal-leaning blogs (like /.), parading as ultra-liberals. Their point is to give pep-talks such as this to sway the liberal votes away from Kerry, towards Bush." Are you really naive enough to believe that only the conservatives are doing this sort of thing? You need to get out more...

2) "Think of all the REALLY controversial stuff Bush didn't do because he needed to maintain his swing voters. He'll have no such obligation to them if he's re-elected." This exact same thing is said of EVERY President going for their 2nd term. Can you provide examples of what you consider to be "REALLY controversial"?

3) "This time I'm voting Kerry for several reasons. He seems much more centrist" A Google search seems to show that many (for example) would disagree with you.

Disarmed Populace != Less Crime

[goldspider]

If you were a criminal looking to jack up some guy for his wallet, would you think twice if it was very likely that the guy was carying a firearm? I know I would!

In areas like Washington D.C., which has some of the toughest gun laws in the state (and not coincidentally the highest rate of violent crime), law-abiding citizens have been disarmed and are at the mercy of armed criminals.

When you allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms, you take a HUGE advantage away from the criminals.

Now I'm not saying I think children should be packing heat in school, but the concept of an armed populace as a crime deterrant is hardly self-contradictory.

Re:Disarmed Populace != Less Crime

[joonasl]

You're right: concept of an armed populace as a crime deterrant is not logically self-contradictory.

Using Europe and Japan as examples of places where there is much less crime, and as it happens much stricter gun laws and less guns than in the U.S. and the proposing that the solution to the U.S. crime problem is more guns is, well, atleast a little strange.

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[waterbear]

>>Well, do you hate them both equally? If not, you could (on probability) improve your position by voting for

>First, you're basing your vote off of hatred? And not real "you killed mah daddy" hatred, but Hate Week hatred? That's lame, right there.

>Second, where do you get off saying "improve" ? Don't you really mean "cause to deteriorate more slowly" ?

Try checking attributions. It was the original poster that said he hated both candidates. The point in reply is, if he doesn't dislike them equally, then there is something he can actually do to reduce the chance that the one he dislikes more will get elected. If there is one of them that he dislikes less, doesn't that make it less bad (for him) if the one he dislikes less gets in? And isn't a less bad outcome better than the worst, and isn't that relatively an improvement?

-wb-

Well, no. The legislature changed the law.

[JeanPaulBob]

Of course the 95% of the people who are straight don't want the 5% of the people who are gay to have the same rights as they do. Just like the 95% of the people who are white at one time didn't want the 5% of the blacks to have the same rights. In that case judges ruled that the majority was wrong and that the rights of the minority were guaranteed by the constitution. If the judges rule the same way for homosexuals then it's incumbent on the states to let them marry.

That's not what happened. In our original Constitution, most blacks really didn't have the same rights, and courts ruled as such. Then after we fought the Civil War, we passed amendments to the Constitution to end slavery and ensure equal protection for all. Then courts rules to protect their rights, after gaining the legal basis to do so.

But that equal protection clause is not an absolute, overriding principle. When it came time to extend voting rights to women, was it done through the courts? NO!! It was done through the legislative branch, because that is the only branch with the power to change the law as it is.

It is not the courts job to determine what rights should and should not be protected. It is their job to rule on the law as it is. Anything else is violating the nature of our system of checks and balances.

This isn't an obvious legal issue either way. In America's legal tradition, the very definition of marriage has always been exclusively between those of opposite sex. Everyone in America has precisely the same marriage rights--not to marry anyone you want, but to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex. Yes, that right is constructed so that it doesn't do some people any good--but that doesn't give the courts license to redefine an institution.

Or maybe it does; I can see room for argument. But if you ignore this sort of perspective, you won't convince anyone who disagrees with you.

Moderation Not Working Here

[salesgeek]

Karma kill session begins now:

Why is it that if an article is slightly against Kerry it is modded down and articles referring to Bush as "chimp" and his advisors as "goebbels" are modded highly? I thought name calling was usually flamebait or at the least a troll. Regardless, the tone of this discussion and the soundbite level of understanding most posters have is dissappointing. If people would only try to understand government with the passion they approach picking out their favorite text editor or scripting language.

Bush's actions with respect to Iraq are troubling. Kerry's actions surrounding his service in Viet Nam and possibly his actual service is questionable. Even worse, some of the promises from both campaigns are totally unkeepable. If you think hate for the president is what has kept our allies on the sideline and that changing leaders will suddenly bring France and Germany and NATO into Iraq, you will be dissappointed. Nothing happens between nations without a price. If you believe that the economy is all better, believe me, when the fed raises interest rates and people can't unlock the equity in their homes so easily... we are in for trouble.

Regardless, it's nice to see people who feel such passion about firing the president. It's too bad that both Bush and Kerry do not represent what is best in America. In fact, both of them appear to be self-serving egomaniacs who are interested in wielding power for power's sake. That is a national tradgedy, and using DCMA to supress the opposition is exactly the kind of tactic I'd expect from both of them - and we can expect more of the same if either is elected.

Ob: Kahle vs. Ashcroft

[shimmin]

Someone should forward this to the folks running Kahle v. Ashcroft. This is exactly the sort of phenomena that would support their claim that changing from the old "Only works that are registered / renewed are copyright" regime to the Berne convention "Copyright is inherent in the work's creation" regime "fundamentally changed the landscape of free speech" in a way that warranted constitutional review.

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[CreatureComfort]

Well, do you hate them both equally? If not, you could (on probability) improve your position by voting for the candidate most likely to prevent the election of the one you hate more.

This is a great fallacy that gets repeated over and over. It would be true if, when you cast your vote, you could split it amoungst candidates based on how close they were to your views, i.e. 42% Democrat, 38% Republican, 20% Libertarian. This might end up causing each party to change its platform and actions to get as much margin as possible.

Instead your one, whole vote is counted by each party as unequivocal support, even a mandate, in support of thier entire platform. This increasingly leads each party to see each vote as an endorsement of the most radical end of thier political ideals.

I used to believe in "voting for the lesser of two evils" until this election. This election, for the first time, I agree with far less than 50% of the views supported by either of the major candidates. I have participated in six presidential elections, and researched how I would have voted in the ten previous to those, and have concluded that voting for the lesser weevil only encourages that party to deviate even farther from my views, than they were previously.

I do not, in any way, support not voting. That just removes your voice from being heard completely, and is, once again, in the best interests of fanatics on both ends of the spectrum. I have come to believe that any vote for someone that doesn't represent at least the majority of your opinions is the only wasted vote. So far, I have not been faced with an election where there wasn't at least one marginal candidate on a presidential ballot, that I could agree with at least 51% of what he said. If I ever am, I'm honestly not sure how my views will change at that point. If there are not enough Americans, that believe the way I do, to even field a candidate, then there will be something very wrong with me, them, or the system.

Re:Agreed!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm tired of people wasting their own time and mine by posting "why is this news?" comments in stories they claim to not care about. Don't like it? Don't want to read about it? Don't click on the topic link!

Kerry is not pro-offshoring

[mbbac]

Kerry has always come out against offshoring in every speech I've heard or read. The opening paragraph of the link that supposedly reveals that he supports it only confirms that he is not pro-offshoring -- only that some of his supporters are.

High-tech heavyweight Marc Andreessen, an outspoken supporter of "offshoring" work to low-wage countries, said Wednesday he has decided to support Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid despite the candidate's condemnation of "Benedict Arnold CEOs" who move job overseas.

Re:Scientology

[Minna Kirai]

It obtained injunctions to stop the publication of materials critical of it, claiming that it owned the copyright.

Of course, it did own the copyright. The "materials critical" were its own "religious" scriptures. It was unprecedented, because no other religion is young enough to be under copyright. (But now that copyrights are eternal, Scientology will still be protected 1000 years from now)

Those materials were posted in comments on Slashdot, but removed pursuant to Scientologist threats.

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

No, it's not better. Just "less bad" as you put it. A meaningless distinction for some, I'm sure, but when we're all talking lesser of two evils and such, I figure it's important to be precise.

TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

The above post is a blatant Troll and Flamebait. He explains nothing, and takes every oppurtunity to bash Bush. exempli gratis:
"Bushism"
"Can't possibly form logical sentences..."

Bush never said people who oppose the Iraqi war are unpatriotic, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. You also gave absolutely no support for your satement that John Kery isn't a fan of communism, but Bush would if it supported him.

Oh, that's right, you can't because your post is nothing but blatant FLAMEBAIT.

Right.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Of course, many of his sponsors support off-shoring. I don't see him giving the money back.

Christianity

[1stMode]

Why do you think everything is about love and hate. I believe a person should love the sinner, hate the sin. If I, being christian were to hate the sinner, I would hate myself, my family, and all my friends. Because we all screw up most of the time. There is no hate when it comes to voicing an opinion against an action you do not believe is right. That is not hate, that is a disagreement. I do not hate that person. I just do not agree with there actions. And you say christians are so black and white, just listen to yourself.

Being christian is a huge struggle. Do you think we just walk around thinking we are the greatest thing since sliced bread and everyone else is dead? Being a christian is a constant struggle with ones actions and morals. It is a constant struggle to try to love a murder when you just want to hate them. Christ told us to love everyone, to not pass judgment, to not hate anyone. To live like this is a constant personal struggle. Don't you think it is easier to just go and download all the music, movies, and programs you want for free, to sleep around on your spouse of girlfriend, to sneak looks at other womens bodies and have desires for them, to treat people however you feel like treating them, to be selfish, to be dishonest when you want?

Of course all of that is easier. To live your life for yourself and always get ahead no matter who suffers is always the easiest action. That is not what the Lord teaches though, which makes christians have a constant personal battle to live the way God intends for people to live. You may not believe that my God is real or that there is a God, but I still try to live that way as much as I can.

Please do not go around treating every christian you every meet like the one that mistreated you one day years back that started a vendetta against them. Some christians do go around with a title and little substance to back it up. I am sorry you have been affected by that group. It severly hurts that the message in the Bible is warped by these people who seemed to have made you not like people who live under the banner of "Christian". I am really sorry for there actions.

I was always thought that acting christ like was to convey a love for people that was not skin deep. It is so hard to do this, especially against your enemies. I struggle with this very much and just pray that God will be with me and purify me.

It is hard to understand when a christian is against Gay marriage. I am against gay marriage, not because I think they should not get benefits from this country, but because I think it is a sinful act, not created by God, that goes against biology and all standard thought. I think a sinner should be able to live a sinner if they want, because God gives us free will and choice. But I cannot actively support the gay movement as I disagree with it. So I vote against them, not because of any personal hate, but because I think it is wrong.

Many people have many different sexual attractions. They are attracted to objects, animals, children, multiple parters, and who knows what else. Marriage was setup for a relationship between a man and a woman to come together and spend the rest of their lives together in a relationship that was built on promises. It also follows biology that they can have children by sexual intercorse or by sperm/egg implantation using their own sperm and egg.

I am by no means saying gay marriage is anything like animal sex or sex with children, etc. It is not as damaging or illegal since the other party is a grown up who made the choice to participate. But I am saying none of these purely sexually sinful relationships should be rewarded with a marriage. Gay marriage is a means to no end. There will be no family, there will be no genes passed, etc. You might as well get married to a rubber doll that you like to spend time with and enriches your life because it has the same effect.

If someone wants to be gay, please go ahead and be gay, I will not try to stop you at all. I do not hate you at al

Re:Christianity

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

sorry about the vitriol in my comment. you are dead on that there are a lot of good Christian people out there who don't go around moralising and pointing fingers, and I don't mean to go around saying this is not the case. But in my opinion, you can either believe the bible or not believe it, and there is not much gray area in "if a man lies with a man he should be put to death".

but on the topic of gay marriage -- I don't see why a gay couple should have to suffer tax penalities from the government. Imagine if a wife in a "normal" marriage had to pay a massive tax when her husband passes on. a gay couple would have to set up some kind of tax shelter umbrella corporation to own their assets to prevent massive taxation, not to mention they would have to draw up a legal will to direct their possessions to their partner, otherwise the state would simply be looking for next of kin, etc.

Kerry's is stock image

[bobalu]

I dunno about GWB's, but the guy who sued over the Kerry photos is a photographer who sells that image via a stock image house. Y'know, makes a living on his photography. I'm sure the Vets Against Kerry group has enough money to buy the images because they're very well funded by some of GWB's old Texas buddies.

So it's not that copyright was used to stop a political message, it's that they violated his rights - the images ARE available legally.

It's possible his contract with the stock photo house actually requires him to defend their use.

Congress and the National Debt

[iceperson]

I guess they get a free pass. Maybe you should pull out a history book. You'll see that in the 50's the last time before 94 that the Repubs had control of both houses there was no national debt. Fast forward 40 years later after the Dems controlled Congress for four decades and what was the debt? It wasn't until the Repubs took back over in 94 that we saw a surplus.
Here's a little government lesson free of charge.
According to the Constitution, all Federal appropriations must be authorized by Congress. This is a source of great power for Congress known as the "power of the purse".

Oh come on

[nwbvt]

Is this really that different from Twisted Sister not allowing the Braves to use "I Wanna Rock" to introduce John Rocker? Or what if Pink Floyd wanted to stop a neo-Nazi group from using "Run Like Hell" at one of their rallies? Do you believe that artists should be forced to allow the uncontrolled use of their hard work in contexts they disapprove of?

Re:Why is parent modded as troll?

[jhagler]

Why is it a troll? I didn't mod the comment, but I probably would have, and here's why.

Blogs have come into their own as a news source and this has caused major problems. Where is the accountability? There are very, very few blogs that have even a shred of journalistic integrity. Hell, not many major outlets do nowadays either, but that's another rant. So you come in here saying that Republicans, ostensibly with the blessings of "the party" are going on blogs and posting propaganda. Do you have any proof? I'll say that again nice and clearly.

Do you have any proof?

If you can point me to a blog, list the entry that you claim is made by a Republican as propaganda, and indicate some way to prove that it is what you say it is, I would believe you. But since you just came in here spouting off about how this is happening and everyone who knows anything knows it's happening, don't expect too many people to jump on your bandwagon without at least some evidence.

I am more than willing to be proven wrong, just give me evidence, not accusations.

Re:Why is parent modded as troll?

[iceperson]

Sure. Wasn't that you I heard callig Limbaugh telling him how you voted for Bush the first time but you're so upset because of XYZ you're going to vote for Kerry now? Fact is both parties do it. Listen to any conservative talk show for 15 minutes and you'll hear an obviously scripted call from a lib pretending to be an upset conservative. They're called "plants" and every organization has zealots that do this. You implied that it's only conservatives because you have an agenda. Maybe what you said is true, but it's a half truth and as my momma told me "half the truth still equals a whole lie." Just because you tell us your agenda doesn't make you in any way objective and unbiased.

Re:It's all Bush's fault

[Nafai7]

Fuck you and your liberal clap-trap.

That goes not just for you, but for all your moronic Rush-loving friends.

Some of us posess this thing called intelligence and are able to think for ourselves.

What we see the "conservatives" out there handing more and more power to the uber-rich while our poor children go uneducated and dying for lack of health care.

It's obviously not *all* Bush's fault. It's also the fault of a culture where greed is called "being smart" and stepping on your fellow man is considered the Right Thing To Do.

Rome is burning. You conservatives will have the most money, but it's just fuel for the fire that will help burn down the empire.

Re:Only in America

[ratamacue]

I can still fly a confederate flag and wear a white hood

But if you're a journalist you refuse to reveal the sources of your report, you go to jail. And if you're suspected (not found guilty) of aiding terrorist groups, you are detained without due process.

Turns out that your're not quite as "free" as you think.

LOL

[SPYvSPY]

If a lot of people voted for a third party candidate, you can be sure the Democrats and Republicans would assimilate that third party's platform in the next election, and we would return to the same two parties in short order.

Of course, that's not to say that there isn't real value in influencing the two parties' platforms.

"Instant runoff" is a specific voting method

[ianscot]

As in no more electoral college?

You appear not to be familiar with the term "instant runoff." Our Green Party candidate for Secretary of State last time advocated it, so I've read up a little.

What it is is a ranked pairs system that has voters rank candidates from their favorite to their least-favorite. Here's an explanation in some detail of how that works, complete with responses to the usual objections.

I fail to see how that voting method necessarily scuttles geographic representation or the electoral college, the practical and mathematical arguments for which I've looked at a little too. (People often make the argument that their individual votes are worthless except in dead heat elections, but actually the college makes the opposite true.) There's no reason "instant run-off" voting is incompatible with the electoral college at all -- voters in a given state could still see all their electoral votes go to one candidate or another after the runoff votes were tallied.

Re:"Instant runoff" is a specific voting method

[rjstanford]

You appear not to be familiar with the term "instant runoff." Our Green Party candidate for Secretary of State last time advocated it, so I've read up a little.

I think that there's a better idea myself. How about this - everybody votes once. Once someone is elimanated from consideration, they can grant their votes to another, presumably stronger candidate. After all, if you vote for someone in a represtntative democracy, aren't you saying that you trust them to make serious decisions for you? This choice could even be stated before the election to help sway voters (although it wouldn't have to be).

Here's another possibility: everybody gets one vote. You can use it for or against a candidate. Therefore, the "Anybody but Bush" folk can just vote "Bush -1". That way, you'd encourage people to be just a little less inflammatory. Also, someone could win with 5% of the vote if the other candidates were hated enough to go negative. Weird, but worth thinking about IMO.

democracy and beliefs

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

If no one is out there supporting the gay movement in your county, city, state, and governement elections, then I guess the majority has voted against your beliefs. Just keep voting for change, that is whay this country is about. We may disagree at the polls, but there should never be personal hate...

missed this one the first time around. given this level of democratic control which you appear to espouse, people who don't fall into the category of "white male landowning prodestants" would likely not even have the right to vote. a bit of a stretch, but it is certainly in living memory that minority groups have been denied even basic voting rights, simply because of this foolish notion of "living in a democracy -- majority rules". This is not the case, this is a constitutional republic.

Don't throw that stone

[ianscot]

You live in a glass house, AC.

You don't even know what instant run-off voting is, but you're responding to this post. How's that for "pseudo-intellectual"? It's pretty easy to look something like that up, you know.

Physician, heal thyself.

Re:That's why majority should rule

[ArcherB]

I do not support bombing an apartment building to get at one guy. However, at least there was a legitimage target. If Sharon were in a pizza parlor full of kids, I could almost see the justification for bombing it. But there was nothing but kids in there. There was no legitimate target, only terror.

In the same sense, I really can't call bombing the Pentagon a terrorist act. The Pentagon is a legitimate military target. I can call flying a plane full of civilians into the Pentagon a terrorist act, however. Bombing an military base is war. Bombing a pizza parolor is terrorism. Israel goes after military targets. They don't kill just to kill.

"When Arabs love their children more than they hate Jews, there will be peace."

In an attempt to be more on topic:
I feel that free speech can be limited if it is full of propoganda and lies. Bush is Hitler, and Clinton murders his opponents are good examples of speech that should have a leash on it.

Wha ?!?

[LordPixie]

The problem is that there WERE no good candidates in the primary. They ALL sucked!

Come again ?!? General Clark in the latest Democratic primary didn't suck. Senator McCain in the 2000 Republican primary was far from sucking.

Of course, the shitty way that primaries are run means it doesn't matter a whole lot.


--LordPixie

Re:Wha ?!?

[Cro Magnon]

"General Clark in the latest Democratic primary didn't suck"

Actually, he did! :-P

"Senator McCain in the 2000 Republican primary was far from sucking."

True, but I was thinking about 2004.

Re:Only in America

[DavidTC]

The KKK didn't exist until after the Civil War. (In fact, almost immediately after.)

However, the KKK is not the best example of anything, considering the current KKK is, really, the third organization going by that name, or at least the third version of the same organization.

But, yes, the KKK's 'issues' are not 140 years old.

Re:It's all Bush's fault

[syrinx]

That goes not just for you, but for all your moronic Rush-loving friends.

What's wrong with Rush? Alex Lifeson is a hell of a guitar player, and you can't beat Neal Peart! Besides, I thought the stereotype was that the smart nerds liked Rush.

Re:That's why majority should rule

[ArcherB]

If you finished reading my post, you would see that a run off election would be an excellent solution to the circular logic.

Again, for those with short memories:
No one will vote for a third party candidate because of the Perot/Nader effect. If two liberal/conservative candidates are running and take 30% of the vote each, the other side will win with 40%, even though more were against him/her than were for him/her. With a run off election, people are free to vote for whoever they want during the "first" without falling into the problem of "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush".

A rant about the "war record"

[Sloppy]

If I was john kerry I too would keep comparing my record during the war to GW too.

And if I was an American (oh wait, I am!) I would be saying, "WTF?! Why are people talking about the 1970s? Tell me why you (pointing at Kerry) voted for the Patriot Act and you (pointing at Bush) signed it."

Both you guys have been in power for a while, now. So tell me:

• What have you done to end the drug war and decriminalize anything else where there aren't unconsenting "victims"? What have you done to protect (and maybe even increase) personal liberty?
• What have you done to deregulate and increase the freedom in the market for healthcare, so that it won't be so fucking expensive, so that the lefties won't keep trying to get tax money to pay for it?
• What have you done to eliminate deficit spending by government?
• What have you done to eliminate taxes and subsidies, so that people aren't being forced to pay for things that they don't want?
• What have you done to repeal DMCA and any other laws that prohibit the creation of harmless tools?

And people are talking about what they did 30 years ago. Let me ask you something, John Q Public: Are you the same person you were, 30 years ago? Is any question about something that happened in the 1970s, even slightly relevant about who you are and how you act and what policies you would adopt?

Vietnam?!? Holy fuck, people, wake up. The only "war record" that matters, is what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, and what's going to happen in the future.

Re:It's all Bush's fault

[Creepy Crawler]

---Fuck you and your liberal clap-trap.

Is that supposed to impress us?

---That goes not just for you, but for all your moronic Rush-loving friends.

Ok, you know me, and now Im a "strong Rush Supporter"... Amazing what few words can show.

---Some of us posess this thing called intelligence and are able to think for ourselves.

Ivory towers of academia come to mind.

---What we see the "conservatives" out there handing more and more power to the uber-rich while our poor children go uneducated and dying for lack of health care.

Who pays the most taxes? Eh? Oh, the Rich. Who doesnt pay taxes?? Ahh, that group called the "poor". Kinda hard to repeal taxes on the poor.

---It's obviously not *all* Bush's fault. It's also the fault of a culture where greed is called "being smart" and stepping on your fellow man is considered the Right Thing To Do.

I dont know where you've been living at all this time, but all of humanity is like that. Thats why Communism will fail. Who is John Galt, and what about that gulch?

---Rome is burning. You conservatives will have the most money, but it's just fuel for the fire that will help burn down the empire.

This is just too rich ;-P Lemee see who we're talking about. Lets use 2 ultra-Liberals. john FORBES kerry and theresa HEINZ

Nahh, those are poor families who are for the working man. HAH HAH HAH

If you want a decent president (regardless of political beleif) go find a farmer. Those people know how to work by the sweat of their brow and make things work. And every farmer I know HAS had it rough, some many times.

Speaking of Scientologists and Copyright....

[wayward]

The news story linked to a thread about Scientologists using copyrights to silence critics. Ironically enough, the Cult Awareness Network used to be a vocal critic of Scientology. However, between 1991 and 1996, people connected with Scientology filed 50 lawsuits against the organization. Most were dismissed, but the organization was still bankrupted. Scientology ended up taking over the Cult Awareness Network.

http://www.rickross.com/groups/newcan.html

Compulsory voting for Bob & Alice.

[TapeCutter]

In Australia voting is compulsory for both the state and national senate & house elections. We consistently get something like 90%+ turnout. Alice & Bob can't afford the fine so they vote. What I can't understand is how we end up with a 2 party system that basically mirrors the farnarckled Rep/Dem thing you have going on over there. The ABC ( think Aussie BBC ) has recently introduced a policy?. The world seems to be rapidly sliping into the three police states of Winstons time and we have no one to blame except ourselves.

Fair enough

[YrWrstNtmr]

I was mistaken as to what 'instant runoff' actually is. Would take some more study before i might embrace it.

That still doesn't invalidate my comments as to a straight popularity vote, though.
But they are two completely different concepts.

One word?

[Merk]

Which one, FAIR or USE?

Post should have been rewritten

[nanojath]

While it sported an interesting enough initial premise, this post was prederrailled by the off-topic (and innaccurate and misleading) "clever" postscript. Bush and Kerry do not in fact "agree" on gay marriage, which is exactly what the cited link states - the story in question supports the poster's assertion only from the most semantic and specious viewpoint. Bush and Kerry do not in fact "agree" on outsourcing, the cited link in fact notes the story of a supporter of outsourcing supporting Kerry on the basis of other issues. This isn't even close to a justification for the poster's assertion so at this point I have to assume they are just willfully stirring the swill for no decent reason. The second half of this posting is in fact a troll.

And yeah, I have an opinion, a strong opinion, on why it does in fact make a difference who you vote for and whether it makes more sense to vote for a third-party candidate or not. But I won't share it here because it isn't relevant to the actual topic. Jeez, if I want to have a pointless, terminally threadjacked smack-down conversation about the presidential race I'll go hang out on Fark.

You can still find it on the web.

[LordPixie]

Namely, here. The website has survived three rulings that supported its legality....in Holland ? Denmark ? (Wherever Dutch people are from.)

I don't know what the legal ramifications are for posting a link to something legal elsewhere...but screw it. You're also free to just search for "Fishman Documents".


--LordPixie

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[localman]

Are you claiming there is more diversity in rural areas than urban areas? I'm saying that every single person should have an equally powerful vote. If you say otherwise, let me know how you determine who gets the more powerful votes and why.

Also, instant runoff is _all_about_ diversity of candidates. Do you think that two candidates who are nearly identical on all the issues is somehow diverse?

Oh, wait. You're just a troll.

Cheers.

Gaming the System

[RogerRamjet98]

I don't think they wired article's point is that the candidates are at fault. The candidates are simply gaming the system.

Media companies have shifted towards news-entertainment and in doing so have moved away from Journalistic integrity and their very important role (or duty) in an open society.

This shift, combined with media consolidation, affects what we see, and thus what (and how) we think.

Media companies know that if they play ball, they get interviews, if they get interviews then they get ratings and make money. In the case of a neutral media company, the result is bland coverage with zero scrutiny. In the case of a biased media company, the result is just that: bias. An informercial rather than real news and real critique.

The game is broken.

Politcal parties and media companies are self-interest groups. They lobby the public for votes and money. The problem is the people. If people refused to watch news-entertainment, then media companies would be forced to produce real news. If real news existed, and the public paid attention to it, then real issues would be debated -- not fluff.

The problem is, you need to build a better voter. You do that through the education system and it takes a generation.

My grade 7 teacher told me that it is critical for a person to learn to be a "careful consumer of information"

It took a long time, but I now see how right he was.

FYI, the grandparent was an AC.

[LordPixie]

The Hermann Goering post was the great-grandparent post. Your threshold is too low, and the AC was invisible. It confused me too. =)


--LordPixie

Just say "dough"

[Doc Ruby]

Ha, ha - Reagan believed that if he read the script, people would love him, as long as he didn't ask questions. When his SoCal PR handlers changed the script after he was elected, he probably didn't even notice. So instead of "shrinking the government", he multiplied it by at least fourfold. The list of similar bait & switch under Reagan/Bush goes on forever - they had 8-12 years of unrestrained conjob to run.

Wants vs. needs

[wikdwarlock]

Because the question isn't who best represents my views, the question is who would be the best for the majority of the people.

This is a great point, but it's a dangerous one too. The problem is in special interests and fracturing the country.

Let's say 51% of the country wants a Shiny New Car (TM) from their presidential candidate. The danger comes in if you mistake giving people what they want for giving them what they need. If you make the mistake and give them what they want, you'll vote for the candidate who promises new cars. Four years rolls around, and now 13% want Red Cars, 13% want Blue Cars, 13% want Green Cars, and 12% want Yellow Cars. These are special interests. They all still want cars, just different types. Maybe red paint lasts better in the Texas summer heat, but then Texans who wanted blue cars will complain about their Shiny New Cars fading because of government bias to the red paint folks. Maybe policemen pull over red painted cars more frequently than other colors for traffic violations and the red paint people want to enact new laws to ensure equal tickets for all paint colors.

The problems mount quickly when we confuse wants and needs. Vote for what your country needs and things will be fine because the majority opinion on needs can theoretically make the majority happy on most things. Just don't think that what the public wants is what it needs.

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[gfxguy]

I've never really heard anyone complaining about Bush mixing politics and religion... Sure, he mentions God in his speeches sometimes, but many politicians do that. Just because he's religious doesn't make him bad.

On the other hand, you might be referring to the "faith based initiatives", and frankly, I don't see why people have a problem with that.... government funds help all sorts of organizations that help people... as long as the religious organizations don't discriminate against those they help, what's the problem?

I'm not saying you, PainKillR-CE, are this way, but why are so many people scared of religion. I'm not particularly religious - certainly less so than John Kerry, and I'm a firm supporter of separation of church and state ("under God" doesn't belong in the pledge, although I think it's just a waste of time and resources trying to get rid of it), but I don't see how these iniatives are a negative.

Re:GOP donor helps finance anti-Kerry veterans gro

[ArcherB]

So what? I could just as easily say that a wealthy foreigner is supporting Democrat groups with sole purpose of defeating Bush.
From http://www.americandaily.com/article/165
Billiona ire George Soros, who was indicted for fraudulent transactions, is a Democrat. Soros has stated that he will spend whatever it takes to get rid of George Bush. Soros is funding groups like MoveOn.org.

So why is it suddenly wrong for an American to support Veteran's supporting Republicans and it's OK for a foreigner to support Democratic ones?

Oh ho ! You think *THAT'S* bad ?!?

[LordPixie]

You just wait. We can do so much worse than that. The more we solidify this two party system, the more polarized we're going to get. You think Bush was bad, just wait 'till 2008. Both parties will up the ante to keep the votes in their court. And four years after that, the same. Best case scenerio would soon be the complete self-destruction of our country. Worst case means taking some of you with us.

We need to put an end to this bullshit now and be forever thankful that this is all the damage that was done. Invading a country the size of Texas and killing several thousand innocent civilians is insignificant in the grand scheme of possible human atrocities. If you think that too much is at stake in this election, wait until the next one. What makes you think that either party is going to back down ? It's not in their best interests to do so.


--LordPixie

The Kerry photos

[wytcld]

If you read the complaint by the lawyer for the photographer against the wingnut site's use of photos of Kerry, you'll see a perfectly valid copyright complaint that shows no sign of being directed from the Kerry campaign.

Let's see, you are a commercial photographer. You own a stock of images - your art. Someone wants to use some of them without permission, for the purpose of mounting a smear against someone you respect, to support a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. You wouldn't call out a lawyer to issue them a cease-and-desist?

Where is the difference in using the GPL to protect good code from bad appropriation? Copyright law isn't evil, as long as it isn't perpetual. Patent law isn't evil, as long as it doesn't allow patents on obvious things or stuff - like software - that can be protected by mere copyright. Insisting that anything anyone owns can be ripped off by those with more power - or those sucking up to them - that's evil. And that's what these rabid anti-Kerry dogs are up to. It's not exactly Robin Hood.

Re:Liberal BULLSHIT for Mod Points.

[Doc Ruby]

The economy was in bad shape, after Nixon (Reagan's predecessor California Republican) screwed both the economy and the American spirit (at home and abroad) with Vietnam ($billions for what?), Watergate, Pentagon Papers, Agnew (embezzler), assassinations of RFK, MLK, anyone else. When Carter took over, the SEC was run by William Casey, next to head Reagan/Bush's campaign against him, and the CIA was run by Bush. The biggest obstacle to Carter's presidency was Iran, created by the CIA. As an example of Carter's opposition, their recue attempt that was mysteriously scuttled in the desert by exploding helicopters just before the election, was staffed by none other than Oliver North. He was promoted to Reagan's National Security Council under CIA director William Casey (familiar name...) to run the illegal Iran Contra operation, funded under cover of Bush's S&L heist (like the $40M from Indian Springs S&L for Iranian TOW missiles).

Carter didn't have a chance. Yet despite the "malaise" engineered for his interim presidency, the economy didn't actually have a recession until 1982, when Reagan's budgets screwed us even more. Sure, Reagan's giving away money created by colossal debt made the "recession" go away - including stunts like stealing a whole month from 1988's "income year" to balance 1987's "expense year" to balance the Federal books closer to legal requirements set by the Democratic congress. Reagan did in fact commit crimes, like fraud, while VP Bush invented whole new laws to cover his own.

I suggest you read some history, instead of skimming the NY Post's "Emperor Reagan's Funeral" retrospective. And that you engage your brain first, before putting your mouth in gear. The only ones saving the economy are the American entrepreneurs and other workers. Criminally bad managers like Reagan (and his puppeteers) get no credit, except at the bank.

Managing the Economy

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, but that power of the purse is oversight. The President creates and proposes the budget, which Congress can take or leave. That's how they negotiate. You'll recall that the 1950s-1990s we fought the Cold War, primarily an economic war between two largely different types of economies: command/centralized and voluntary/decentralized. That cost a lot of money, which required spending a lot more money to keep the population happy. Not to mention the vast waste and pork spent under the cover of the newly gigantic budgets.

A reminder of recent history, which we all participated in: Under Clinton's management, the American economy created more wealth than ever seen before. When the Republicans got control of Congress and the White House under Bush, the total lack of economic management allowed the economic collapse still festering today.

Re:Managing the Economy

[iceperson]

First you bring up "Reagans Debt" but after I point out that the Democratic Congress was just as responsible (if not more so) you come back with "that was because of the "Cold War." Why do libs always change the arguement in the middle of a discussion? Many economists will argue that the "wealth" created during Clinton's term was an illusion that was shown for exactly that when the bubble burst at the end of Clinton's term. Bush took office at the beginning of an economic downturn and not to take that and the fact that we were attacked on 9/11 in addition to being currently at war into consideration when looking at the deficit is just misleading.

Re:Managing the Economy

[Doc Ruby]

No, I responded to another post that brought up Reagan's debt, saying both Reagan and Bush's debts were bad. Then you swerved the discussion away from Reagan and Bush, trying to blame Democratic Congress for the debts, so I pointed out the Cold War was the overriding difference ($4-10T over 40 years) between the two sets of congressional sessions. Some of the wealth created on paper under Clinton disappeared when speculation ended, but most of the wealth did not, leaving even a revised wealth creation unseen in history. To the point, the Federal surplus and American wages, in real, tangible dollars, were better than ever. And the Federal economists reported just last month that the Bush recession started well after Clinton was out: in Summer 2001. And that Bush's only "constructive" response, supply side tax cuts for the rich, have done practically nothing to increase jobs, just as economists predicted.

Now you accuse *me* of changing the argument? Why do Bush apologists turn sense upside down, charging their targets with their own malfeasance? Why do Bush apologists decide their targets are "liberals", if that's what you mean by "libs"? My politics are a lot more complex than liberal/conservative, and yours are a lot more simple. You are a Bush apologist. Nothing Bush does can be wrong, so you look at any history, any facts, and select the views that serve your conclusion, no matter how inconsistent. The strain on rationality that produces squeals with nebulous namecalling. Who are you trying to kid?

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[gfxguy]

I agree with your very insightful post. In fact, when I wasn't happy with either party, I've often voted for a third party ("threw away my vote") even when I didn't like that third party in an effort to help create a recognized national third party.

I am not in the same situation as you, this year, I happen to agree with most of my candidates positions, but I wanted to give you props for a great post.

Third Party Solution?

[mwclt]

If we want to address issues (copyright law or whatever) that the two major parties agree on and don't want to talk about, third party candidates are a great solution. Third party candidates often complain (correctly) that they are locked out of the process because of corporate cash, the two entrenched parties, etc. While these barriers certainly do exist, the third parties themselves don't seem to be able or willing to do what they CAN do to change the process.

If you can elect a popular and successful lower-tier politician from a third party [see:California, Oregon, etc. for a few recent examples], voters in that area would be more likely to consider that candidate, or another from the same party, for a higher office (i.e. mayor becomes congressman becomes governor/senator). With a charismatic, successful candidate, this would not require a tremendous amount of time - press buzz can create momentum quickly. If this process can be duplicated in several (preferably diverse) areas, a national movement is created. Once the public sees even one or two NATIONAL level (governor, senator, Important Congressman) politicians from a third party, then you will start to see the migration of voters from other areas and will have a party that represents something meaningful.

If the two major parties' control begins to slip, THEN you MIGHT see a start towards runoff voting or other similar measures. The resulting political diversity would make politicians less accountable to direct corporate interests and more worried about things like public opinion, coalition building, etc.

So, yes we know, third parties are disadvantaged, the system is corrupt, blah blah blah...but if you want third party votes to be something more than an academic exercise in protest, third parties must: 1) Find charismatic candidates that make a good impression on voters (most people are not going to read your platform, but they will hear your soundbites) 2) Build credibility by advancing through the political system incrementally.

Unfortunately, recent third party election strategies have followed the sorry model of many of their platforms: 1) Start with a reasonable, popular premise. (ie, We should eliminate barriers to minority entrepreneurship...(Libertarian) 2)Quickly alienate the public by taking said premise to ridiculous conclusion (ie,...by eliminating government regulation of business altogether - no license required for taxicab drivers!) resulting in dumbfounded look on face of average voter

So in the meantime, I will not be participating with the 3-5% protest vote every four years. We may currently be choosing between two evils, but they are very different evils. In elections where they are remarkably similar and I really don't have a preference, I will vote third party. This time, I will choose the lesser evil...at least he can read ;> (couldn't resist)

Can't tell the difference?

[wytcld]

Why is it that people who can see clear differences between Windows and KDE and Gnome and ... are comfortable with the conceit that they can see no difference between Democrats and Republicans? Having it all look the same in the first case is evidence of ignorance of the field, of being an outsider with no real familiarity or experience. In regards to differences in technologies, it's what to expect of a Luddite. Do we have a large number of the political equivalent of Luddites among the tech cognoscenti?

vote libertarian

[steak]

http://lp.org/

John Kerry's war records ALREADY ONLINE

[frankie]

demand that Kerry open up his records

You're several months slow, Mr Blue.

Absolutely -- popular vote isn't perfect

[ianscot]

The big advantage of instant runoff would be that it'd get at what Nader (and Perot) voters say about third party candidates facing the "wasted vote" stigma.

If I'm a Nader voter (and I'm not, I prefer voting for someone who could legitimately be President rather than protesting the whole scene), I'd have voted Nader-then-Gore-then-Bush in 2000. My Nader vote wouldn't have split the vote -- and Bush in all likelihood wouldn't be in office. You can vote your conscience.

There's no inconsistency between instant runoff and the electoral college. In that way it'd be a less radical change than what Colorado is proposing right now (and one other state already does) -- splitting the electoral vote by percentage of the popular vote. That change seems simpler, but it does away with the sort of geographic weighting you're talking about, and does nothing to address the "wasted" votes.

Re:Well, no. The legislature changed the law.

[killjoe]

"It is their job to rule on the law as it is."

Which is exactly what they are doing. IF the courts decide that homosexuals are actual human beings with the same rights as heterosexuals then the states have to afford them those rights.

" In America's legal tradition, the very definition of marriage has always been exclusively between those of opposite sex."

throughout history of the world the norm has been poligamy. Only recently did monogomy come to fashion. In recent american history it was also illegal for interracial couples to marry. CLearly the definition of marriage changes with time.

Re:Again, another article with disinformation

[bobalu]

No, John Kerry is not suing. The photographer who own the copyright and makes his living selling his pics through a stock agency is suing. Same thing as NBC.

"Moreover, the statement that "lawyers representing John Kerry's interest threatened our Internet server with legal action unless the picture was removed" is a false statement of fact. As stated above, this firm represents George Butler. John Kerry is not, and has never been, a client of this firm. In addition, we did not threaten your Internet server, EastLink, with legal action. "

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[PainKilleR-CE]

I've never really heard anyone complaining about Bush mixing politics and religion... Sure, he mentions God in his speeches sometimes, but many politicians do that. Just because he's religious doesn't make him bad.

His desire for an amendment to ban gay marriages is one example of mixing politics and religion. Another, which isn't really as important politically, but is from the viewpoint of the outside world, is his portrayal of himself as a crusader in the war on terror. The Crusades would be considered by many as one of the worst things done in the name of the Christian God, and bringing that image to mind when pursuing a war is not a good thing. Beyond those two points he's been fairly successful at downplaying the religious points behind many of his policies. The call for a ban on gay marriage, though, is only winning votes from the religious right and hate-mongers (not necessarily the same people), and the idea of putting such a thing into an amendment to the constitution goes against not only the very purpose of many past constitutional amendments (women's rights and civil rights, for instance), but against the "small government" ideal that the Republican party sometimes claims to stand for (in other words, banning gay marriage extends the federal government into the lives of individual citizens even further).

On the other hand, you might be referring to the "faith based initiatives", and frankly, I don't see why people have a problem with that.... government funds help all sorts of organizations that help people... as long as the religious organizations don't discriminate against those they help, what's the problem?

Personally, I don't see a problem with that as long as the government gives no favortism to those organizations over any other. On the other hand, many of the organizations receiving those particular funds do specifically discriminate against those that refuse to at least pay lip service to the organization's faith. Even the Salvation Army recently had problems with its policies in this area.

I'm not saying you, PainKillR-CE, are this way, but why are so many people scared of religion. I'm not particularly religious - certainly less so than John Kerry, and I'm a firm supporter of separation of church and state ("under God" doesn't belong in the pledge, although I think it's just a waste of time and resources trying to get rid of it), but I don't see how these iniatives are a negative.

If you look back on history, you'll see that as more of the founding fathers became distant memories (despite the fact that we instruct our children on the historical idea of these people), the government has become far more lax regarding the religious clause of the Constitution, even as the populace itself has become less religious. Yes, I believe that trying to tear down religious monuments and take out "under God" (which was placed into the pledge not too long ago) is a waste of time and resources. Unfortunately, I believe that only because it's distracting from the real issues in this specific area and allowing opponents more freedom to degrade the freedom from religious oppression by citing these examples of frivelous lawsuits.

Many people came to this country for freedom from religious oppression and persecution, only to find that today that only matters if your religion doesn't allow for gay marriage, and only preaches about the God of the Old and New Testaments.

There was a time (not so long ago) when I felt comfortable voting Republican because I believed that the religious right was generally held in check within Congress (preventing even an over-zealously religious President from going too far). However, the last 4 years have shown that the only thing I agree with this President on are the war(s) and tax cuts, and that Congress won't hold him in check on anything (short of an amendment, which is always hard to pass). If I could find someone that I felt really was in line with my own beliefs in terms of what our government should

It's called Divided Government

[frankie]

Given that no Libertarian will attain federal office in this decade, Divided Government is the only way to prevent the growth of new bureaucracies (typically social welfare on the Dem side or corporate welfare on the Rep side). Neither side is able to screw us over as much if they need agreement from the other side to do it.

Get it right Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are so many Slashdot home page posting wrong?

"Timothy" claimed that: "Both George and John are using copyright law to 'vaporize' information embarassing or harmful to their campaigns." But follow the links, and you'll discover that neither leads to a story about what either candidate is doing.

The Wired story is about NBC refusing to give a movie maker permission to include a clip from a Bush interview on "Meet the Press." Whatever NBC's rationale is, they're not Bush, and from research on the media elite, we can assume that roughly 90+% of the network's decision makers will be voting for Kerry.

The same is true of the Kerry link to a Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry website. It tells of a New England filmmaker who's treatening to sue the group over their use of two photos that are very unflattering to Kerry. He is a friend of Kerry, but the action is still his own and not that of the Kerry campaign.

Slashdot should learn from the traditional news media, where fact checkers are often used to confirm stories. Before it posts a story, it should at least take a few seconds to see if the links say what the home-page poster claims. All too often they don't.

Until that happens, I'll continue to tell friends that Slashdot interesting for the reader comments, but that the site itself is run like a junior high newspaper--sloppy, irresponsible and childishly rebellious.

--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

Re:Where was the outcry?

[frankie]

• a partial list of torture-related program activities
• Alberto Gonzales telling Bush what he can get away with
• John Ashcroft telling Bush what he can get away with

When the President is basing his decisions on "how do I avoid criminal prosecution for this?" then I think there's a problem.

Does it really matter...

[dodongo]

what the President thinks about gay marriage or Hollywood?

Yes, to an extent. The President can push leadership (assuming the majority parties in Congress are the same as the President) to bring issues to the front of the line and deal with them as he, as the highest-ranking member of the party, sees fit.

The parties, however, don't always follow suit. Bush has had this problem, even in spite of majorities in the House and the Senate.

THIS is why it's important to educate yourself on the people in your district running for US Congress and the people in your state running for Senate. Those people are the ones who end up setting legislative priorities.

Candidates have websites. Mine (incumbent, challenger) do, and it's not hard to guess who I'm voting for.

Furthermore, members of Congress only represent about 450,000 people in my state (Indiana, nine districts), and as such, the candidates are generally quite open and available, either via phone, email, or in person, if you're willing to go to a press conference or meeting.

You can actually take the time to get to know these people personally, so they recognize you, and it's really not hard to do. Affect policy from the inside, you know?

The true story of Michael Moore.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

A local nutjob, voted the most likely to smell in his highschool graduating class, went from worthless ugly man to tool of the powers that be. The story begins with Moore harassing a single business entity that while amoral, is no different than any of the 50,000 others in this country... with one striking difference. This company hurt *him*. Now, being a little selfish when you're being hurt by someone else isn't the worst thing in the world. And maybe it was the juvenile sarcasm, or the inane but benign "style" of his documentary (if one can call it style) that caught the attention of nameless, faceless people who really run the world. They saw it, and decided to buy it "This young prole here has something that could be useful to us in our puppet show for tha masses, the one that makes them believe there are actually 2 political parties."

You too, could become a tool of the Republocratic agenda! Just be a local nutjob *against* one side or the other... remember folks, being a nutjob for a third party candidate isn't useful to them, they won't elevate you to the status of wealthy fool. Instead, just vote for the 3rd party candidate... I don't even care which! Write one in for god's sake. Sure, even if everyone voted for Nader, he doesn't have a chance of being inaugurated (can you say ballot irregularities?). We can at least make them sweat it though.

I've seen this in small numbers

[asoap]

I've seen this kind of thing first hand. Well, everyone has, but I saw it in the numbers of a 1 - 2 thousand people.

There were two people fighting for a certain position of a political party. The first person had small numbers, but those small number of people were rather loyal to this person. The second person had a lot of people, and also was very influential and had a lot of money. He had about twice as many supporters as his advirsary. The infulential person got his supporters by doing his "thing" at his local church, and then asking the people at his church to sign up to vote for him. He would then PAY for every single person's party registration fee. Remember this is for a candidate for a party, you can only vote if your a member of the party, this is not any normal election.

So when I arrived at the place to vote, the guy with all the money had even bussed in supporters. He had banners, he had t-shirts, he had people that couldn't vote running around chanting his name. The person with the small number of supporters only had some photocopied yellow sheets with his name on it that he got from kinkos for $20 bucks.

The problem with the election was that there was WAY to many people inside this building. It was about a 2-3 hour wait to vote. So people that were paid to be there, and that really didn't care that much saw that they had WAY more people voting, and also saw the line up. They figured that they had it in the bag, so instead of waiting 2 hours to vote, they went home. The people that were supporting the not so rich guy ended up staying to make there vote count.

In the end the not so rich guy won by a few hundred votes.

Bloody hilarious.

-asoap

Actually...

[rsilvergun]

the problem with things being finite is there isn't enough metal to go around for China and India to industrialized like the US/Europe have. There's a really nasty war brewing over that. Remember, wars aren't fought over ideology, they're resource grabs.

As for South Carolina, wait till Bush/Kerry (doesn't matter which one) signs law letting 20 million desparate Mexicans have work visas. Sure, they'll take jobs mostly out west. But shit runs down hill.

And don't give me that crap about Americans not wanting those jobs. The work needs to be done. If there weren't people desparate for work, wages would go up until someone took the job. That's supply and demand. Funny how our rulers forget that little economic principle as it suits them.

Re:Well, no. The legislature changed the law.

[JeanPaulBob]

Which is exactly what they are doing. IF the courts decide that homosexuals are actual human beings with the same rights as heterosexuals then the states have to afford them those rights.

You either weren't listening, or wrote me off as an unthinking bigot whose statement don't deserve actual response. To quote myself: "Everyone in America has precisely the same marriage rights--not to marry anyone you want, but to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex. Yes, that right is constructed so that it doesn't do some people any good--but that doesn't give the courts license to redefine an institution." Also: "When it came time to extend voting rights to women, was it done through the courts? NO!! It was done through the legislative branch, because that is the only branch with the power to change the law as it is.

"In America's legal tradition, the very definition of marriage has always been exclusively between those of opposite sex."

throughout history of the world the norm has been poligamy. Only recently did monogomy come to fashion.

I didn't say anything about "one man, one woman." The persecution of Mormons for practicing polygamy was a travesty.

In recent american history it was also illegal for interracial couples to marry. CLearly the definition of marriage changes with time.

That had nothing to do with the definition of marriage; it was a matter people thinking such marriages were undesirable and immoral.

And yes, that's what people are saying about gay marriage. I'm not 100% decided, but I didn't support Bush's amendment. I just despise legislating from the judicial bench. Like women's voting rights, this is a real issue of fairness, but it should be decided in the legislature.

Republicans Pro-Hollywood???

[mrbrown1602]

I am truly confused by the end statement - since when are Republicans pro-hollywood? Most of the Hollywood elite HATE the Republican party with a passion...

balanced powers

[Doc Ruby]

Americans have traditionally shown political savvy, producing the "divided government" by "balancing the ticket" when we vote for one party for one house of government, and another party for another. That uses the balance of power, the checks and balances, in the structure, to good effect. Our long history of party manipulations, always at the expense of the people, should produce an institutional structure destroying the party advantage, rather than the current structures which perpetuate it. A good start would be federal racketeering charges against parties which back, and direct, politicians who commit crimes of fraud by breaking (verbal & written contract) campaign promises. That's a way to accumulate momentum while the parties themselves control the corrupted legislatures.

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[|/|/|||]

Yes, most politicians try to be seen as religious. I find it annoying, but nothing more than that until it creeps into their policies.

GWB mentions God a lot, but I think the reason people have consider him more of a zealot than others (Kerry, for example) is the fact that many of his policies seem to be based on religion rather than on a sound logical footing. You mentioned the "faith based initiatives," which I do have a problem with - not only because it allows government to sponsor religion, but because it allows the government to neglect our modern secular institutions.

Other places this crops up is through the legislation of morality - a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, for example. There's absolutely no basis for such an amendment other than religion.

The best evidence of the Bush/religion problem, though, is his lack of respect for science. Here we are in the 21st century, and the leader of our country isn't rational enough to base his policies on our most effective way of understanding the very universe in which we live? Insanity. The only thing more insane is that we don't call him on it.

Oh, and as far as being "scared" by religion - I'm certainly not personally scared by it, but I'm concerned about the future of humans if we can't get past such an irrational belief system. When you live in one world and pretend that you live in another, you're blind.

You're right

[rsilvergun]

we're not really capitalist. But the reason is Globalism breaks Capitalism. Adam Smith envisioned a world of small shop owners with a stake in seeing their comunities thrive because they where a part of those comunities. With Globalism and modern communications, we can live far away from the squaler and slums Capitalism creates and still manger those slums effectively. We know this is happening. America's high standard of living is on the backs of poor, miserable people in places like China and India. But we don't care, since it's far enough away to ignore and our media is careful to ignore it.

Comunity is how Capitalism deals with people's fundemental selfishness. But our rulers are part of the community any more, they're Global.

No.

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

The Hollywood elite is strongly Republican. Those who own the studios, that is. The actors' opinions are pretty much irrelevant.

Re:No.

[mrbrown1602]

But the actors and actresses are the ones that ignorant people pay attention to and they (the actors) are the ones that are able to easily get their opinions out. I don't see the guys behind the camera ever being covered on the news because they hate a candidate - something I can't say about the actors and actresses.

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[teromajusa]

Since you seem genuinely interested, here's an article that illustrates the kind of worries people have about Bush and his religion:
bush and the rapture

For my part, I think a guy who sees events in the middle east through a biblical filter is very likely to come to some bad conclusions.

And then there are scary things like this

I find the arguments laughable

[sheldon]

That someone would seriously claim that men serving in Vietnam or even Iraq are not putting themselves in harms way. That being wounded in a fire fight isn't a big deal because it wasn't a life crippling wound.

It's really just quite pathetic.

I can at least understand Kerry being opposed to the war having been there. What I cannot fathom is GW Bush claiming to support the war, and then doing everything in his power to avoid being there.

Excellent Post

[gfxguy]

I'll now be doing some looking for more of Mr. Tylers predictions... the progressions seems earily on target and shouldn't be ignored...

My fear is that we're closer to dependence...

Re:Excellent Post

[gfxguy]

Actually, now that I've done some research, I find this.

I certainly agree with it, though.

Some of the factual data about the election is wrong, even if the point is still made with the real data:

Bush: 30 states
Gore: 20 states

Murder rate by counties:
Gore: 6.5
Bush: 4.1

Too bad

[evil_morg]

Too bad we couldn't somehow suppress political speech before it happens.

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[gfxguy]

Thanks for the links... although I don't get the second one (it's not like it's a government sponsored website, or created by GW...).

The first one is much more informational.

The greeks invented Democracy

[Merk]

Back then, Democracy meant exactly what the parent poster said. In those times, the populations were small enough to get a true Democracy to actually work.

According to the CIA World Factbook the government of the United States is a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition".

The operative word there is " republic", "a country without a king or queen, usually governed by elected representatives of the people and a president". In the US, the head of the republic is chosen by indirect democratic means. That very delegation to have the country run by a president rather than by direct choice of the people is what makes the US a Republic rather than a direct Democracy.

Before you start mouthing off about people misusing terms, you really should look those terms up yourself.

Re:The greeks invented Democracy

[Minna Kirai]

Back then, Democracy meant exactly what the parent poster said.

No, it did not. He claimed "democracy" meant "a referena on everything", which has obviously never happened.

Note that the Athenian system didn't even meet our modern definition of democracy. It wasn't rule by the people, but rule by the "citizens", who were a tiny minority of the population*. Even they, however, delegated authority to selected "representative" individuals.

Furthermore, "democracy" isn't a Greek word. They had "dimokratia", which is the basis for English's democracy, but is not the same thing.

In those times, the populations were small enough to get a true Democracy to actually work

Capitalizing "Democracy" is incorrect. Interesting that you go to Wikipedia to support your position, which conflicts from the results in any dictionary. Hmm, an unmoderated internet encyclopedia where anyone can post... no chance of a partisan writing articles to boost his own worldview.

The operative word there is " republic", "a country without a king or queen, usually governed by elected representatives of the people and a president"

No, that's not the operative word. Consider Iraq. Two years ago, it was a republic. Today, it is a new democracy (or so George W Bush hopes). Many countries have no King or Queen, but still have despotic tyrants.

Note that when "republic" was written into the US Constitution, the lack of royalty was precisely the meaning it conveyed to the authors, who were reacting against King George.

you really should look those terms up yourself.

I know exactly what they mean. Maybe you're confused and think it's impossible to be a republic and democracy at the same time. It isn't.

USA: republic and democracy
Japan: democracy, not republic
China: republic, not democracy
Saudi Arabia: neither republic nor democracy

Consider which of those nations you'd rather visit in, and then measure whether "democracy" or "republic" is as better predictor.

* That's why Israel is not a democracy... because adults born there can be denied the right to vote based on religion.

Re:It's all Bush's fault

[wwest4]

Yeah, it's thinkin' man's music.

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[nadabu14]

> Are you claiming there is more diversity in rural areas than urban areas?

That's not even close to what i said. If you wanna be a good spinmeister, you'll have to be a lot more subtle at twisting people's words.

> Do you think that two candidates who are nearly identical on all the issues is somehow diverse?

who the hell are you trying to argue with? you're responses are so far off the point of the parent post, that they're nonsensical.

> Oh, wait. You're just a troll.

and then you finish it off with a nice ad hominem argument. well, when in rome...

Sacrificial rites

[lysium]

Cannibalism, on some level, makes sense (read Stranger in a Strange Land).

Or just go to any Christian service (but especially a Mass), during which you consume the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Theology holds that the bread and wine disappear (technically, they are sublimated); you are actually consuming flesh and blood.

If not the President, then the Party

[lysium]

If the senate holds a contrary majority to the President nothing will get done, etc.). Remember he can't do much unless the congress and senate approve it

That is exactly what makes the GOP so dangerous. A successful political party that focuses on idealogical correctness and loyalty is extremely dangerous to the autonomous system you describe.

Now I'm a child molester?

[ArcherB]

Sorry, that's the first I've heard of it. I was actually talking about the Abu Ghraib prison thingie.

The article you point to is the only one I've seen on a child abuse prison scandal and is full of "unnamed sources". If true, those responsible will and should be held as such.

Re:Only in America

[rworne]

And to think my mod points expired early this morning. Well said!

And...

[Adam9]

what about Howard Dean?

I don't want to hear anyone rehash the media bullshit of how he was "crazy" either.

Re:And...

[Cro Magnon]

I don't know how I would have voted if Dean had done better, but by Super Tuesday, it was clear that he wasn't getting within shouting distance of the White House (and with Dean that's pretty damn far), so I voted for him as an anti-Kerry protest. Best of a bad lot, but still not good.

Copyright is tripe

[torstenvl]

Things like this happen because the entire system is flawed.

Some of you may not like this, but this country's political system at its foundation is socialist. "By the people, for the people" makes it pretty clear.

However, modern U.S. Governments have placed businesses over people in terms of importance. This creates a constant power struggle.

There are certain un-codified doctrines that help tip the favor of the government back toward the people, such as Fair Use, but other factors make things worse for people and better for businesses.

The question is, really: How can we have freedom and openness and be a productive society, in which everyone is culturally involved, in a country that enacts laws to promote the hoarding of that upon which our entire culture is based -- knowledge, information, and scientific discovery?

The short answer is, we cannot. One or the other must eventually fall.

Re:GOP donor helps finance anti-Kerry veterans gro

[Aardpig]

And, um, no. Vietnam Vets Against Kerry is not brought to you by the Republican Party

Eating your words now, you revolting little crapweasel?

Slight correction

[elendel]

The electorates are not "hand picked delegates" - they are elected officials. Every state elects their own electors, so the populace can decide who will decide for them. The popular election basically just tells the electors how the people want them to vote... it holds no real power, except in those states where the electorate is legally required to follow the popular vote.

Part of the problem is, most people have no idea how the electoral college works, let alone who their electors are...

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[localman]

I was replying to an AC. Is that you? If so...

You implied you were in favor of diversity. But you don't like the idea of voting equality. You realize that most racial minorities live in highly populated areas, right? These are the areas whos votes are most devalued.

For example, a Californian's vote counts one third as much as a vote from Wyoming. Now what is the justification for implying that valuing votes from Wyoming (92% white) over Californians (59% white) is somehow a diversifying process?

Cheers.

Re:Where was the outcry?

[Veridium]

Let me make something clear, I didn't say there WASN'T a problem, that wasn't my contention AT ALL. I do blame Bush and the republicans who back him for the torture. I also blame Clinton and the democrats who back him for what happened in Waco. Where does the buck stop? When a democrat is president, it doesn't seem to stop with him. When a republican is president, everything is his fault. That's how democrats act. Of course, the reverse is true also regarding how republicans treat a democrat president. I say the buck stops at the president no matter what party he's from.

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[nadabu14]

You're a fool if you think racial diversity is the only (or even most significant) type of diversity.

There's geographic diversity, economic diversity, age diversity, cultural diversity, and so on and so forth.

I have concerns about being sure minorities in these social categories are heard as well. But those are another issue. How can one complain against the oppression of the poor or immigrant or elderly or whoever and support changing the political system to encourage oppression of the rural by the urban? I will not subscribe to such hypocrisy.

Re:Where was the outcry?

[frankie]

Ah, I see I missed the earlier part of the conversation where you brought up Waco.

Yes, Clinton screwed up, as did Reno and everyone down the chain of command to whoever was in charge of the original raid and the later siege.

However, the comparison is NOT equal. Losing control of an armed standoff is negligent, but torturing prisoners repeatedly over several months is international war crime.

Re:Where was the outcry?

[Veridium]

However, the comparison is NOT equal. Losing control of an armed standoff is negligent, but torturing prisoners repeatedly over several months is international war crime.

They aren't equal, but they are similar, and the thing that pisses me off so much about Waco, is Clinton had years to see that justice was done about it. He had years and nothing was done. The guys responsible were fired and hired back later when the heat cooled down. Would you have let that happen if you were president? I would have blacklisted them from being employed in any federal agency.

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[localman]

I have a feeling that California matches or surpasses Wyoming in any of the areas of diversity you mentioned. (note: I don't live in either state)

oppression of the rural by the urban

How is giving each person one equal vote any more oppressive than democracy itself?

And yes, I am aware of the problem with a complete "majority rules" system. Which is why we also have a constitution.

Cheers.

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[nadabu14]

> I have a feeling that California matches or surpasses Wyoming in any of the areas of diversity you mentioned.

So you're saying California intrinsically knows better than Wyoming? However diverse it may be in most social categories, California will never be Wyoming nor be assured of having its perspective or interests. Seriously, what is so hard to understand about this?

> How is giving each person one equal vote any more oppressive than democracy itself?

huh? it's not. pure democracy means giving each person one equal vote. your question doesn't compute.

if you would like to understand the "oppression of the rural by the urban", spend some time looking into Oregon politics. I went to college with some folks from small towns in eastern Oregon. I learned a lot about the problems they have in those towns thanks to the voting power of masses in the Willamette Valley who don't experience the consequences of those votes. I don't think Portland residents should have the power to, in essence, unilaterally make decisions for the rest of the state any more than Californians should make decisions for the rest of the country.

Over-centralization of power is inefficient and consistently results in the oppression of minority concerns. One size does not fit all.

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[Sj0]

I think what makes people worried is that what is said in a two thousand year old book may be guiding the leadership of the nation rather than the needs and desires of the people.

well, ermm

[N3wsByt3]

scuze the spellingmistakes...I just went out and I'm pretty drunk. :-)

"Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation)."

That's very true, and that's what I've been trying to convey. Whether you call it universal or not, it is not. something that is truelly universal would be something that can be found back in any time, in any society. There are some examples which may be eligible, but 'hate speech' is not one of them. It is, therefor, not universal, nor fundamental (or basic).

Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal.

"And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent."

Ofcourse they should be debated on their merrits...but the merrits are also derived from the fact if they are consistent or not. That's what I've been saying: 'bad' laws are not bad because of the consistency, they are bad because of their content. If you see inconsistencies, it's an indicator that something is wrong with the law.

"So can the Internet without Freenet, and plenty of other technologies."

Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net.

"Arguments like "we will break society so it can reinvent itself" are quite weak in my opinion."

they are as weak or as strong as saying that it will sacrifice society. :-)

"Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech."

Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions. To claim speech should be forbidden when it offends a perceived basic right, or even a mere feeling of offense, like some people are claiming, is ridiculous. Your claim is , in essence, not correct: unfettered hate speech, as long as it remains speech, does NOT actually restrict rights of people. Freedom of speech does not oblige anyone to agree with it, to listen to it, to act on it, etc. Clairly, the level of restriction, even if you would take it there is one, is far less then the restriction imposed by racism-laws that plainly forbid certain forms of speech. One can not possibly claim that allowing more speech is restricting more then not allowing some speech, because in the first case, both can argue and debate and use the fre speech, while the latter only reserves the right of speech to one group.

Re:well, ermm

[Halo1]

Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal.

Your perceived consistency does not make social positions any stronger. Social laws grow out of society, not out of some perceived consistency in logic.

Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net.

I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Anonymous proxies, open news servers, freebie websites... Once something is out on the Internet, you already cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Just ask the MPAA how successful they were of getting DeCSS wiped from the Internet. You may make it even more easy, but there are no fundamental changes.

Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech.

Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions.

That's the theory, yes. But you can't be so naive to think that whatever you say has no consequences at all. Just like yelling fire --even though it may not be pure speech-- also has consequences, and is banned for those consequences; you are claiming that the consequences can never be so bad that it can be used as justification to prohibit some kind of speech. Fine, that may be your opinion. But calling everyone who thinks that is not the case "a hypocrite" is not very convincing to support your stance.

The line for me is exactly how article 30 of the UDHR described it. You can have your free speech, as long as you do not try to use it to limit other people's basic rights. You can of course keep arguing out of the void that there is some ultimate principle somewhere out there that states that allowing all free speech is always more consistent than not (regardless of how this may be inconsistent with your goal of getting a well functioning society and of how you can argue based on the past in which ways exactly this can happen), and that regardless what kind of arguments I bring in, you will not accept any kind of limitation to that because you do not accept that social laws with a reason can overrule this ultimate principle of truth, but then please say so.

This is getting very tiring and totally unproductive as far as I'm concerned, since you discard all arguments with "everything is an opinion". I have news for you: that's exactly how societies come to their rules, and that is exactly the justification that is needed. Rules are made by society according to a society's opinion. You may not find this consistent, logical, pure or basic in anyway, but that's per definition what a society is: "The relationship of men to one another when associated in any way; companionship; fellowship; company".

The rules that govern those relations are consequentially made by society as well. You may not like those rules, but if you try to impose other rules thinking that you know it better, then you get situations like Mao in China etc. I do not know of any place in the world where rules were imposed on society with the result that society suddenly functioned a whole lot better. Even in the French revolution, it was society that chose the new rules.

So society can change, and so can the rules. It's indeed even possible that one day the UDHR will be gone. But until you give any social reason as to why the rules in that declaration are somehow harming society as a whole, I don't think you have any ground to discard them as "merely opinions of no value". Simply saying "They are not basic rights. Peri

Re:Instant runoff?, Electoral college fix

[Nopal]

Wouldn't that in effect accomplish the same thing as as pandering to just a few large population centers such as in direct elections?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Well, no. The legislature changed the law.

[killjoe]

"Yes, that right is constructed so that it doesn't do some people any good--but that doesn't give the courts license to redefine an institution."

I keep telling you. If certain citizens of this country feel that they are being denied rights that other citizens have then they take it to the courts. The courts decide as to whether these people are being denied rights and whether it's OK to deny them those rights.

You seem to believe that the courts don't have the right to decide, that only the legislators (ie the majority) have the right to decide whether somebodies rights are being trampled on. This position is plain wrong. The courts clearly have the right to decide these things.

"That had nothing to do with the definition of marriage; it was a matter people thinking such marriages were undesirable and immoral."

It was illegal for white and black people to marry. It had everything to do with the definition of marriage. Throughout history the definition of marriage has evolved. At one time it was legal to marry 13 year olds, at one time it was legal to marry multiple people, at one time it was illegal to marry a black person if you were white. The definition of marriage changed with time and it will continue to do so.

"I just despise legislating from the judicial bench."

It's not legislating from the judicial bench. The legislature has already spoken and made marriage illegal between homosexuals (for no other reason then it goes against their religion BTW). Now the people who are being denied rights are petitioning the court. Arguing that what the legislature did is unconstitutional in the context of either the US constitution or the their states constitution.

That's the way things work, that's the way they should work. When the majority decides to fuck you over because their god told them to you should be able to go to the courts.

Re:That's why majority should rule

[Jadrano]

"When Arabs love their children more than they hate Jews, there will be peace."

This is misleading for several reasons.

• As far as Palestinian terrorism is concerned, it would have to say "all Arabs" or "all Palestinians". Most Palestinians don't have anything to do with terrorism, and it doesn't help when a vast majority of Palestinians rejects terror attacks against Israeli civilians, as long as there is a small minority that commits terrorist acts (blaming the Palestinian authority for letting them happen is absurd because it is the Israeli army that is in control, they have destroyed most Palestinian police posts, Palestinian police people can't travel freely and have only recently been allowed to carry arms in some places).
• The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has been going on for over thirty years, and there were many longer periods when there weren't any acts of terror against Israel, but the Israeli government still didn't end the occupation (on the contrary, they extended settlements in violation of the Geneva convention). Occupation certainly can't be called peace. Terror attacks aren't the only reason that there is no peace.
• There were cases when children were used for terrorist attacks, but in most cases, the people who committed suicide attacks were young adults. Many of them had relatives who were killed by the Israeli army. There was also research by psychologists about Palestinians in prisons who could be arrested in time to prevent them from committing attacks in Israel, and they found out that they suffered from severe traumata, family members being killed or beaten, constant humiliations at checkpoints, ... Then there is poverty and strict restrictions of movements. Of course, that does not justify terrorist attacks, but condemning is not enough, the conditions that breed terrorism must end. People can become terrorists because of ideologies and hate almost everywhere (e.g. McVeigh, Al Khaida terrorists, ...), but hate and ideologies alone cannot explain why suicide attacks against innocent people are committed over and over again by Palestinians. One should look at the conditions in which people have to live in Palestine. I know people who were there. Most Palestinians don't become terrorists because of humiliations and killings by the Israeli army, poverty and being collectively imprisoned between fences and walls, but you can hardly claim that these things don't have anything to do with each other and it's only due to some abstract hate that there are terrorist acts committed by Palestinians.

Democracy?

[Jadrano]

It sounds good at face value, but it would result in NYC, Chicago, and LA determining the outcome of the election. Add up the population of just those 3 cities. Now add up the population of 10 states west of the Mississippi.

So you think it is right one person in a state West of the Mississippi should have more weight in the elections that one person in NYC, Chicago or LA? After so many countries in the world have introduced democracy ("one person one vote") the US should consider that move, too.

The real problem is...

[YrWrstNtmr]

...we'd still have the same 3 chuckleheads running for office.

Addendum:

[kfg]

Or, as seems more likely, I was the one who became confused over the similarity of the names, and pun, myself, and entirely missed the point. I guess I should go read Leviathan again or something. It's not like I have to go very far to find a copy.

Sometimes I'm a little slow.

KFG

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[localman]

So you're saying California intrinsically knows better than Wyoming?

No, this was in reply to your comments on diversity, not "who knows better". Each individual only knows for themselves. I'm not saying Wyoming should decide for California or the other way around. I'm saying each person should decide for themselves and have an equal vote, no matter where they choose to live.

huh? it's not. pure democracy means giving each person one equal vote. your question doesn't compute.

Exactly! That's my point. My suggestion is to give each person one equal vote. And you implied that was "oppression of the rural by the urban". Well, that's democracy -- smaller groups always get opressed to some degree by the majority. That's why the constitution is so important.

I learned a lot about the problems they have in those towns thanks to the voting power of masses in the Willamette Valley who don't experience the consequences of those votes.

Oh boy, and let me tell you about the problems I have because of the voting power of the masses in Texas. I think my vote should count more than theirs to even it out. And I think that black votes should count more than white votes so they can't be opressed as easily. And women's votes too. And gays.

Since we've had such trouble communicating in this thread I'll point out that the above paragraph was sarcastic: I don't think you or anyone has the right to say one groups votes (racial, sexual, geographic, etc) should have a higher value than anyone elses. Yes, this means that some minority groups might have less say. This is true today for every minority group except for geographic minorities. Unless you agree with the previous sarcastic paragraph I don't see how your position is fair.

One person, one vote. That's all I'm saying. Why is this so complicated?

Cheers.

Re:Why is parent modded as troll?

[Mycroft_VIII]

oops, missed the 'parading as ultra-liberals' part there, kinda throws my guess out. Later guesses make more sense.
My mistake.

Mycroft

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[nadabu14]

> > So you're saying California intrinsically knows better than Wyoming?

> No, this was in reply to your comments on diversity, not "who knows better".

Sheesh. I guess I have to spell it out for you.

With "one person, one vote", California gets to make the decisions, and Wyoming becomes utterly irrelevant. If you support that system, then you must think that that would be best for the country. Therefore, you think California knows better than Wyoming. It's simple logic. Can't you even think through the consequences of your own position?

> Well, that's democracy -- smaller groups always get opressed to some degree by the majority.

that's exactly the problem with democracy and exactly the reason we are not (and should not be) a pure democracy.

> That's why the constitution is so important.

oh, you mean that thing that was written by the same guys who came up with the electoral college system? yeah, that gives your argument a lot of pull.

> I think that black votes should count more than white votes so they can't be opressed as easily.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I totally agree. The hard part is finding ways to implement such a system, and I haven't got a good answer for that right now.

> And women's votes too.

nonsense. last i checked women outnumbered men in this country.

> And gays.

not without some sort of genetic distinguishability. it's just too arbitrary (at least right now). so unlike with geography, it's just not feasible to implement a system for this.

> I don't think you or anyone has the right to say one groups votes (racial, sexual, geographic, etc) should have a higher value than anyone elses.

you're free to think that, but rights are granted by society and its molders. the molders of this political system disagreed with your view and intentionally included geographic weighting into the system. that's more than enough right for me to say that's the way it should be.

> This is true today for every minority group except for geographic minorities.

i believe that's largely because geographic minorities are one of the few that are easily accounted for, and are one of the most significant when it comes to governance (notice how all governments are first and foremost oriented and organized geographically). The founders knew one size wouldn't fit all, and they did what they reasonably could to accomodate that.

> Unless you agree with the previous sarcastic paragraph I don't see how your position is fair.

If you'd been paying attention to what I've been saying all along, you would have known I wish that paragraph were true (save the women part). I'm just not sure it's feasible. But just because I can't necessarily have all of those represented doesn't mean I should give up on those factors that can be accounted for.

> One person, one vote. That's all I'm saying. Why is this so complicated?

What you're saying is not at all complicated. I understand it perfectly and think you are wrong. In fact, the very problem is that it is entirely *too simple* to properly address the complex realities of governing a large and diverse nation. One size does not fit all!

Re:Deficit spending vs. Tax the ()*&$% out of

[evilviper]

So far, W. has blamed everybody in his admin and not taken one bit of blame. Not "the buck stops here". It is always, "fire that bastard there, he caused it".

I don't know where you get that crazy idea. The head of the CIA is the only one who ever stepped out.

In fact, what Bush does 99.99% of the time, is blame "the system". That's right, nobody is specifically to blame, it's just one of those things that happened because "America wasn't ready", "there were intelligence failures", or "system-wide problems" (note: not exact quote).

Re:Democracy.. / Marriage

[ArtAesthete]

Marriage *is* a sacred thing. An institution? Nah. Relationships just can't be labeled with a word like that. Marriage is a religious word. Many religious systems acknowledge the sacred character of certain GLBT relationships. Let the religions decide what a marriage (in the religious sense) is. [Interestingly, most christian theologies hold that this 'sacrament' is performed by the partners to each other (not by a minister, as in the case of other sacraments). ] Regarding civil unions, it just seems a bit like the 3/5s rule to me. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, lets call it something else and God won't notice! It's silly.

Yawn. Nice try

[iceperson]

The unemployment rate now is lower then it was when Bush took office (and lower than it was at the end of Clinton's first term.) During the last four years the economy has been hammered by terrorist attacks which were planned during the Clinton administration, corporate fraud which was committed during Clinton's administration, and the bursting of the tech bubble that also occurred during Clinton's administration and our economy is still pretty strong.

And the Federal economists reported just last month that the Bush recession started well after Clinton was out: in Summer 2001.
If you're implying that Bush was able to single handedly turn the economy of the US in the wrong direction within the 1st 4 months after he took office you're just not very bright. I can find plenty of economists that say that the good times we had during Clinton's terms were a direct result of the policies of Reagan.

You are a Bush apologist.
Actually, I'm a different kind of lib, a libertarian. I can bash Bush with the best of them, but when I see ideologues spewing forth crap I find it necessary to put in my 2 cents. You want to have an honest debate then come armed with all the facts not just half truths that you've twisted to fit your agenda. Bush has done (and not done) plenty of things that are easy enough to attack without having to make stuff up. Next time stick to objective and verifiable facts like his lack of a real Energy policy, destructive immigration policy, faith based initiatives, or even attack him for not being able to put together a coherant sentence. Believe me there's plenty there. The economy is bigger than any one man (except maybe Greenspan) and to blame Bush when it goes bad is even more silly than giving Clinton credit for when it was good!

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[localman]

Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you actually think that we're better off trying to equalize votes so that all viewpoints are of equal power -- well, I think you're crazy. Or just overreaching to accomodate as a guilty white urban male.

Heh. I picture a world where we inversely factor the vote by the size of every group one is a part of. So black gay disabled people would have thousands of times the power of the average straight white person.

You realize the whole point of democracy is to find out which viewpoints outweigh others?

Cheers.

indeed

[N3wsByt3]

It is becoming tiresome, indeed. While you perceive my posts as being dogmatic and not open to arguments, I rather see yours as increasingly so. I try to give arguments and counterarguments in every post, while you respond hardly to any of my questions or points.

You say it's dogmatic that I regard rights, including 'basic human rights' as written down statements that express an opinion. Well, then YOU answer it: do you think those rights do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature?

If they are, indeed, opinions, then you have to acknowledge that those opinions can change, agreed with that?

Well, then, I'll repeat my question:

In the beginning, I've said that, if you say that 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you think it is wrong and against the law, then, if the right-wing would make a majority, they could equally well deem anti-racism wrong and make laws to forbid *that*. My question then was: would you, in that case, accept that you couldn't speak about 'anti-racism' talk?

You tried to counter that by saying it is based on a 'universal' concept/basic human right... but as I pointed out, those are just a consensus on what constitutes basic human rights within our timeframe. It merely pushes my question further, but it does not answer it.

If rightwingers would have a majority in the worldpopulace, including the experts that think about what those rights constitute, and in those fantastic articles they make a lot of changes, and they add a clause that it is a basic human right to forbid anyone from making anti-racism speech... then, anti-racism talk will be against a 'basic human right' as well, and thus, following your reasoning, you should/would accept that they shut ppl up if they talk about anti-racism.

If you would not accept that reasoning in that case however - because of your own bias towards anti-racism - even when it's the same reasoning you used to forbid racism-talk, *then* you would be hypocritical.

You are on your high horse, claiming I said you are a hypocrite, while I never did, which you would have noticed, if you read my posts carefully.

Whether you are hypocrite or not, fully depends on you, and your stance and some few variables, such as: do you accept that opinions, laws and rights can change? Do you think 'basic human rights' do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature? Do you agree that you are bound by your OWN reasoning, even if that very same reasoning is, or would be, used to forbid you (when ultra-right would become the majority, for instance) to speak something you feel very strongly about, such as anti-racist speech?

Depending on these questions, you could or could not be a hypocrite, that is all I said and am saying.

You speak of consequences, but you know as well as I do, that people are responsible for their OWN deeds and actions. There has never been established a direct correlation, let alone a causality, between mere speech (not incitement or your fire-alarm example, thus) of one person, and the actions of others. Even in europe, courts have ruled that guilt-by-proxy in such a matter is not valid, and with reason. If you are not only going to hold the persons responsible that DO the illegal things, but also the persons who *might* have had an influence on their behaviour, even when it is only speech, then one can start suing everybody, really.

If courts would rule differently, then every media, including books and movies, that depicted or conveyed illegal or violent acts, could be forbidden, because it might lead to some people doing something that is illegal or damaging to somebody else. Luckily, people are deemed guilty for their actions, not their thoughts, or the expression of those thoughts on themselves (at least in the USA). For the latter, however, suddenly europe makes an exeption when it comes to 'racist speech', without giving any substantial reasons why this would merrit such a peculiar treatement.

Oh, yes,

Re:indeed

[Halo1]

I plan on placing some stuff there relating to software patents too; a subject we both take an interest in, if I'm not mistaken.

I guess I should be happy that you don't reply to each of my posts on that subject that all studies on it are merely opinions and that in an alternate universe those studies could perfectly say the reverse etc :)

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[nadabu14]

> If you actually think that we're better off trying to equalize votes so that all viewpoints are of equal power

and you twist the words again... you're either devious or stupid. i'm tired of this.

read the thread again. i never said a damn thing about making all viewpoints *equal*. the point of geographic weighting is not bland and useless equality (how would decisions get made then?); the point is to make sure that minority perspectives have a meaningful voice. the point is to make Wyoming relevant, not to make it equal with California.

> You realize the whole point of democracy is to find out which viewpoints outweigh others?

no shit, sherlock. and if you'd take a second to really consider what i'm saying instead of just assuming i'm an idiot, you wouldn't drool such asinine rhetoric all over the keyboard.

you're numb with apathy

[Doc Ruby]

Bush boasts of adding 1.5M jobs in the past 11 months, and 32K in July, but that's slower than the population growth. It's also smaller than any 11 months of Clinton. For presidents, the economy is something like luck - you have to take it as it comes, but you're judged on how well you play it. How has Bush played it? With fear, division, supply side tax handouts, a bad, expensive war in Iraq. He's "solving" the wrong problems, of which Iraq (instead of Afghanistan) is emblematic. His solutions have boosted corporate profits, military contractors, and plutocrats in his political base, at the expense of the public, not to mention American credibility.

Bush himself is actually representative of a bigger problem in America: the American people. I live in NYC, where I'm from. For a while, I used to hear people use the devastating attacks as an excuse to fail in business for years afterwards. It's a copout: the WTC and Pentagon, though big, important buildings, with important business activity, weren't so central to our entire economy to cause so much damage. That Summer 2001 recession start is important to contradict the Bush lies about it beginning in 2000, although the 11/2000 election was a sign that the collapse had begun. The malaise of people in the Red States, who are used to handouts from the Federal government, was enough to get Bush to about 50% of the vote in 2000, and have been cannonfodder for his propaganda since then. They're driving American culture, and our economy, though they're not competent to do so. The plutocrats are turning the public over to the fundamentalists in exchange for free reign over the private, with the secular middle and bottom getting fleeced. So Bush is accountable for taking advantage of a bad situation, and making it worse - or, by any accounts, not making it better. His job is to manage the economy to maximize the good, and mitigate the bad, which he has completely failed to do.

This isn't ideology. These are the facts available to measure the easily observable situation. I've lived outside NYC during many years, on every coast of the country (including the Great Lakes), and travelled through all but 8 of the states in between. I've also spent plenty of time in several of my old hometowns during Bush's term. I can see how it is, and the plentiful facts support a dismal model. I'm not interested in Clinton any more, except to clarify his role as precedent. I'm interested in the next 4 years. Under Bush, without even reelection on the line for accountability, the prospect is dreadful, most obviously economically. He and his dynasty's teams have consistently looted the Treasury for *trillions* whenever they get the chance, spinning the media and handing the bill down the road, where I get to pay in dollars and lost opportunities for my country. As a technology entrepreneur, I know the power of Americans to make and consume new wealth, when at least somewhat organized to do so. That's why Bush has to go.

Re:you're numb with apathy

[iceperson]

I think you're overanalyzing here and giving the President too much credit/blame. I don't want a President to "add" jobs. The only jobs the government can create are "government" jobs and guess who pays for those... you and I do. I want the government to leave me alone and I will create jobs. It's their job to protect us and provide an infrastructure and nothing more. I believe the reason that the last 6 years of Clinton's Presidency were so great was because Congress was ruled by the other party. I truly believe that the fewer "accomplishments" they make in Washington the better off we the people are.

The malaise of people in the Red States, who are used to handouts from the Federal government
I live in Oklahoma and we're a donor state... thank you very much.

"For a while, I used to hear people use the devastating attacks as an excuse to fail in business for years afterwards."
I'm sure that some people have used it as an excuse but considering what the attacks did to confidence in our markets and the devastation it had on the transportation industry I think you're minimizing their affects on our overall economy.

p.s.
What you call apathy I call "independence" or "the American spirit".

Re:you're numb with apathy

[Doc Ruby]

The president penalized hundreds of millions of Americans for not being rich enough, siphoning off billions to hand back to his rich donors. Reinvesting in faith corporations (churches) that merely sap productivity was his cover for derelicting his duty to protecting the infrastructure and markets. Those WTC/Pentagon attacks followed up the USS Cole bombing, during which his defense/intelligence staff dropped intelligence in favor of drugs and pornography.

The worst damage to our economy has been the doubling of oil prices, obviously another perk for Bush's natural constituency of Saudis and American oil companies. Lesser damage has been done by refocusing from communications to warfare, while feeding foreign nations, like China, more export business. The most serious damage has been to the "magic" US reputation, abroad and at home, for stability and justice. People would rather do business with someone else, or not at all, and that's starving our spirit and our economy.

Oklahoma is a welfare state: handed $1.32 in 1992, and $1.52 in 2002, for every dollar invested in the Federal wealth redistribution; the #10 & #11 welfare states in those years, respectively. My state, NY, only got back $0.86 & $0.85 in those years (#40), so we're paying your way. If you cross-reference those data with the 2000 election data, you'll find that only 4 Red States haven't been rewareded with Federal handouts by Bush: Texas (he can't lose their support, and his people there don't pay taxes), Colorado (winning as of 6/8/04 by only 48:43%, much tighter than his other rightwing policies would suggest), Nevada (currently a tie at about 45% each) and New Hampshire (currently Kerry's at 49:42%). So that welfare has been well spent by Bush, to protect his base.

At least you and I agree that the best way to keep the government doing its least damage is to keep it doing its least. And one way is through "divided government", or the traditional American electorate behavior of "balancing the ticket". The apathy to which I refer is the acceptance of Bush's malfeasance in a job for which he's not qualified, except as the spokesmodel for the corporations that are sucking America dry. Enron... The American spirit to which we both refer is the distrust of government, institutionalized in our separation of powers, united to work by checks and balances. Since Congress will likely remain a Republican Party asset next year, it's that much more important to get rid of Bush, and his central Republican committe at the White House.

Re:Censorship at slashdot even

[Sensitive Claude]

How is this any different than being modded down every single time someone points out even the tiniest flaw in a Democrat?

Yup, there isn't one single comment that expresses criticism in this entire website, let alone this article, that hasn't been modded down. Not one. I dare anyone to come up with a single comment critical of John Kerry that has been modded to 4, let alone 5. Nope, it never happens. Never Ever Ever Ever. Never.

Slashdot is just one big evil corporate liberal conspiracy.

And when good American loving Conservatives post here, they a visited in the night and beaten with sacks filled with doorknobs.

Meanwhile, Liberals are all automatically moderated to +5 by the editors thanks to the Liberal checkbox in the user preferances. And lets not forget that you are either with the Conservatives, or you are with the Liberals. There is no other way to identify your politics. Except maybe moderates, but we all know that moderates are really just Liberals.

Please people, try to be more sensitive to our Conservative users. They bare such a burden being who they are, especially on slashdot.

Oh, wait, maybe you aren't modded down for being Conservative. Maybe you are being modded down for being an idiot.

So let me refrase that:

Please people, try to be more sensitive to our Idiotic lusers.

Thank you.

Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism.

[localman]

ad hominem indeed.

Have a good one.

blog

[N3wsByt3]

halo, do you mind if I use this debate (posts) in my blog?

I'm not sure about the public nature of posts on slashdot, but I thought I would check if it's ok with you anyway.

Re:blog

[Halo1]

In theory you can do whatever you want with it since it's all public, but I'd prefer if you simply link to it and not just copy/paste parts.

And despite my earlier comment of that being my last post, I've been doing research on what really constitutes left and right (left and right nowadays have little to do with human rights or racism, those are more properties of the axis of authoritarian/fascist and libertarian/anarchist), on how the universal declaration of human rights actually came to be (it was not just a bunch of libertarian or anarchist people) and the history of the concept of human rights (you'll be happy to hear that the concept of human rights is indeed quite recent, that the UDHR originally a product of early 20th century European thinking and thus was not universal at all, but things evolved, as also the previous link notes). Of course they're not universal because they're called universal, it's more like the other way round (I'll reply to the argument "but what if the world was mainly ruled by Hitlers and Stalins" later).

I may reply later in detail to your last post, but I'm still convinced that your "hypocrisy test" poses a false dilemma (or at least presents a false conclusion) and that it is not possible to make good social rules by only looking at rational arguments, because the human nature and thus also society simply are not rational. There is this thing called a conscience that most people have, and simply factoring that out of rule making altogether because it's not exactly the same for everyone does not automatically give you good rules for well functioning society.

You may become the ultimate "impartialist" who can set aside all his own moral values and rules, but that does not mean the rules you end up with that way are rules that result in a well functioning society. Society grows, evolves and is per definition deeply affected what happened before. You call those ghosts from the parts and chains that prevent following the path to ultimate rational enlightenment, but others see it as learning from your mistakes and *attempting* (which obviously does not automatically mean succeeding) to prevent them from happening again. Therefore just discarding that

For example, the banning of hate speech in Europe and the inalienable right to have arms in the US are indeed examples of mainly symbolic rules as opposed to purely rational rules. But exactly this symbolism is very strong, and you cannot discard that as being irrelevant or "overrulable" purely in the name of impartial logic and consistency.

Just abolishing them (even in the name of rationality or enlightenment), would always be interpreted as a signal that the government doesn't want you to have weapons so they can better oppress you, or that the holocaust wasn't that bad after (or maybe even didn't happen). You may know that is not the case, but society just doesn't work that way. You can't manage it like it's a bunch of drones who simply follow the rules and do nothing more or nothing less, nor think outside the box. That's why I stand by my point that each society has the right to make its own rules based on its experiences, and why I think the absolute free speech in the US is exactly as justifiable (even though I don't agree with it) as the banning of hate speech in Europe.

Re:blog

[N3wsByt3]

hmm, well..that would defeat my purpose of making it one of the central parts of my blog. I'm still working on it, however, when it's finished I'll give you a sign, and if you object to something in particular, we can always see what we can do about it.

I didn't make any conclusions, as of yet, so it may be a bit premature to call it false. On the other hand, it is rather clear what the inevitable conclusion would be, indeed, and I suspect that's why you are so reluctant to answer it.

Thus, I'll go further as if you gave one of two answers: yes and no.

Now, remember, the main argument you gave, was that it was against a basic human right. It is fairly trivial to demonstarte that that can't be the main reason at all, because speech that goes against other 'basic rights' is not being forbidden. And apart from that, basic human rights are, as we now can agree on, I hope (?), not universal, but rather based on opinions. Opinions change, we both agree on that also.

Therefor, in a hypothetical world, where right wingers rule with a majority and decide that 'anti-racism speech' should be forbidden and calling black people subhuman is a basic right, etc., it would follow that, in that case, it would be against a basic human right, and thus, you should agree they have the right to make it forbidden.

If you do accept and agree to that, then, for sure, you are not hypocritical.

We both now, however, that you (well, at least I) would never agree to such a thing, whether they have a majority, claim it's a basic right or make laws that forbid it.

Well...my point is, if we would feel we have the right to disregard it, even when it complies with the reasons given that you think allows for forbidding it, then why could another person today not feel the same about the current 'racism speech' laws?

If we, using the same reasoning, have the right to 'say' it, whether it is against a basic right or not, then so does he. If he doesn't, then so don't we.

Ofcourse, you could claim again consistency is not necessary, but then you are, in fact, purely saying: you can't say that, because it's my opinion you can't say that. As we both now, however, opinions as such (thus, without argumenting them and, indeed, using logic and consistency) are nothing more then just that; mere opinions. One opinion, on itself, isn't worth anything more then the next. Even if we are convinced our opinion is right, another person with a fully opposite opinion can be convinced *he* is right.

Now, my last point is, that facists and racists, as you yourself rightfully pointed out, would be the first to forbid speech that they seem as unallowable. Suppressing freedom of speech is THE sign of dictatorships. It boils down to saying: because I'm (or 'we', when they have majority) of the opinion that it can't be said, you may not say it.

Well, guess what, we are doing just the same.

That we do it out of reasons that we think, nay, are convinced is for the good of society does not make a distinctive difference, because ultra-rights might see it as a good thing for society too.

So, what IS the distinction, then? The only one remaining is this: that you allow freedom of speech. A facist state will never allow that, while a democratic one does (or at least can, as is proven by the USA).

I hope you see my point: making some part of free speech illegal makes us more facist and dictatorial, instead of more democratic, while it's just that, that we wanted to avoid.

Re:blog

[Halo1]

On the other hand, it is rather clear what the inevitable conclusion would be, indeed, and I suspect that's why you are so reluctant to answer it.

Just a small nit: what your conclusion would be. I do not feel the least bit hypocrite about it. In fact, I think the other choice of simply blindly defending whatever the rules are and switching with them like a leave in the wind is actually hypocrite. I've simply been looking for arguments that can show you why I feel that way and why your conclusion does not hold.

Now, remember, the main argument you gave, was that it was against a basic human right. It is fairly trivial to demonstarte that that can't be the main reason at all, because speech that goes against other 'basic rights' is not being forbidden.

And this is where the societies come into play. As I've said many times now already: you cannot construct social theories purely on rules of logic. If you would argue against education, people would probably think you're a looney and ignore you. If you managed to get a powerful movement, managed to grasp power for a while and forbid eduction to a lot of people that way, I'm quite sure that afterwards draconian measures would be taken to prevent that basic right (as pretty much the entire world, from authoritarian to libertarian, has agreed) from being taken away again.

And apart from that, basic human rights are, as we now can agree on, I hope (?), not universal, but rather based on opinions.

Not just mere opinions like yours or mine, but opinions of a society that encompasses pretty much the entire world. The UDHR committee originally consisted of someone from the US, someone from France, someone from Lebanon and someone from China (you may call them all "left", but as I said in my previous post, left and right is meaningless in this context; it's libertarian/anarchist vs authoritarian/fascist in this debate).

It was later included and referred to in a lot of other conventions, treaties and covenants and many of its elements can be found back in religions, pre-existing laws/rules (such as the US Constitution), works from philosophers, ... This is not just some majority opinion, it is something that has grown out of human society as a whole (left, right, authoritarian, libertarian, ...), trying to define what makes us human, which rights must be guaranteed in order for people "to be able to be humans", all with the goal of encouraging dignity, peace, cooperation and respect for all.

The Preamble nicely explains where those rules come from and why they chose those particular rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of u

Re:blog

[N3wsByt3]

"Just a small nit: what your conclusion would be."

Hmm...do you mean to indicate that you *would* accept it, then? Because that was the conculsion I made (that you wouldn't accept the same reasoning, but reversed on yourself).

"I do not feel the least bit hypocrite about it."

Well, I hope you are not going to get on your high horse again, because I'm not saying you are hypocrite, but, really... there are many hypocrites who don't feel they are hypocrite. Thus, whether a person feels or not that he himself is hypocrite is by no means the proof that he isn't.

Following the actual meaning of the word, if one does not act the way one preaches (or does not accept a reasoning for himself that he himself uses on others), this constitute hypocrisy. The question whether a person himself believes or feels he is (or not), does not enter the picture.

"I've simply been looking for arguments that can show you why I feel that way and why your conclusion does not hold."

I think you mean; why you do not agree with me. My argumentation and conclusion holds, in any case better then yours, because mine is not based on opinions, while yours boil down to just that.

Basically, you are saying: well, societies aren't rational, and don't have to be. Well, if so, then you can't have anything against societies like that of the taliban, which denegrate women.

You may counterargument that that is against a basic right, but, so what? They don't have to be rational, so whether they feel it is a basic right, why should they care? In a way, you are proving my point, that, if, like you claim societies have a right to choose for theirselves, even if they are irrational, then societies have the right to chose to be racist or fundamentalist too.

"If you managed to get a powerful movement, managed to grasp power for a while and forbid eduction to a lot of people that way, I'm quite sure that afterwards draconian measures would be taken to prevent that basic right (as pretty much the entire world, from authoritarian to libertarian, has agreed) from being taken away again."

This is rather a fact, but not an argument. It would, for instance, only be true if one had not the majority of the people thinking the same. Furthermore, exactly the same could be said if the current democratic 'humanistic' movement would lose power for a while and facists take over: they would make sure draconian laws are created to make sure that forbidding 'racist talk' (and, alas, probably a lot of other 'basic rights') would never happen again.

Again, one can only conclude that the only real difference is, to let people free as much as possible, especially in the area of speech. A facist could never do that, because his power is based on limiting others with oposing views, while a true democracy can.

Your argumentation does however point to a more fundamental disagreement: though you never actually say it, I make up of what you say that you DO believe that the 'basic rights' as described in UDHR is, somehow, universal. You speak about 'evolution' as if we are or have evolved towards a goal. Alas, even in a biological sense evolution has no goal, it's just based on chance.

If nazism and facism had won and dominated the world, and they decided to create a UDHR, I'm quite sure it would encompass a whole lot of different 'basic rights' then it is today. That they didn't won is rather the result of chance (being the weakest in the conflict), not the result of evolution.

"That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it. "

Sometimes, I completely fail to see your point. We are not talking about one opinion? Well, are two opinions against one opinion better, then? Even if it are the two opinions of facists against one opinion of an anti-facist? Is a majority of opinions what makes the difference? Well then, that places us back at the hypothetical situation where the majority of opinions is against 'anti-racist' speech. Would you

Re:blog

[Halo1]

Hmm...do you mean to indicate that you *would* accept it, then? Because that was the conculsion I made (that you wouldn't accept the same reasoning, but reversed on yourself).

I simply meant that if the UDHR were drawn up by fascists in your hypothetical world and they put in that anti-racism were forbidden because it was supposedly against a fundamental right, that I would not accept it (and you found that that hypocrite, because I do accept forbidding hate speech), and that I do not think that this is hypocrite at all for the reasons explained in my previous post (and partly repeated below).

In short: fascists are against the principle of individual rights, as the state goes above everything. So any "rights" they give, are per definition never universal (since the state can change those at will for anyone and at any time). So they simply cannot draw up a UDHR, except one that states "you have no inherent individual rights". Therefore, your hypothesis is false, and my non-acceptance is not even very relevant. A better answer would have been "mu" I guess.

Well, I hope you are not going to get on your high horse again, because I'm not saying you are hypocrite, but, really... there are many hypocrites who don't feel they are hypocrite. Thus, whether a person feels or not that he himself is hypocrite is by no means the proof that he isn't.

Duh. That's why I tried to explain why I did not feel hypocrite, so you could see why I feel that way and could argue against it (or, who knows, agree I'm not hypocrite).

Following the actual meaning of the word, if one does not act the way one preaches (or does not accept a reasoning for himself that he himself uses on others), this constitute hypocrisy. The question whether a person himself believes or feels he is (or not), does not enter the picture.

My belief/preaching is that there are fundamental human rights such as e.g. human dignity and personal freedom, and that any rules made that claim to protect human rights cannot be squarely aimed at the destruction of such rights.

That's why I accept banning of hate speech (it aims at protecting dignity, at a trade off with freedom and possibly other things) and not banning any speech at all (aims at protecting personal freedom, at a potential trade-off with dignity and possibly other things). It's also why I do not accept forbidding anti-racism speech (reducing personal freedom in exchange for what?) or explicitly allowing discriminatory talk (reducing dignity in exchange for what? It does not provide for extra freedom, since it was already allowed).

My argumentation and conclusion holds, in any case better then yours, because mine is not based on opinions, while yours boil down to just that.

I think you are misguided if you think that abstract logic (based on hypothetical situations or not) always goes above opinions based on facts in case of social issues.

You may counterargument that that is against a basic right, but, so what? They don't have to be rational, so whether they feel it is a basic right, why should they care? In a way, you are proving my point, that, if, like you claim societies have a right to choose for theirselves, even if they are irrational, then societies have the right to chose to be racist or fundamentalist too.

You missed my point. Maybe I didn't stress it enough in my last post, but I was almost all the time talking about the goals of the UDHR (protecting human dignity, the right not to have to live in constant fear, ... the stuff that's mentioned in the preamble). The rules of the UDHR are just general guidelines to achieve those things and sometimes trade-offs have to be made (as illustrated in the free speech debate). Which trade-off you make depends on your background and I think a society has the right to choose which trade-off they make. You

ah well

[N3wsByt3]

It's been an interesting discussion, but I think it has outlived is usefulness in this thread under this /. article. :-)

I think we have some basic differences in perceprtion on things, where we both think we are being illogical...or where you think logic doesn't matter very much, I dunno. If you really think this:

"I think you are misguided if you think that abstract logic (based on hypothetical situations or not) always goes above opinions based on facts in case of social issues. "

Then, in essence, you say that in social issues, an opinion of one group inherently can go above the opinions of another, even when there is no logic or rationality behind it. I think this is a basic misconception, and even if it WERE true, then it means that whatever group has the power could rightfully claim it is the way based on their opinions, without having to argument them logically.

I do not think this to be correct, for the simple reason that every group imaginable always tries to give their rationale for it, they always argument it, and they always strive to be consistent (even when they are not, or being pseudo-rational/scientific, at least they try to convey it that way.

So, while I agree societies are not always being logical and consistent, when it comes to governing and laws, I think one DOES not to strive for consistency.

Saying that is not necessary, also means another group with oposing ideas do not have to show any logic, that their opinion is, in principle, enough, whether they can argument it in a correct way or not. I would claim that in most cases, facist/racist/etc. ideologies show a far greater degree of a lack of consystency and illogic, which is yet another defining difference that can be used to show they are incorrect. Given the choice between demonstrating they are wrong, and muffling them up (with obvious little results, seen the progress of ultra-right in Europe), it is more democratic to chose for the first. And a democracy should always strive to be more democratic, not less.

You're axis does not make it that any better, it merely shows it's a step in wrong direction. While you seem to accept that step for a perceived benifit of peace, I don't. It's like the patriot act in the USA: meant for protecting the US against those evil muslims that want to create a fundamentalistic muslimstate all over the world. Well, a few more of those terror attacks, and a few more of these laws later, and what ARE you protecting, at the end? Not the free and democratic country, that's for sure. What use is it, in an efort to protect oneself, to become a policestate of your own?

In a similar way you are going the wrong way, when you try to shut up people, that are, in your opinion, against 'basic human rights'. What you end up with, is being more the way that those people would be, and if you think those people are doing the wrong thing, then you shouldn't be trying to go that way neither.

"Well, I think you are pretty extreme in not accepting any opinion or social evidence whatsoever, regardless of the supporting facts."

Well...ermm..I didn't see no evidence, just opinions. Social evidence of what, exactly? That societies can be irratic and illogical and inconsistent when making laws? Well, I agree with that, but I don't draw the same conclusions of it that you seem to do (see above). What supporting facts? That a lot of dudes with the best intentions drew up a list of basic huma rights? I agree with that too, but you fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that this makes it somehow universal in nature. If those rights were made up 1000 years ago, having slaves would probably have been a basic right, because most societies in the world accepted that practice, then. History does not prove that most of these basic rights are universal in nature (though for some behaviour and laws, like those against incest, there are indeed valid arguments to make a case it is universal). If they are not universal, they reflect

the philosophy of what constitutes 'good'

[N3wsByt3]

"You are the one that keeps saying that the only way to justify it is that it's a majority opinion, not me."

No, I don't and didn't. What I have been saying is, that, if you accept that a majority justifies laws against hate-speech, it justifies laws against anti-hate speech too.

"It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally"

Indeed, and that's my point exactly: they do not show that. Slavery, for instance, was a very common accepted practise, at one time. Yet, in the current timeframe, it would be considered fundamental against human basic rights.

"There is logic and rationality behind it (disrespect for the human rights they mention has resulted in great tragedies, while respect for them hasn't -> it seems logical to demand..."

If you are of the opinion that something is a tragedy. I doubt the nazi's would have found it a tragedy if all jews were killed in concentrationcamps.

Now, while you claimed consistency does not make a law/policy stronger, I claim it does. It doesn't make it 'better', because that means giving it a subjective value, and that depends on one's views.

Therefor, a reasoning that has consistency, even if one does not agree with, is stronger then the same kind of reasoning without it. I think this is always true: I can't think of any reasoning that gets stronger when it has more internal contradictions in it.

Thus, consistency DOES make an argument stronger, though it doesn't give us 'good' (in the sense of ethical) reasonings. But what, then, can one use for ethical guidelines? IMHO, (I was gonna say that in my blog, but...seems difficult not to be further drawn into this discussion) it is, again, logic that can lead us to it.

A basic principle of Kants' philosophy, was that you shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you. It is as simple as elegant in it's logic and almost undisputable as a good ethical guideline, and that's why I think, personally, that allmost all basic rights in the UDHR are 'good'. Contrary to you, however, I'm still well aware that, ultimately, this is an opinion. Somebody can perfectly be of the opinion that killing blacks because of their color of skin is not against a basic human right, because -again in his opinion - niggers are sub-human, and thus, fall outside the scope of human basic rights. You see how easily it is to make a case like that if opinions differ, regardless of the so-called universal application that you claim can be found in history. (If anything, history shows us as much genocides as anything else).

However, and here comes the logic into the game again, when you claim *that*, you should also accept the claim of black people saying it's right to kill whites because they are subhuman. If you don't accept that, then you are clearly talking crap, and your argumentation has no validity.

Thus, reversing the reasoning on yourself (and one's opinion if it is 'right', then ) is the way to determine if something is ethical correct, even when opinions differ.

That's why I extensively asked you the question (not sure if I ever got a clear answer, though ;-) whether you would accept it, if things were reversed. I don't think you would, which makes it ethical dubious at best.

I however, am fully prepared to let another person speak his mind; I have no problems with reversing my reasoning on myself, and thus, I do find, indeed, this reasoning not only stronger in consistency, but also better in an ethical way.

And thus, I've been suckered into responding on this thread again ;-)

Re:the philosophy of what constitutes 'good'

[Halo1]

No, I don't and didn't. What I have been saying is, that, if you accept that a majority justifies laws against hate-speech, it justifies laws against anti-hate speech too.

My only problem is that I wonder why you keep repeating that, because I never claimed it's justified because of a majority ruling. It's simply as if you want to make me say that.

It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally

Indeed, and that's my point exactly: they do not show that. Slavery, for instance, was a very common accepted practise, at one time. Yet, in the current timeframe, it would be considered fundamental against human basic rights.

You are still misunderstanding it. It's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not a Declaration of Universal Human Rights. I.e., the Declaration was adopted with the intent of it being Universally applicable regarding the Human Rights defined in it. It nowhere claims that the human rights it defines are universal by their very nature.

I.o.w., the goal was to have some declaration which would be universally applicable (otherwise, you could just as well have no declaration at all) regarding defining a number of human rights which would be guaranteed and which cannot be taken away. So it was not just called "a declaration" but the Universal Declaration.

And as I said before, it was originally indeed simply the product of its time. Nobody contests that, you'll find that back in every discussion on the origins of the UDHR. I even mentioned that literally, and extrapolated on that later on.

If you are of the opinion that something is a tragedy. I doubt the nazi's would have found it a tragedy if all jews were killed in concentrationcamps.

That's why I previously asked you whether you accepted things like the right to life as a fundamental right. If you don't, then there is no point in having any rights at all, since you can't make use of any right when you're dead.

It all boils down to whether you recognise that an individual has a right to any rights or not. Or maybe even stronger, whether whether you accept the concept of the existence of individuals, or whether there's only a hive or so.

Thus, consistency DOES make an argument stronger, though it doesn't give us 'good' (in the sense of ethical) reasonings. But what, then, can one use for ethical guidelines?

Someone who has no sense of morality or conscience fulfills the textbook definition of "psychopath". I'm not sure whether it would be a good idea to have society ruled by psychopaths. In fact, psychopaths often follow extremely logical and consistent rules (because they don't have any other rules). But because they completely disregard the consequences of their actions, they are extremely dangerous to society (to any society, including fascist ones).

A basic principle of Kants' philosophy, was that you shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you.

That's really not just Kant. In fact, when I replied to an earlier message of yours, I suddenly had to think of the saying "Do not judge lest you be judged". So I googled for it and found this page. Since I was not raised in a Catholic way, I even didn't know it came from the Bible. Anyway, it's almost exactly the same thing, plus of course the obligatory "when in doubt, judge by God's word".

I suppose humanists replace God's word by conscience. You (and possibly Kant, I never read his works) simply rip it out. It can be nice as a mental exercise or to have long discussions on slashdot about, but as I said before you're bli

Re:the philosophy of what constitutes 'good'

[N3wsByt3]

"Sorry dude, but now you are plain lying. I nowhere said that the human rights as found in the UDHR were universally applied in history."

errrm...:
"It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally" (dixit you)

If they apply in all situations, they also apply in situations in the past, hence, history. It seems a bit bold to claim I'm lying then, when one could very reasonably deduce you meant just that; in ALL situations, passed or present.

Anyway, we're back to square one, it seems.

I understand by your last post you definately agree that the UDHR is only an opinion too. Yes, yes, by a lot of experts in different countries and all that, but still an opinion, right? So, if others (in idem way) would decide something else is a human basic right, then what?

I gather you wouldn't accept that, because in that case, it wouldn't be a human right...but acording to whome, then, if the majority of the world populace would agree it *is*? According to you.

Thus, you deem your opinion of more importance then the opinion of those people, which would claim, for instance, anti-hate speech should be illegal. You could claim that because it would be not in the line of what a basic human right should be (dignity and peace and all that)...but again, according to whome?

Again; you. (and the experts and what not of THIS timeframe, but these wouldn't be there, in the hypothetical case).

Basically, it DOES amount to your opinion being more worth then that of another, when you put it that way.

Since we both agreed one opion isn't worth then another, this poses a problem in the view you portray. (hence the possibility for hypocrisy which you claim does not exist).

Now, you can, again, claim that societies don't work that way and what not, but you can not deny that there is something wrong with the reasoning, in that case.

Basically, what you are saying is; I accept the authority of the UDHR, as long as I agree with the opinions/reasons/goals of those who made it. Well, that's hardly surprising, and it amounts to just saying that you'll accept an opinion you agree with, but not with one you disagree with.

I have been trying to convey this a thousand times, and I still don't know for sure: do you agree with that, or not?

I somehow feel, maybe not justified (?), that you try to avoid the examination of the reasoning you gave. You keep saying that societies don't work that way, and that they are irratic and illogical, but frankly, I don't give a rats' ass about that. It's irrelevant to the question whether or not your reasoning is valid, because if society can be irratic and is justified in doing so when deciding 'hate speech' should be forbidden, it can be irratic and decide 'anti-hate speech' should be forbidden too. Period.

There is NO justification for bringing societies irratic behaviour in it, since, if you accept it can be irratic, then it doesn't have to follow logic, and thus it can be used to justify anything that is illogical. Therefor, if you accept the irratic and illogical behaviour/laws/etc. because it's in the nature of societies, then you should also accept their irratic and illogical behaviour/laws/etc. when they do something that you don't agree with, including anti-hate speech.

The whole extra argument of UDHR is just pushing it a bit further away, but not really solving anything. You no longer speak of societies, but of 'basic rights'. Well, if those basic rights are opinions - and whether they are agreed on by thousands of experts or not, it still remain opinions - then they do not have more sway then other opinions.

Sure, they are argumented, and probably pretty consistent...but it all depends on what someone considers to be human rights in the first place, right? Using the word 'psychopaths' does not solve this neither; nazi's wouldn't consider themselves to be psychopaths and in a more benign form, I do not agree with (some inte

Re:the philosophy of what constitutes 'good'

[Halo1]

I'm under the impression both of us think the other one doesn't get the points he's trying to get across, so I'll leave it at this.

Good luck with your blog.

Dirty campaigns are apparently the American way

[Aumaden]

The Making of the President 1789

blogitized

[N3wsByt3]

I put it on the blog at http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/

I only slightly modified it, mainly spellingmistakes-corrections, but if you feel I didn't do a good job of representing both our posts correctly, feel free to indicate what should be changed.

indeed

[N3wsByt3]

"I'm under the impression both of us think the other one doesn't get the points he's trying to get across, so I'll leave it at this."

True, true. Well...I think we might have an idea what each of us wants to say, only we seem to speak aside eachother when debating the issue.

Luckily, *we* have freedom of expression! ;-)

"Good luck with your blog."

Thanks. Feel free to check it out once in a while. I plan on placing some stuff there relating to software patents too; a subject we both take an interest in, if I'm not mistaken.

hmm...well...;-)

[N3wsByt3]

You don't have to go to another universe to encounter people that have a different opinion on software patents (alas). :-)

Re:Ah, this is a 'troll' now...

[randyest]

One meta-moderator hears your plea and cares.

But I'm not so sure M2 even works anymore. . . if you don't see at least one of those -1 Trolls removed soon, it doesn't.