Presidential Candidate 'Computer Dating'

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Presidential Candidate 'Computer Dating'

Posted by timothy on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:16AM from the ooh-you're-so-specific dept.

engywook writes "On National Public Radio's Morning Edition this morning, there was a story that mentioned the SelectSmart Presidential Candidate Selector. This was described as a kind of 'computer dating service' for deciding which of the remaining presidential candidates match your views most closely. According to the story, it is not limited to just the Democratic and Republican candidates. Might be just the thing to help gel a decision in swinging undecideds!"

122 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

For More Years by captnitro · 2004-10-12 02:19 · Score: 4, Funny

It told me I should vote for the candidate that raises the upper limit on MySQL connections. Where do those other two Skull n' Bones boys stand on slashdotting?

VOTE MYSQL_CONNECT IN 2004!!!! LET FREEDOM RING!!!
1. Re:For More Years by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 02:25 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33
  
  Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 35
  
  Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45
  
  Warning: mysql_db_query(): A link to the server could not be established in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45
  
  Warning: mysql_fetch_array(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 46
  
  Your Results:
  
  Warning: sort() expects parameter 1 to be array, null given in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 168
2. Re:For More Years by SandiConoverJones · 2004-10-12 02:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  At least Michael Badnarik http://badnarik.org/?sid=322118 is a geek. Your hopes may lie with him.
  PROFESSIONAL
  Became a Computer Programmer in 1977 for Commonwealth Edison at their nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois; taught control room operators about computers. Was promoted to Senior Software Engineer for their Braidwood Nuclear Simulator project, which he managed from '82-'85 (his favorite job assignment, basically a $6-million "computer game" for which he was totally responsible).
  Moved to Montebello, CA, and held a "secret security" clearance at Northrop to work on the Stealth Bomber simulator, '85-'87.
  Relocated to San Luis Obispo, CA, in 1987 as a System Administrator and computer trainer at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant; spent 10 years as a member of the Applied Technology Services Team writing software and traveling the state installing real-time data-collection servers to their remote power stations; was an instructor for hundreds of employees teaching state-of-the-art systems being installed.
  Moved to Austin, TX, in 1997 where he was a programmer and a trainer for Evolutionary Technologies International. He quickly became the Senior Trainer and began traveling across the U.S., and to Canada, England and Australia, as instructor, consultant and "high-tech diplomat."
  Became an independent computer consultant in 2001, but began to turn his attention (and talents as an instructor and communicator) to teaching his 8-hour "Introduction to the Constitution" class.
  But, his background is not as illustriously geeky as Al Gore, whom we all know invented the internet.
3. Re:For More Years by dpilot · 2004-10-12 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Gee, I'm voting for that guy, too.
  
  --
  The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
4. Re:For More Years by flibuste · 2004-10-12 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  "Too many connections in [...] President"
  
  But..I am not working for Halliburton!
5. Re:For More Years by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-13 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  jeeze, and i thought this article was about badnarik wanting hot sweaty man action...
a neat toy... nothing more by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 02:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Your Results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Cobb, David - Green Party (88%)
3. Nader, Ralph - Independent (84%)
4. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (80%)
5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (75%)
6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (72%)
7. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (72%)
8. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (71%)
9. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (70%)
Interesting to say the least. But it leaves out a few issues and the questions aren't clear enough. It would be nice to see issues like tort reform included -- I break with most people on the left with this issue and it would be interesting to see what it did to my score. It would also be neat if it split up the results based on issue -- on social issues I'm probably close to those results for the Green party guy -- but on foreign policy Kerry would probably have gotten a 90-95% with the input that I provided.

It would also be neat if it included the score for the candidates you don't like. There are a small handful of non-important issues that I agree with Bush on -- would he have broken 10% with my input?

A neat tool but it wouldn't have helped me to make my decision if I was still undecided. YMMV

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
1. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by TAGmclaren · 2004-10-12 02:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  it is interesting as you say, but the biggest issue is how do you know that there's no inherent bias built into the system? the only way to decide who to vote for is to make up your own mind. This may be a tool to help you, but please, it's like telling your neighbor/newspaper columnist/random person on the street your views on everything and let them tell you who you should vote for. Fine if it works, but how do you know they don't have a vested interest?
  
  --
  Iran has endorsed
2. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 02:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  but the biggest issue is how do you know that there's no inherent bias built into the system
  
  I never said there wasn't bias built into the system. In fact this comment and my reply seem to suggest that there is bias built into the system -- or that the system is inherently flawed. I lean towards "flawed" more then "biased" but I'm the overly optimistic person by nature.
  
  That's why I said it was a neat toy -- nothing more. I should have expanded on the thought a bit more but my boss walked by so I had to bail out of /. ;)
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
3. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  My list looks suspiciously like yours... 1.Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)Click here for info 2.Cobb, David - Green Party (73%)Click here for info 3.Nader, Ralph - Independent (73%)Click here for info 4.Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (64%)Click here for info 5.Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (61%)Click here for info 6.Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (44%)Click here for info 7.Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (17%)Click here for info 8.Bush, President George W. - Republican (16%)Click here for info
4. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by rmull · 2004-10-12 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  "Come see the bias inherent in the system!"
  
  *ahem*
  
  --
  See you, space cowboy...
5. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by St.+Arbirix · 2004-10-12 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  I got similar results with Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader in the top four. The first Republicrat on my list was Bush though, and he was at the bottom.
  
  I'll bet everyone's getting Badnarik, Cobb, or Nader higher up on the list than Bush or Kerry. It's why there's so much bizarre spin out there in the world, no one agrees with Bush or Kerry enough to not ignore a lot of the things they do.
  
  Does anyone actually get Bush or Kerry as one of the top candidates on their list?
  
  --
  Direct away from face when opening.
6. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by kenneth_martens · 2004-10-12 03:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Your Results:
  
  1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
  2. Cobb, David - Green Party (88%)
  3. Nader, Ralph - Independent (84%)
  4. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (80%)
  5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (72%)
  
  I removed candidates that are no longer running from your list of results. It's interesting that you have four candidates who match your views up to 70% or more according to this quiz. Let's check my results:
  
  1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
  2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (72%)
  3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (60%)
  4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (38%)
  5. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (36%)
  6. Cobb, David - Green Party (26%)
  7. Nader, Ralph - Independent (26%)
  8. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (22%)
  
  I only get one candidate--Badnarik--who breaks the 70% threshhold. And only two candidates break 50%. That suggests to me that the candidates are not evenly distributed along ideological lines. That is, there are more candidates who hold liberal views (and thus your four candidates with 70% a or higher rating) than there are candidates who hold conservative values (as seen in my results.) This suggests several questions: why are candidates not evenly distributed throughout the ideological spectrum? Is this a bad thing for America? If so, how can we change it?
  
  As an aside, I'm not surprised at all at my results on this quiz. I had already decided to vote for Badnarik, and I know that I support Bush over Kerry slightly. And of course all the other candidates are out of the question for me, as they support few or none of the policies I find important.
7. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by MindStalker · 2004-10-12 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Noone seems to agree with me :)
  Your Results:
  
  1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
  2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (69%) Click here for info
  3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (61%) Click here for info
  4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (38%) Click here for info
  5. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (36%) Click here for info
  6. Cobb, David - Green Party (29%) Click here for info
  7. Nader, Ralph - Independent (29%) Click here for info
  8. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (19%) Click here for info
8. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by SandiConoverJones · 2004-10-12 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  I would say that it is a bit more than simply a toy. I looked at this site a few months ago. Unlike most of the major media outlets, they listed the majority of the candidate pool from which voters have to choose. This was a great service. No, I found a few questions that I didn't like the choices of answers. That is typical, but the answers weren't as slanted as many other polls and selectors that I have read. If you came down to a 90% match with a 3rd party candidate, and a 60% match with either the Democratic or Republican candidate, at least it might encourage you to do more research on the suppossed better match. You might actually be more in agreement with another candidate.
  You are only throwing your vote away when voting for a 3rd party candidate as long as this conventional wisdom of the wasted vote is propagated. When people cease to believe that their vote is wasted, and they free their vote to go where their mind and heart are, then they are no longer wasting their votes!
  There is an interesting way of voting for a third party candidate in such a way as to assure that your vote is not wasted. http://votebuddy.org/
  Your Vote is Held Hostage!
  If you have any doubt that America is being ruined by the "Two-Party System" ... well, we have to wonder where you've been!
  Of course, our form of government was never intended to be dominated by two parties ... or one, or three, or any other particular number. The Founders distrusted "factions," knowing that they always seek special advantages from government -- but also knowing they were inevitable. But here we are today, faced with two giant political parties that face no meaningful pressure to behave in the interests of the American people. All each of them needs to do is convince you and me that their policies are just a little less damaging than those of the opposition.
  Voters increasingly find themselves holding their noses and voting for candidates they really don't like -- just because the other major party's candidate for that office is even worse!
  And here's the tragedy: Often there is also a candidate in the race the voter really likes -- but it's a "third party" candidate who everyone agrees has no chance to win. The voter doesn't want to "waste" her vote on a perfectly good candidate, because she feels obligated to vote against the worst of the major party candidates -- the only way she believes she can make a real difference.
  In 2004, she feels compelled to choose between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dumber (and you can decide which of these names refer to Bush and Kerry), even though she doesn't honestly support either of them. Is that sick, or what?!
  But what if she could vote for her real preference without contributing to the bad outcome she fears?
  A "Catch-22"
  Q: Why haven't third party alternatives developed enough of a following that people can vote for them as real, viable options -- potential winners?
  A: Because not enough people have been voting for them.
  Q: Why haven't people been voting for these candidates -- even if they really like them?
  A: Because they haven't been getting enough votes over the years to be viable now!
  Just to belabor the obvious (sometimes you need to do that), there is an inescapable conclusion to be drawn here:
  Unless people start voting for these third party candidates even though they won't win ... this time ... we will be stuck with this same old Mutt-and-Jeff treatment from the major parties FOREVER.
  People feel trapped. How can they support what they believe in when they think it's most important to stop some disaster they expect from one of the major parties?
  Is there any wonder the natives are getting restless?
9. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by KnightNavro · 2004-10-12 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you rule out non-participating candidates, you will get a list that will show candidates that you don't agree with.
10. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by AuMatar · 2004-10-12 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Its because the world isn't as conservative as the republicans like to believe. If you look at the number of people on the registered members of the different parties, there's a LOT more democrats out there than republicans. The problem is that most of them don't vote. This, combined with the large religious right who vote republican for pure religion only, is the only reason such a right wing government exists.
  
  Honestly, look at the rest of the democratic world- the US is the most far right democracy out there. In most countries the Dems would be a moderate right party. Its not because the people of the US are inherently different- most US citizens are "left of center". Its because those left leaning people don't vote, the two party system eliminates candidates that accurately describe them.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
11. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  commie pinko.
12. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by ptbarnett · 2004-10-12 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'm even farther away from the Slashdot median than you:
  1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
  2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (91%)
  3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (44%)
  4. Cobb, David - Green Party (40%)
  5. Nader, Ralph - Independent (40%)
  6. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (36%)
  7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (31%)
  8. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (31%)
  I find it interesting that for me, Bush just barely edges out the Green Party, and that Kerry is ranked below the Socialists and Constitution Party.
  When the load on the server subsides, I'll play with some of the options to see what happens to the results.
13. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by Digital11 · 2004-10-12 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  I did. Bush at #1 with 65%, Kerry at #2 with 56%.
  
  --
  I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Everyone, post your results by finkployd · 2004-10-12 02:25 · Score: 3, Funny

Here are the results of my answers:

Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33

Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 35

Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

Warning: mysql_db_query(): A link to the server could not be established in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

Warning: mysql_fetch_array(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 46

Your Results:

Warning: sort() expects parameter 1 to be array, null given in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 1
1. Re:Everyone, post your results by Loacher · 2004-10-12 02:29 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Choosing from my results, i will probably vote for: Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45
2. Re:Everyone, post your results by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 02:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Choosing from my results, i will probably vote for: Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45
  
  All of these posts of SQL errors (that poor server was slashdotted about two minutes after the story went live -- and the story isn't even on the front page) and nobody has pointed out that they are using the root SQL account with no password on a website? I guess all of the security gurus are probably over here this morning.
  
  In any case I hope their SQL server is behind some sort of firewall. Not that anybody could manage to get into it while it's slashdotted... but still.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
3. Re:Everyone, post your results by Loacher · 2004-10-12 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  The intention of my post was to point to exactly that. How long till someone hacks the site to always say: 1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) 2. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (99%) 3. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (98%) 4. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (97%) 5. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (96%)
4. Re:Everyone, post your results by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  The intention of my post was to point to exactly that. How long till someone hacks the site to always say: 1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) 2. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (99%) 3. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (98%) 4. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (97%) 5. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (96%)
  
  If your going to hack it at least have a sense of humor about it:
  
  1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
  2. Hitler, Adolf - National Socialist (99%)
  3. Stalin, Joesph - Communist (97%)
  4. Hussein, Saddam - Baath (96%)
  5. Castro, Fidel - Communist (94%)
  6. Milosevic, Slobodan - Socialist (93%)
  7. Mussolini, Benito - Facist (92%)
  8. Zedong, Mao - Communist (91%)
  I mean -- if you are going to give them bogus results you might as well have fun with it ;)
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
5. Re:Everyone, post your results by ktulu1115 · 2004-10-12 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45
  
  ...root SQL account with no password
  Exactly what I was thinking... Their developer needs to do a little more homework I'd say.
  
  --
  # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
  #
6. Re:Everyone, post your results by KnightNavro · 2004-10-12 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think Slashdot is entirley responsible for this test being slashdotted. I checked it a few hours ago, before it was linked on Slashdot, after listening to the story on NPR and it was having trouble then.
BIASED RESULTS! by justanyone · 2004-10-12 02:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

I took this test two weeks ago. IT IS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS BUSH. The test is a push poll, a type of poll that askes biased questions in the hopes of directing people in one direction or another.

Specifically, the test's first set of questions dealt with taxes. The question was something like "Are you in favor of more taxes or fewer taxes?" and gave the nod to Bush for being for lower taxes.

This hides the true position of both candidates. Bush and the Republican congress have passed the tax cuts that gave most of the benefits to the richest 1 percent, and barely anything to the middle class or working-class poor.

Kerry has proposed repealing the tax cut (also known as "raising taxes") on the richest 1% in order to pay for important social spending (medicare = healthcare so the very poor and children don't die). Do you want to pay less taxes so children die from not having immunizations, antibiotics when they're sick, fixed broken bones, etc.?

SelectSmart has a good set of polls for other things, but I found this poll to be VERY VERY BIASED and would challenge anyone taking it to consider the way the questions are asked.

--
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
1. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by neitzsche · 2004-10-12 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  My results:
  
  Your Results:
  
  1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
  2. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (58%) Click here for info
  3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (12%) Click here for info
  
  YMMV
  
  --
  "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
2. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  Ummmmm....no. Bush's tax cuts helped everybody. Of course the rich got more money back..because they pay more fucking taxes! Do you honestly believe for one second that Kerry is only going to raise taxes on evil rich people? Hell no! You'll get as much of a tax break from Kerry as you got from Bill Clinton! Middle class tax cut my ass.
  
  Oh, and the "working poor" don't get a tax break because they don't pay any goddamn taxes.
  
  I'm voting for George W. Bush and I approved this message.
3. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by MindStalker · 2004-10-12 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, but what about the corperations that don't pay any taxes.
  
  (free throw question)
4. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by St.+Arbirix · 2004-10-12 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's usually because they give away enough money to charity that the tax deduction is immense. Don't complain about that. Complain about what some states allow be called charity. For instance: software and music.
  
  --
  Direct away from face when opening.
5. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by MindStalker · 2004-10-12 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I could find the breakdown, but the riches 10% are actually paying a higher percent of total taxes than they would be if the tax break hadn't been put into effect. This was a treasury department study. You can find mentions of it searching on the web, but I can't find the actual study :(
6. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by the+morgawr · 2004-10-12 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  IT IS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS BUSH
  I don't think so; I would propose instead that you are heavily opposed to Bush, hence the poll SEEMS biased towards Bush.
  
  --
  The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
7. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by St.+Arbirix · 2004-10-12 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  When the richest ~5% is paying out >50% of the taxes in the United States Bush's tax cuts can be called a severe boon for the rich and bad for everyone else*. Doesn't anyone remember Reagan's "trickle down effect" and what that did for the economy in the 90s?
  
  *aren't all U.S. citizens socialist?
  
  --
  Direct away from face when opening.
8. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by engywook · 2004-10-12 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I won't give an opinion as to whether it's biased. (We all have biases, after all.) However, if you drill down and read the details on each candidate, they claim that they are basing their information on a variety of ratings by a variety of groups. Some of these include: Antional Taxpayers Union; Americans for Tax Reform; Concord Coalition; Children's Defense Fund; NRA; Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Planned Parenthood; National Right to Life Committee; NAACP; and ACLU.
  They also quote from voting records (for folks who have voting records).
  It's possible that they have distorted the meanings of votes, or positions of organizations, etc. However, the details about each candidate would seem fairly easy to check. For example, if they say that a candidate "received 'F' from the NRA", it ought to be fairly easy to check.
  As to whether a bias in the phrasing of the questions can lead to a particular result, it's hard to tell. The fellow on NPR, the Undecided Voter, ended up with only a few percentage points difference between the Republican, Democratic, and Socialist candidates. All three were at the top of his list, at somewhere around 45%. That would lend some evidence to the proposition that if one is undecided, the results may indicate the reason for the lack of decision!
  
  --
  "This signature quote intentionally left blank"
9. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by spitzak · 2004-10-12 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't think it was that bad. I'm pretty much anti-Bush but did not see too many problems with the questions. I guess you could say there was no "tax the rich more and the poor less" checkmark, just "raise taxes" and "lower taxes", that could be taken as eliminating a large number of popular viewpoints. But most of the rest seemed ok.
  
  Of course I only got SQL errors as my results. Guess I'll vote for that SQL guy.
10. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by meta-monkey · 2004-10-12 03:38 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Of course corporations don't pay taxes. I own a small business, which is set-up as a sub-chapter S-corporation. Last year the corporation reported a profit of $38 on the corporate tax returns. So were no taxes paid? Of course we paid taxes. The actual profit from the corporation came to my wife and myself and our employees as salary and dividends, and we paid personal income taxes on those.
  
  If the corporation had saved money for itself, and thereby been required to pay taxes on it, sure, money would have been paid to the federal government, but where would it have come from? It would have come from customers of the business. Taxes are just another business expense, and would be included in the price of goods and services. For example, if a corporation sells a widget that cost $90, and needs to make a $10 profit on it, it can expect to pay $1 in taxes (10% corporate tax rate). So do you think the corporation charges $100 for the widget and then just eats the $1 in taxes? Of course not. The corporation charges about $101 (fine, $101.11) for it and passes the taxes on to the government. Customers (citizens) still pay the tax, they're just unaware of it...the corporation is a tax collector for the government.
  
  Corporate taxes are simply another way congressmen hide the tax burdens with which people are really saddled.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
11. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by St.+Arbirix · 2004-10-12 03:57 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I took this test two weeks ago. IT IS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS BUSH. The test is a push poll, a type of poll that askes biased questions in the hopes of directing people in one direction or another.
  ...
  Kerry has proposed repealing the tax cut (also known as "raising taxes") on the richest 1% in order to pay for important social spending (medicare = healthcare so the very poor and children don't die).
  
  The 80s called, they want "do it for the children" back.
  
  Everyone should know that raising taxes means the (rather socialist) U.S. government will be spending more money on aid programs. If that money had been going toward defense (which used to be the primary concern of a government) then I doubt everyone would be complaining about going into Iraq with such a small and underfunded force.
  
  That said, shame on you for trying to illicit an emotional kneejerk about starving children for the purposes of promoting your candidate.
  
  Do you want to pay less taxes so children die from not having immunizations, antibiotics when they're sick, fixed broken bones, etc.?
  
  You had the brass to complain about push polls after asking a question like that?
  
  --
  Direct away from face when opening.
12. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by MindStalker · 2004-10-12 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  *golf clap*
13. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by RealProgrammer · 2004-10-12 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  >The 80s called, they want "do it for the children" back.
  
  Laugh out loud, realize I'm at work, close office door, oops, too late.
  
  --
  sigs, as if you care.
14. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by DAldredge · 2004-10-12 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Kerry pays less than 13% Income Tax. What makes you think it will go up under his plan? The reason the tax code is so long is so that rich people can leagly not pay much in taxes.
  
  He, like Bush, says one things but does the exact opposite.
15. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by Atzanteol · 2004-10-12 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention that in Massachusetts we have a state income tax as well. And due to a referendum that passed there is actually an option on our state income tax to pay at a higher percentage. This way those people who are in favor of a higher tax can pay it if they like.
  
  Guess which senator(s) from Massachusetts pay it? If you guessed "Neither", you'd be correct!
  
  FWIW less than 1% of 1% (roughtly) actually opted to pay higher. I think it works out to a few thousand people. So much for the bleeding hearts...
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
16. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by Atzanteol · 2004-10-12 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like somebody didn't get the results (s)he expected! :-)
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
17. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by DAldredge · 2004-10-12 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the Dems call for higher taxes then don't pay them.
  
  Kind of like the GOPers who, while calling for 'Family Values', can keep their dicks in their pants. ;->
18. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by Brandybuck · 2004-10-12 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  To most Kerry supporters, anything that doesn't promise a slow painful death for the incumbent seems biased towards Bush.
  
  The poster probably took the test and discovered a 12% score with Bush. Instead of taking heart with a 92% Kerry score, he's panicking that his black-and-white world has some grays in it.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
19. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by N3WBI3 · 2004-10-12 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  This hides the true position of both candidates. Bush and the Republican congress have passed the tax cuts that gave most of the benefits to the richest 1 percent, and barely anything to the middle class or working-class poor.
  That would be because the rich pay more in taxes in teh first place. The top 20% of earners pay almost 80% of the federal tax burden, and the top 1% pays nearly 30% of the tax burden. and the bottom 20% pays a scant -2% (as in they get money back) of the tax burden. Source
  So if you give out a tax break who is going to most benefit by it? thats tight the one out of a hundred people responsable for paying 30% of the tax burden. I suppose the bottom 20% shoud get a tax break to -10%?
  Kerry has proposed repealing the tax cut (also known as "raising taxes") on the richest 1%
  Yes because when you act to increase the amount of taxes somebody spends you are raising their taxes..
  in order to pay for important social spending (medicare = healthcare so the very poor and children don't die). Do you want to pay less taxes so children die from not having immunizations, antibiotics when they're sick, fixed broken bones, etc.?
  Kerry's number (like those of Bush in 2k) dont add up, if you think raising the highest rate will pay for free healthcare (and he did say in the debate *everyone* could use it), free college (for two years of national service), continuing in Iraq (he has promised to commit more soldiers), and to cover the defecit I have some land in Fl to sell you.
  Do you want to pay less taxes so children die from not having immunizations, antibiotics when they're sick, fixed broken bones, etc.?
  And you are complaining about the way the web pages ask the questions?
  
  --
20. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by N3WBI3 · 2004-10-12 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Shame this got modded as a troll its funny (80's comment), and insightful (pointing out the bias)..
  
  --
21. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  When did Clinton switch?
22. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Around the time Newt did.
23. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  Actually I thought the test was incredibly biased towards Kerry!
24. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by AuMatar · 2004-10-12 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or what the same idea did when originally used by Coolidge andHoover in the 20s. The two times trickle dwn was used, it led to two large recessions/depressions and the two biggest stock market crashes in US history.
  
  Hmmmmm. Maybe the concept isn't such good idea then?
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
25. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by XxtraLarGe · 2004-10-12 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  It seems as though you have chosen to eliminate any third party candidates from your results. I wonder who you might have better matched up with if you hadn't done this?
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
26. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by neitzsche · 2004-10-12 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  It had me as "matching" the Green party candidate. But since that is a vote for Bush, I modified it to only show viable candidates. In both cases, Bush matched my concerns the least of any candidate.
  
  I'm surprised my preferences matched even 12% of the current administration's proposed platform. Apparently the survey bases the match on what the candidate *says* as opposed to past performance.
  
  ----
  
  This matching utility was actually quite amusing. The questions wording seemed to be derived from headlines, where they take a party platform and rework a statement into a question - not the best way to get to the root of the issue IMHO.
  
  ----
  
  I suppose when they do this in 2008, I'll be matched perfectly with NY Senator Hillary Clinton (unless Kerry somehow wins this time.)
  
  I wonder what Bill will have to say about that! A million or so geeks "matching" themselves to his wife/first female US president? :-)
  
  --
  "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
27. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by snol · 2004-10-12 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't get my results but I thought it was moderately biased towards Bush in the phrasing of some questions. However this could just be to the current atmosphere where "liberal" is a curse word and Kerry has to spin his opinions as more conservative than they really are. Most of the questions are just too simplistic; of course I'm in favor of preemptive military action if we're actually in danger but I didn't agree that we were in danger from Iraq. (I wonder how they count Kerry's stance on that question; he said in the debates that preemption has always been an acceptible alternative, but Bush says Kerry wants a "global test" etc etc.) Similarly, most people won't check the box for "support the concept of federally funded national healthcare coverage for all or most Americans" but really that'll only distinguish you from a Green or a Libertarian; yes or no on that doesn't represent either of the major parties' stances - though I'd bet leaving the box unchecked like most people will do will bring your Bush percentage up.
  
  yeah, I'm not a big fan of this poll. Though I haven't seen its results yet, I'm getting the impression that people have to more or less admit to being socialist and pacifist in order to justify a higher score on Kerry than Bush.
28. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by snol · 2004-10-12 10:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Eh, that doesn't prove anything. Unless you think he illegally evaded his taxes, I'd assume that he, like every other honest person in the world, is paying the smallest amount of taxes he legally can. The fact that he pays less than 13% of his income does indeed go to show that there are too many loopholes for rich people. He's at least saying that he's going to raise taxes on the rich - and that's what I agree we need to do - whereas Bush is dead set against it.
  
  Anyway, who's running for president who isn't filthy rich? Any politician that climbs that high is already rich so it's automatically against their interests to tax the rich. We're really screwed if even the ones who say they want to tax the rich aren't going to.
29. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by N3WBI3 · 2004-10-12 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that he pays less than 13% of his income does indeed go to show that there are too many loopholes for rich people.
  It goes to show that the man condeming people not paying their fair share goes out of his way not to pay his. WHats even more pathetic is his donations to charity (between 1992-1996 it was about 11$ a month). Only when he is going to be in the national view (in his runup to the 2000 and 2004 elections) has he donated any significant amount of money. He is high on talk and slow on action, like edwards who uses chapter S corporations to avoid paying taxes on 600,000$.
  He's at least saying that he's going to raise taxes on the rich - and that's what I agree we need to do - whereas Bush is dead set against it. Yea cause the current 35% in federal taxes is just not enough. I mean who are they to think they are eneitled to more than 60 cents on the dollar they earn..
  Anyway, who's running for president who isn't filthy rich? Any politician that climbs that high is already rich so it's automatically against their interests to tax the rich. We're really screwed if even the ones who say they want to tax the rich aren't going to.
  Hmm one believes that we should give the rich more chance to invenst their money and publically say so (Bush), the other uses class warfare to win votes and aviodes paying taxes or giving money to charity (John Kerry) You tell me which is worse..
  
  --
30. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by snol · 2004-10-12 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yea cause the current 35% in federal taxes is just not enough. I mean who are they to think they are eneitled to more than 60 cents on the dollar they earn.
  
  And yet John Kerry can legally pay only 13 cents on the dollar. Those other rich people who are paying 35-40% must really hate him and wish that his loopholes were closed.
31. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by N3WBI3 · 2004-10-12 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  And yet John Kerry can legally pay only 13 cents on the dollar. Those other rich people who are paying 35-40% must really hate him and wish that his loopholes were closed.
  Than close the existing loopholes, how does raising the bracket do anything other than trick the middle and lower class into thinking kerry gives a damn.
  Your failing to see hte big picutre. George Bush says that the rich invest their money and create jobs, so what doesw he do? he gives a tax cut to all Americans (rich and poor) and believes they will put that money into the economy. John Kerry believes that the rich dont pay their fair share and says he wants to roll back to a tak rate *he himself* his not willing to pay!
  On is consistant, the other is hunting for votes.. guess which is which..
  
  --
32. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by snol · 2004-10-12 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that Kerry only pays 13% of his income says nothing about his willingness to close loopholes and tax the rich. Would you seriously pay twice the amount in taxes that you legally needed to, even if you believed that was what you should be required to pay?
  
  The big picture includes a lot more than what you said. It includes the fact that we're running up a monumental deficit mostly because of the Bush tax cuts. It includes the fact that the trickle-down "the rich invest their money and create jobs if we give them tax cuts they don't really need" hasn't been creating jobs to live up to the hype. (Yes, John Kerry's job loss figures are inflated. However, even the employment gains over the past year weren't actual gains because they haven't kept up with the growth of the working population.) A tax cut of that same size would have done better for the economy had it targeted the middle and lower classes rather than the upper. Rich folks invest and hire when they feel secure about the economy, which they don't; middle-class people spend money on goods and services just as long as they can afford to do so.
  
  Plus, there are things the government needs to spend that money on, and is spending that money on without having it (hence the deficit.) Remember Homeland Security? Expenditures on that department are a small fraction of the magnitude of the tax cut, and additional funding could be used to better protect ports, borders, and potential targets. Remember No Child Left Behind? Ask some teachers if they're happy with how that's turned out wrt its lack of funding. Remember the states and how they're each running their own deficits?
  
  If the American people want tax cuts for their wealthy employers they should think of a lot more federal expenditures they can do without.
33. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by N3WBI3 · 2004-10-12 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that Kerry only pays 13% of his income says nothing about his willingness to close loopholes and tax the rich.
  It says he is so serious about helping others he avoides paying taxes..
  . It includes the fact that we're running up a monumental deficit mostly because of the Bush tax cuts.
  Do you honestly believe the tax cut is the main reason for the deficit? Wow you are the sheeple, lets look at the numbers (http://www.federalbudget.com/)..
  2000 (Bill Clintons Policy) receipts were 2025 billion Dollars, in 2001 (after 9/11 and the bublble bursting) Receipts were 1991 Billion Dollars (so the difference in receipts was 34 Billion dollars! the estimates for 2004 are estimate to be 2175 Billion dollars (150 billion more in receipts).
  Now lets compare to spending:
  2000: 1788 Billion
  2001: 1864 Billion
  
  So if spending increases by 90 Billion dollars and revenue decreased by 30 Billion dollars which is more at fault? The fact is Bush did fail the American people by growing government something John Kerry did not lift a finger to stop! Name me one major spending bill he voted against? If Bush had not increased spending there would have been no defecit. If I thought for a second two of the most liberal senators would do a 180 and try to cap spending I might just be inclined to vote for them but as it is I have to go third party..
  A tax cut of that same size would have done better for the economy had it targeted the middle and lower classes rather than the upper. Rich folks invest and hire when they feel secure about the economy, which they don't; middle-class people spend money on goods and services just as long as they can afford to do so.
  Do you have some basis for this? do you really believe rich people stop investing money if the economy looks bad, sell all their stock and put in in their matress? Or do rich people move their money to a safer area of investment (note the money is still being invested).
  Plus, there are things the government needs to spend that money on, and is spending that money on without having it (hence the deficit.) Remember Homeland Security?
  The real world numbers dont agre with the ysmoke you are blowing, see above if spending had not been increased (or only increased by 60 Billion) there would be no deficit.
  Remember No Child Left Behind? Ask some teachers if they're happy with how that's turned out wrt its lack of funding.
  And how exactly did John Kerry vote on NCLB? I think the bill was an aweful idea but this was a spending problem not an income problem.
  Remember the states and how they're each running their own deficits?
  And why did all the states and fed go into the red at the same time? its because there was a bubble in the economy and rather than realize that would burst they spent every dime that came in. When the buble burst (after the y2k spending wore off) the states were left with all these bills on the spending they became addicted to.
  If the American people want tax cuts for their wealthy employers they should think of a lot more federal expenditures they can do without.
  So the fact the top 1% of wage earners pays 30% of the tax burden and the to 20% pay nearly 70% is not enough for you? I 100% agree spenging needs to be curbed and thats why I am not voting for either party come election day.
  
  --
34. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by Grym · 2004-10-12 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you right up to this point: "So the fact the top 1% of wage earners pays 30% of the tax burden and the to 20% pay nearly 70% is not enough for you?"
  I think by pointing to those numbers you're ignoring the elephant in the room. The real problem isn't the tax brackets or who pays what. The real problem lies with the distribution of wealth in our society.
  By your presentation one would be left with the impression that an injustice were being done to the top 1% or 20%. Hardly. Our government was designed, from the very beginning, in a manner to cater to the financially elite. (I refer you to Beard's "An Economic Interpretation to the Constitution") It's in this respect that the financially elite who hoard literally billions of dollars owe quite a bit back to the society and legal/financial systems that allow them to amass and maintain their great fortunes at little to no personal effort. (Patents, copyrights, the stock market, government contracts, and federal interest rates--all immediately come to mind as examples.)
  So to answer your question: Do I agree with increasing tax rates on the rich? YES, provided that the per-capita income gap is increasing--which it is... drastically so.
  -Grym
35. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by E_elven · 2004-10-13 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Any poll or questionnaire such as this is biased. If a question is "Is it OK for the US to take unilateral action against an enemy" and 'Y' goes for Bush while 'N' goes to Kerry, then it's a biased question since neither its premises nor conclusions are accurate. This kind of stuff serves to further the Republican image of Kerry. There are, I'm sure, other questionnaires in which the situation is reversed.
  
  Of course one could argue that it's up to the intelligence of the reader to select the 'right' option -as in, decode the media speak to recognize the position they assume matches yours the closest.
  
  I've advocated the quiz from OnTheIssues.org previously and will do so here again. They are doing an excellent job explaining what each answer option really means.
  
  --
  Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
36. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by N3WBI3 · 2004-10-13 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think by pointing to those numbers you're ignoring the elephant in the room. The real problem isn't the tax brackets or who pays what. The real problem lies with the distribution of wealth in our society.
  I think the two are mutually exclusive. As weathy as the top 1% is the do not own 30% of the wealth in this nation so why do they not pay enough taxes? I do think there is an odd problem with the dirtribution of wealth (the Mean has continued to increase but the bell has become more flat over the years.
  Whats very interesting is the if you break up incomes by bracket the bottom two and the very top have seen a decrease in their median incomes (so much for the rich getting richer) while the middle two have had an increase. You complaints about stock are kind off odd, that is injecting money directly into the economy in a way far more efficent than thte federal government.
  So to answer your question: Do I agree with increasing tax rates on the rich? YES, provided that the per-capita income gap is increasing--which it is... drastically so.
  But a fixed % tax will increase the amount they pay every year w/out raising rates (if they are making more money). And you whole premis is off considering the to income bracket (those making over 200,000) have actually had a decrease in real income over the past 15 years (the mean income of their bracket has decreased).
  
  --
37. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by Brandybuck · 2004-10-13 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Any poll or questionnaire such as this is biased.
  
  Well duh! My point was that the previous poster needn't foam at the mouth when he discovers bias.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
38. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-13 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  To me it looked like you were implying that the questionnaire was not biased and any such notion was an incorrect one.
  
  Elf
Is this like a political purity test? by nelsonal · 2004-10-12 02:31 · Score: 1

I'm 80% libertarian pure, must purge the remaining authoritarianism. Kind of a neat little tool, wish that it was more like Slate's whack-a-mole democratic primary selector.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I got some weird results by kajoob · 2004-10-12 02:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Your Results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Kang - (88%)
3. Kodos -(84%)
4. 3rd Party Candidate - Go ahead, throw your vote away

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
1. Re:I got some weird results by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  I, for one, welcome our new ideal theoretical masters.
Disagree by etymxris · 2004-10-12 02:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

It seemed like the questions were leading, but in the opposite direction. I ended up with 7% agreement with Bush.

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) (i.e., writing my own name on the ballot)
2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (81%)
3. Cobb, David - Green Party (78%)
4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (78%)
5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (75%)
6. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (72%)
7. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (66%)
8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (65%)
9. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (64%)
10. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (58%)
11. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (56%)
12. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (56%)
13. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (52%)
14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (43%)
15. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (37%)
16. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (22%)
17. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (19%)
18. Bush, President George W. - Republican (7%)
not so biased -- only overly simple by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 02:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

I took this test two weeks ago. IT IS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS BUSH. The test is a push poll, a type of poll that askes biased questions in the hopes of directing people in one direction or another.

Well the questions are overly simplistic -- that's for sure. That's probably why they bias towards George W. and his black & white view of the world ;)

For example: "Do you support the idea of unilateral military action by the United States?" -- simple answer: Yes. Actual answer: Only if we are in immediate danger (I don't purpose going to the UN if the missiles are inbound) and have exhausted all diplomatic options. Henceforth the Cuban missile crisis would have met the test for unilateral action if the missiles become live (thank god they didn't) -- Iraq did not.

Same situation on taxes. Nobody in their right mind supports more taxes on the middle/lower classes. But it's not a black and white issue by any means.

Perhaps we should make our own website that deals in shades of gray?

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
1. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by cpt+kangarooski · 2004-10-12 02:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actual answer: Only if we are in immediate danger (I don't purpose going to the UN if the missiles are inbound)
  
  Of course, it would be weird going to the UN in such a case, since the UN Treaty already allows for use of force in such cases.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
2. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  "Only if we are in immediate danger (I don't purpose going to the UN if the missiles are inbound) and have exhausted all diplomatic options."
  
  U.S. Embasseys
  USS Cole
  Marine Barracks
  Twin Towers (attempt 1)
  Twin Towers 9/11
  
  maybe we should not wait for immediate danger ...
3. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Kick+the+Donkey · 2004-10-12 03:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And which one of those was planned by the Iraqi government?
  
  --
  /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
4. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  maybe we should not wait for immediate danger ...
  
  The USS Cole and the Marine Barracks are stupid examples because they were military units in harms way. When you send the military into harms way and it gets attacked should you be surprised? Couldn't we have had a better location for refueling the Cole then Yemen?
  
  For the others you are confusing terrorism (largely a law enforcement issue) with military threats (my example would be the threat Israel faced in 1967). To capture and/or kill terrorists we need good intelligence. For intelligence to be effective we need cooperation from the rest of the world. We aren't going to get that when we flip them the bird and march into Baghdad for no reason.
  
  And for the record I wasn't advocating that we sit on our ass waiting to be hit. Preemptive action is the logical choice against terrorists who have declared war on our way of live. It is not the logical choice against nation-states that pose no current or short-term threat to us.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
5. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  "they were military units in harms way" - so if it's a military unit, then terrorists attacks against the unit are okay...
  
  and what of nation-states that support and promote (in whatever fashion - $$$ or harbouring) terrorism...(and I don't mean just Iraq, I expect all, to include Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc to be under the same threat)...
  
  while I understand that life isn't black/white, the bottomline is if you have terriorists in your country and you are NOT actively attempting to eliminate them, then you are implicitely supporting them...
6. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  and how much $$$ did the Iraqi government pay to the families of suicide bombers...
7. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Kick+the+Donkey · 2004-10-12 04:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Okay... Then why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia? Syria? Lebennon? Iran? To some level, they've all supported terrorisim. Why was Iraq so damned important?
  
  --
  /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
8. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  so if it's a military unit, then terrorists attacks against the unit are okay...
  
  Did I say that? Don't put words into my mouth. When you deploy a military unit to a hostile region you should fully expect that it will be attacked and take measures to defend against/prevent such an attack. And I would argue (not that this will be a popular opinion) that an attack on a military unit is guerrilla warfare -- not terrorism. Terrorism is directed at civilian targets.
  
  and what of nation-states that support and promote (in whatever fashion - $$$ or harbouring) terrorism...(and I don't mean just Iraq, I expect all, to include Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc to be under the same threat)...
  
  So your telling me that because Saddam was writing checks to suicide bombers we had to go in and take him out? Were those suicide bombers attacking us? Wouldn't that be an Israeli problem?
  
  And what about Saudi Arabia (15 of 19 hijackers)? You don't see us going after them do you? We have more cause to go after Saudi Arabia (off the top of my head: members of the royal family that financed 9/11, impeded our investigation into the towers bombings, financing Islamic extremism the World over, gouging us with oil prices, undemocratic oppressive Government) then we ever did to go after Iraq and yet we invaded Iraq. Might it have something to do with the Bush->Saud business relationships? Call me cynical.
  
  And what about Iran and North Korea? Did you know that North Korea regularly violates the DMZ? Did you know that if you are stationed on the DMZ and fall asleep during your shift your buddies might find you the next day with a slit throat because the North Korean commando team came through your sector? Did you know that North Korean snipers still take shots at our troops across the DMZ? Did you know that there is still a state of war between the United States/South Korea and North Korea? And yet we take our eye off the ball (while they are building nukes and missiles) and are considering pulling our troops out so we can try to save the mess that Iraq has become.
  
  Why wasn't diplomacy an option against Saddam yet it is against North Korea and Iran? Were Iraqi troops still violating Kuwaiti soil years after the war? Did Iraqi students storm our embassy and take hostages? Couldn't Saddam have been contained without military action?
  
  while I understand that life isn't black/white, the bottomline is if you have terriorists in your country and you are NOT actively attempting to eliminate them, then you are implicitely supporting them...
  
  Define "actively attempting to eliminate them" because Al Quada has terrorist cells in at least 40-50 countries (including the United States). And what terrorists (that were a threat to the United States) was Saddam supporting?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
9. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  and how much $$$ did the Iraqi government pay to the families of suicide bombers...
  
  And which of those suicide attacks targeted the United States? What your really saying is that Israel had reasonable cause to go kick Saddams ass. Had they done so I would have cheered them on. But where does the United States enter into that picture? I don't recall us basing our foreign policy on what's right for Tel Aviv.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
10. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Tanktalus · 2004-10-12 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  And what about Saudi Arabia (15 of 19 hijackers)? You don't see us going after them do you? We have more cause to go after Saudi Arabia (off the top of my head: members of the royal family that financed 9/11, impeded our investigation into the towers bombings, financing Islamic extremism the World over, gouging us with oil prices, undemocratic oppressive Government) then we ever did to go after Iraq and yet we invaded Iraq.
  
  Let's see ... if 15 of 19 hijackers were Canadian, would you think that this is a good reason to invade Canada, even though Iceland was the one selling weapons, offering a safe place to train, etc.? No, I don't think so. As for financing 9/11 - this is the first time I've heard the Saudi royal family financing it - I always thought it was Bin Laden. Afghanistan financing it (directly or indirectly), yes, and Iraq to some degree, yes, but not really the Saudis.
  
  Saudi Arabia financing extremism, yes, getting in the way of investigation, yes. But even that, when deciding who to make an example of, would you go after business partners who could be swayed (and the US didn't succeed as well as the terrorists themselves!), or a madman who gasses his opponents, I think that Dubya chose the right example. Not that he told anyone that's what he's doing (he ain't no saint), but I don't see it as really that bad of a tactic.
11. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  "Did I say that?...etc" - I wasn't attempting to put words in your mouth and I agree, contingencies for attack should be contemplated, however, a military attack (or guerilla warfare) would be predicated upon sustaining the least amount of casualties to the attacking force and as such the preparation to defend against them would be from a differing mindset. The point was, regardless of the target, terrorist attacks are still terriorist attacks, there are no declared hositilities, etc...
  
  writing checks, providing medical treatment, safe haven for training, equipment/funding/etc...yup, to me that adds up to "take him out"...terrorism isn't limited to specific countries being attacked, eventually another country will be attacked, then another, then another. Like cancer, it must be eliminated before it infects other organs (countries)
  
  "Saudi..." - please note I included them in my original post
  
  12+ years of diplomacy is probably enough...talk to me about Iran and N.Korea around 2015...
  
  "actively..." - either personally (native military) or surrogately (probably US military) attempting to incarcerate or eliminate...
  
  P.S. Know all about the DMZ, spent a lovely vacation there...3 times during my 20 years in the military...
12. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  if an arsonist was attempting to set your neighbor's house on fire would a)help your neighbor catch the arsonist and thus prevent your neighbor's house from burning and possibly spreading to your's or b) wait til your neighbor's house burned and the "fire" needed more fuel and started on your house?
13. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  if an arsonist was attempting to set your neighbor's house on fire would a)help your neighbor catch the arsonist and thus prevent your neighbor's house from burning and possibly spreading to your's or b) wait til your neighbor's house burned and the "fire" needed more fuel and started on your house?
  
  Give me a freakin' break. In this case the neighbor is 4,000 miles away and picked his own fight with the arsonist. Your analogy only holds water if the neighbor in question stole the house from the arsonist in the first place.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
14. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  3 questions -
  1) "...neighbor in question stole the house from the arsonist in the first place" - who were the original inhabitants of that region
  2) "...neighbor is 4,000 miles away" - what happened to the "1 world" concept liberals tend to spout
  3) "...neighbor is 4,000 miles away" - then in the case of 9/11, why should we care if France, Germany, et al agree with the Iraq war, we're 4000 miles away from them...
15. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Lisandro · 2004-10-12 07:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I missed the last debate, but something i caught reading a transcript and sounded alarms in my head was Bush saying (and i quote):
  
  "...So I tried diplomacy, went to the United Nations. But as we learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason: He wanted to restart his weapons programs.
  We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there. That's why he called him a grave threat.
  
  I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why.
  
  But Saddam Hussein was a unique threat. And the world is better off without him in power.
  And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more dangerous."
  
  So, in few words, first it was about terrorists, then about WMD, since there were no terorrists there, and now there's no WMD, it's all about Sadaam being an evil, dangerous man. Which is not something i disagree with, but it begs the question: why the fuck did the Bush administration was so eager to rush into war with Iraq - so much that they bypassed the UN completely? To this day, just like you, i have no idea.
  Oil? I thought it was far fetched back then. Now i don't know.
  
  What scares me is that so many people over the USA not only accept this, but embraces and defends this actions.
16. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by E_elven · 2004-10-13 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  who were the original inhabitants of that region
  
  The Arabs? Remember the whole thing about Egypt, Red Sea etc.?
  
  --
  Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
17. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-13 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  The Arabs? Remember the whole thing about Egypt, Red Sea etc.?
  
  might want to go back a little further...
Four more lonely years by xenoarch · 2004-10-12 02:40 · Score: 1

Figures, just like normal computer dating, no one matches me. Maybe I should stop posting ads like:
SWM ISO Polotician enjoys quiet evenings at home discussing tough intellectual issues. Hikes up in the mountains or on the beach at sunset. Must be non-partisan, pro space, pro environment. Light social porkbarreling ok.
1. Re:Four more lonely years by justanyone · 2004-10-12 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  MWMV (married white male voter) iso any mediocre-looking, charismatic uberbrain presidential candidates who understand my long term needs. Should have complex worldview, speak multiple languages, have deep policymaking experience and like kittens. No fearmongering alarmists need call. Should be pro-space but anti-NASA bureacracy; anti-shuttle and pro-X-prize. Should enjoy long hours, few vacations, and tolerate lack of privacy without being an exhibitionist. Ability to not vomit on Japanese prime ministers a plus, Pro-solar/wind a plus. MUST HAVE EXCELLENT GRAMMAR AND VOCAB. Should be treehugger but understand natural role of forest fires. Interested? Apply by starting campaign for city council or school board, I'll watch the papers for your picture! Kisses in advance if you're female. --Yours, John Quepooblic.
  
  --
  Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
Nothing too surprising for me by SecretMethod70 · 2004-10-12 02:51 · Score: 1

Top result: Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (74%)
And that happens to be who I already planned on voting for. Sure, it's simplistic, but I don't think it was so simple to greatly affect accuracy for most people. It's definitely a nice tool to get an idea where to start looking.
1. Re:Nothing too surprising for me by raitchison · 2004-10-12 03:05 · Score: 1
  Pretty unsurprising results really. I'd say it's as accurate as a short test can be.
  
  Your Results:
  
  Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
  
  Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (75%)
  
  Bush, President George W. - Republican (57%)
  
  Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (42%)
  
  Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (38%)
  
  Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (36%)
  
  Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (35%)
  
  Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (35%)
  
  Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (35%)
  
  Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (31%)
  
  Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (30%)
  
  Cobb, David - Green Party (22%)
Not really biased questions by RealProgrammer · 2004-10-12 03:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

I got the sense that the questions were written from a certain perspective, but they were at least orthogonal topically. That means that if you disagree with the perspective of the question you just answer according to your view and everybody's happy.

I think their "bias", if you can call it that, is to determine who you are actually going to vote for, not to change your mind. For instance:
4. Federal funding of "corporate welfare", which has been defined as "special government subsidies or benefits that are targeted to specific industries or businesses":
Rather than state the question as:
4. Federal targeting of benefits to specific industries or businesses to encourage economic growth:
The latter form might get the unsuspecting to consider whether federal funding for specific businesses is a good thing. The "corporate welfare" tag would make almost anyone see it as bad.
The poll worked pretty well for me, lining up with my own ranking fairly well:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) 2. Bush, President George W. - Republican (81%) 3. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (64%) 4. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (41%) 5. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (34%) 6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (32%)

--
sigs, as if you care.
Seeking Presidential Candidate by node+3 · 2004-10-12 03:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Seeking Presidential Candidate who's not afraid to speak his mind, but afraid to change it. Must be willing to "break a few eggs" even when not making an omelet. Firm grasp of the English language not required. Aversion to science a plus. Must be staunchly pro-life before birth, but somewhat anti-life after birth.

Would like to share beautiful sunsets with said candidate, and have heard that sunset through nuclear fallout is sublime. Into kinky sex involving hoods, restraints and more than a little rough handling.

Popularity not required.

Are you my candidate? Call off the election today and tell me for it's my own good, and I'll be yours forever.

Signed,
Ms. Informed
See My Journal by justanyone · 2004-10-12 03:12 · Score: 1

Hey, I've covered this. My slashdot journal "What Makes a Good President" summarizes attributes needed in a president. You decide if you like them.

Slashdot Journal is here: Justanyone's journal

--
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
Is there a... by metalhed77 · 2004-10-12 03:17 · Score: 1, Funny

I like leaders who are grossly incompetent and lie to their country checkbox? Seriously, even if you agree with nominative republican values, many serious conservative groups are jumping ship this election. Think Andrew Sullivan, the Economist magazine, and the Cato institute (OK they're libertarian, but it's notable that they aren't supporting bush for reelection).

--
Photos.
I'm not even American... by heistgonewrong · 2004-10-12 03:20 · Score: 1
Your Results:
- 1.Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
- 2.Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (72%)
- 3.Cobb, David - Green Party (68%)
- 4.Nader, Ralph - Independent (68%)
- 5.Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (48%)
- 6.Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (46%)
- 7.Bush, President George W. - Republican (25%)
- 8.Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (19%)
I'm not a Yank, and definitely not a Socialist... booo.
Where's the Communist Party candidate?? by Dr+Kool,+PhD · 2004-10-12 03:37 · Score: 1, Troll

Oh, that's right, the Communist Party of America is supporting John Kerry!!

Communist Party of America - www.cpusa.org
1. Re:Where's the Communist Party candidate?? by Edax+Rarem · 2004-10-12 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Communism sure is better the facism, which is where we are heading if W wins.
  
  --
  I hate my sig.
2. Re:Where's the Communist Party candidate?? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  Communism sure is better the facism, which is where we are heading if W wins.
  Go live in China or Cuba--as a native citizen--for a while then get back to us. I'm not saying you're unpatriotic, I'm just saying you're a useful idiot to the wrong side of the debate.
3. Re:Where's the Communist Party candidate?? by Brandybuck · 2004-10-12 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Holy Shit! They are supporting Kerry! I'm going to have to apologize to my John Birch friends for calling them paranoid nutbags...
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
4. Re:Where's the Communist Party candidate?? by ragnar · 2004-10-12 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure if you meant this as a joke, but they clearly refute this claim on their site. However, they do think Bush is bad for the country, but I bet on the political spectrum they see little difference between Bush and Kerry.
  
  --
  -- Solaris Central - http://w
didn't work for me by gothzilla · 2004-10-12 03:58 · Score: 1

Presidential Selector kept giving me this even with multiple tries in different browsers. Anyone else have problems? Maybe it's a sign that I just should stay the hell away from the voting booths this election....

Warning: mysql_connect(): Access denied for user: 'ssmart_3@216.92.131.111' (Using password: YES) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33

Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 35

Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45
1. Re:didn't work for me by Edax+Rarem · 2004-10-12 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Hello,
  Site is being slashdotted and they know it.
  
  Warning: Due to recent national publicity about this site, your results may not be available. Please bookmark this page and visit us in a few hours when traffic is reduced to more normal levels. We apologize for any inconvenience.
  
  --
  I hate my sig.
Reverse Engineering by 4of12 · 2004-10-12 04:21 · Score: 2, Funny

This was described as a kind of 'computer dating service' for deciding which of the remaining presidential candidates match your views most closely.

Easy - whichever presidential candidate has the most cute chicks as fans match my views the best.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."
1. Re:Reverse Engineering by EvilCowzGoMoo · 2004-10-12 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Easy - whichever presidential candidate has the most cute chicks as fans match my views the best.
  College Humor is thinking exactly along those lines.
HULK for President! by xmas2003 · 2004-10-12 04:26 · Score: 2

The Hulk has entered the race as a late candidate and you can even vote for him (versus those Puny Human Bush and Kerry!) at his official campaign site

--
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Your Results: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 04:52 · Score: 0

Your Results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Bush, President George W. - Republican (80%)
3. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (47%)
4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (42%)
5. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (41%)
6. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (38%)
7. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (36%)
8. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (35%)
9. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (32%)
10. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (27%)
11. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (27%)
12. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (24%)
13. Cobb, David - Green Party (23%)
14. Nader, Ralph - Independent (23%)
15. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (20%)
16. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (18%)
17. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (16%)
18. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (8%)
Am I THAT Anti-Badnarik? by dman123 · 2004-10-12 05:12 · Score: 1

...

13. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (62%)
14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (37%)
15. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (29%)
...

I would not vote for Badnarik, given the chance. However, it's him after Brown and LaRouche? Am I that much of a wacko? (Yes, I left the candidate filtering off)

--

--
dman123 forever!
Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
Interesting, but flawed by hopemafia · 2004-10-12 05:20 · Score: 1

All in all I'd say it does a pretty good job...at least for my views:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (66%)
3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (52%)
4. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (44%)
5. Cobb, David - Green Party (32%)
6. Nader, Ralph - Independent (32%)
7. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (31%)
8. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (18%)

If I had been making that list myself, I would have ordered them: Badnarik, Peroutka, Nader, Cobb, Bush, Kerry, Brown.
But then, I tend to respect people who know what they stand for even if I disagree with their views (to a point), so maybe I do agree with Bush more often than Pertouka, Nader, and Cobb but just don't like him (or more importantly his VP and Sec Def, who seem to be running the show).

I think the flaw in this setup is that it takes the candidates at their word...and far too often the "official position" of a candidate (especially for the R&D's) on an issue is only for show.

--
If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
thie article's website is a toy. here's the tool: by evilmousse · 2004-10-12 05:44 · Score: 2, Informative

www.vote-smart.org

enter zip code = get all candidates you can vote on

choose a candidate and you can find out:
-a terse biography
-their voting record
-their publicly stated policy
-their financial backing
-how a rainbow of interest groups approve/disapprove of their voting record

the site is simplistic and packed with unslanted info. just as i like 'em. it's by far the best resource i've come accross yet.

to give credit, i came accross this site via one of my Senators' websites, Russ Feingold. He was cosponsor along with John McCain for campaign finance reform, and I couldn't be more pleased with him.
Re:thie article's website is a toy. here's the too by panda · 2004-10-12 06:01 · Score: 1

That site is pretty good, but it didn't tell me about the two guys running for Sheriff of Essex Co. I really want to find some info. about them but am having a tough time.

I wish they'd get more local than just state elections.

Oh well, only so many hours in a day, I guess. ;)

--
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Nothing new here by exi1ed0ne · 2004-10-12 06:17 · Score: 1

All is as it should be:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (90%) Click here for info
3. Cobb, David - Green Party (47%) Click here for info
4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (47%) Click here for info
5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (40%) Click here for info
6. Bush, President George W. - Republican (37%) Click here for info
7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (34%) Click here for info
8. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (33%) Click here for info

--
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
Re:thie article's website is a toy. here's the too by evilmousse · 2004-10-12 06:21 · Score: 1

I wholeheartedly agree. I think we should
definetly put more attention into our
candidates the more local they are, yet
the means to find worthwhile information
for local candidates is far from convenient.
My results by icanoop · 2004-10-12 06:25 · Score: 1

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (91%) Click here for info
3. Cobb, David - Green Party (43%) Click here for info
4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (43%) Click here for info
5. Bush, President George W. - Republican (37%) Click here for info
6. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (35%) Click here for info
7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (32%) Click here for info
8. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (29%) Click here for info
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING BOGUS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-12 06:41 · Score: 0

So I'm leaning towards Badnarik but I thought maybe there's some candidate that would be a better fit since there are a few libertarian issues I don't like so much. But here's my results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (61%)
3. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (57%)
4. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (55%)
5. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (54%)
6. Cobb, David - Green Party (51%)
7. Nader, Ralph - Independent (51%)
8. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (50%)
9. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (49%)
10. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (46%)
11. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (45%)
12. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (44%)
13. Bush, President George W. - Republican (38%)
14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (38%)
15. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (37%)
16. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (36%)
17. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (25%)

AL FUCKING SHARPTON????? That guy is the fucking king of Jackassland. I wouldn't vote for him if his only opponent were Osama bin Laden. Or Bill Gates. Where the fuck did Al Sharpton come from? I'd say my views go along fairly well with libertarian ideals, so the Badnarik result makes sense. But Sharpton? He's like the anti-libertarian. He's all about being a big old jackass flapping his jackass lips about how The Man is beating him down while in the same breath being a Democrat who wants to increase government to fight the power!! He's a walking contradiction in a jackass suit. Did I mention he's a jackass?

So I conclude this whole thing is a crock of shit. But at least it put Bush way down there where he belongs. There's another jackass, but then I'd even vote for Jr. over Al Fucking Sharpton.

Unbelievable.
1. Re:ABSOLUTELY FUCKING BOGUS by MindStalker · 2004-10-12 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well it selected him based on his reported believes, possibly not real. He contends to be a middleline market, free people idealist. He also gets props from the ACLU and NAACP which up his score for you. What is actually is, is a whole different ball of wax.
  Funny thing is I selected agree with ACLU while against NAACP, which doesn't really mean that I am against the ideals that the NAACP stands for but simply that I am against the jackasses who run it and the race-baiting and idea supression that actually happends.
2. Re:ABSOLUTELY FUCKING BOGUS by MindStalker · 2004-10-12 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Oh god, I should preview!
Slashdotted . by trainedCodeMonkey · 2004-10-12 08:15 · Score: 1

Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33 4:15 10/12/2004
Fairly close, but a few severe problems.... by iwadasn · 2004-10-12 10:01 · Score: 1

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Cobb, David - Green Party (86%) Click here for info
3. Nader, Ralph - Independent (79%) Click here for info
4. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (76%) Click here for info
5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (73%) Click here for info
6. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (70%) Click here for info
7. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (67%) Click here for info
8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (67%) Click here for info
9. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (66%) Click here for info
10. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (63%) Click here for info
11. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (62%) Click here for info
12. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (61%) Click here for info
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (43%) Click here for info
14. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (39%) Click here for info
15. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (34%) Click here for info
16. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (17%) Click here for info
17. Bush, President George W. - Republican (10%)

The socialist party, I can see. I did check the full employment box after all, however the greens and Nader are absolutely disallowed by their bush like "use science when it agrees with me, make stuff up when it doesn't" stance on environmental issues. Though their views are diametrically opposed to Bush's (and closer to my own), their utter disregard for facts and figures is absolutely shocking. Being a physicist, I'll tell you that I've checked their numbers on nuclear issues many times, and it's almost unheard of to see an anti-nuke article without at least half a dozen bold lies about basic scientific facts.
David Cobb for Everyone by Caseyscrib · 2004-10-12 17:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

I found this page very interesting - http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/who.php. They compiled a list based on everyone's responses what the idea candidate for everyone would be. I was surprised to see the results.

Winners of the presidential selector race:
36% Cobb, David - Green Party
31% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
18% Bush, President George W. - Republican
6% Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian
3% Brown, Walt - Socialist Party
2% Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat
2% Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat
1% Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat
1% Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat
0% Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat
0% Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat
0% Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat
0% Nader, Ralph - Independent
0% Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party
0% Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat
0% LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat
0% ideal theoretical candidate.

According to this, it would be in America's best interest if David Cobb were president. We are being shafted, because I can't honestly say I've heard his name once on TV. I was also intersted to find that he got a 68% on my matchup, ranking in at #2 behind Badnarik (who got 69%). Nobody passed the 70% mark. After reading Cobb's positions, I want to vote for this guy, but I live in NH and its going to be a damned close battle. Kerry got a 46%, which I guess is close enough. If this was not a vote for my country's future, I'd vote Green. Unfortunatly, I have to vote for the viable candidate, Kerry. In 2008 I'll vote my heart.

This page was also interesting. 63% of Americans feel we must have a balanced budget, 80% support universal health care, 58% agree with the ACLU, and 54% agree with the League of Conservation Voters. I rarely *ever* hear CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC talk about these issues, yet they are of high importance to most Americans. That goes to show you just how poor quality broadcast journalism has become in this country.
Re: tax cuts by E_elven · 2004-10-13 02:27 · Score: 1

A rich person makes, say, $350 000.00 per year. A working poor makes, say, $35 000.00 per year (which is more than I do).

If we grant both a two-percentage-point tax decrease, they will respectively get $7000.00 and $700 back.

The next part of the evaluation deals with the redistribution of those funds. Which do you think will put a greater portion of their tax cut back into the direct market (rent, mortgage, food etc.) and which to the indirect (savings, retirement, investments)?

If the race still seems tight to you, consider where the money is coming from. Which would you rather be without: sewer maintenance or botox injections?

--
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!