Kerry and Bush Answer Questions on IT Industry

screw both of them by schnits0r · 2004-10-21 06:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

The problem is that if everyone elects higher class, they will only look after the higher class anyways. It's clearly defined in this Mousland Speech here: The Story of Mouseland as told by Tommy Douglas, 1944 It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do. They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats. Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are. Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort. All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats. Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said: "The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever. And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat. You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice. Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!" So they put him in jail. But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea.

--

-------
Support Indy Music. Buy

Re:screw both of them by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2004-10-21 06:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

In Soviet Mouseland, the mice elected to the mouse government turn out to be cannibals. Sad, but true.

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:screw both of them by Country_hacker · 2004-10-21 07:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

"The fundamental problem with representative government is that the people who would be best for the job least want it, and vice versa."

--
Never give any object more potential energy than you want it to have.
Re:screw both of them by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 07:07 · Score: 0

You hit that one on the head!
Re:screw both of them by MindStalker · 2004-10-21 07:25 · Score: 1

Yes, but the basic ideas of capitolism still took place. The cats ate up all the mice, and soon there were no mice left, so the cats put the mice the endangered species list untill there were plenty of mice. Eventually after a few runs of taking them on and off the list they finally found a way to eat just enough mice so that they stayed fat while allowing the mice population to grow. Moral of the story, umm we're just food, but don't overharvest us :)
Re:screw both of them by Slime-dogg · 2004-10-21 08:42 · Score: 1

At least the cats knew how to use line breaks.

There is a slight problem with the analogy, though. It doesn't really say if the mice were writing their votes in or not. If they were, they deserve exactly what they get. If they were not, then the problem is legitimate, since they wouldn't have a choice of who to vote for.

The latter is more like the US's situation, where the two parties do everything that they can to prevent the entry of other parties into the democratic process.

--
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Re:screw both of them by renehollan · 2004-10-21 11:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Write-in votes are not permitted in Canada.
A would-be candidate requires (at least this was the number around 1993) 100 nominating signatures from their chosen riding (rather like an electoral district) in order to appear on the ballot there. If a sufficient number of like-minded candidates from a common party meet this qualification in enough ridings, they can be listed under their party name as well, instead of as "Independent".
You'd think this would result in a very large number of candidates on the ballot, what with the low barrier to entry (well, the nominations, and the $1000 fee - almost entirely tax-refundable (you contribute it to your campaign for a $450 tax break, and at least half gets returned to the campaign after you file your paperwork -- all of it if you get 15% of the vote)).
Sadly, Canadians are so apathetic, that rarely do non-mainstream candidatates get enough nominations to appear on the ballot.
Of course, I'm quoting early 90's requirements -- they may have changed since.

--
You could've hired me.
Re:screw both of them by nickos · 2004-10-21 21:24 · Score: 1

Perhaps we should do what the ancient Greeks did and randomly select citizens to run the country. Before you dismiss the idea, bear in mind that this is essentially the same system that we still use to this day in juries.
Re:screw both of them by renehollan · 2004-10-22 06:45 · Score: 1

To correct myself: listing a party affilliation simply requires being a member of a recognized political party. That requires having a large enough number of candidates run in the previous election (listed, possibly, as independents).
It used to be the case that not running sufficient candidates (the number was 50 for recogition in the next election and deregistration after the current one), would result in deregistration of the party. But, that was challenged by the Communist party around 1997, IIRC. They, and the Libertarian Party of Canada (talk about politics making for strange bedfellows!) benefitted from the challange: They won in the courts, and the government did not invoke the hideous "notwithstanding" clause of the Canadian constitution to overrule that (Yes, Canadian federal and provincial governments can overrule the Supreme Court of Canada. And this doesn't bother anyone. Idiots.).

--
You could've hired me.
Re:screw both of them by WhiplashII · 2004-10-22 08:07 · Score: 1

An idea I've been toying with achieves a similar result (adding random elements to election) but still attempts to find the best person for the job. Basically, you divide society up (randomly, but based on location so you can meet your group) into groups of 10 people. Out of that group of people, 1 is selected to represent that group. Then all of the "winners" get together and are randomly divided into groups of ten again, etc. In the USA, you would have 9 levels - and each time people would be choosing the "best" based on personal interaction with the selected person. When the final group of 10 (probably amazingly qualified people) selects 1, that person is president.

The advantages of such a system are:

1. It does not inconvenience the common man much.
2. Each level of group "leaders" is iteratively better, so more chances of eliminating "bad" choices.
3. Incumbants have to go through many levels of possible rejection, and so have a much harder time getting elected based on imcumbancy alone.
4. It preserves the idea from the electoral college of choosing someone that you know will represent the desires of your group.
5. It limits the abilities of powerfull people (such as media) to influence the outcome.

As far as I know, this is original with me. But since everything that could be invented had been by the 1800s, probably not...

Any thoughts?

--
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Re:screw both of them by autumnpeople · 2004-10-23 04:32 · Score: 1

While I truly hate the fact that we can't seem to do any better in this country then simply re-electing the people who screw us over on a regular basis, I think the random notion is a bit flawed. We have to think back to how the Romans society worked versus how our society does. In Roman society there were a limited number of wealthy men who were citizens. They owned businesses and were generally educated. Can't say the same about the general population of most countries. Just look at some of the trolls running around Slashdot, would you want one of them running even your city (or sitting on your jury)?

I do think we need to find a way for more of us who want change / sanity in politics to get involved. I know that my biggest factor in not running is that I don't want people digging in to my private life and the things I do on my own time. More and more we are basing our decisions on decisive ideas and what the person has done in his past then what his or her current plans our for our country. People with good ideas who want to see change are often put off running by the thought of every stupid thing they have ever done in their life time becoming public knowledge and being used against them. Do we care if someone had a lot of sex and experimented with drugs, or do we care that they have a plan to make sure kids in this country have health care and that citizens can make a living wage?

Until such a time that the media goes back to focusing on policy and what the candidate does in his public office, as opposed to the privacy of his own home, I don't think we will get anything better then we have today. Two parties with the most bland and mediocre individuals at the helm...
Re:screw both of them by E_elven · 2004-10-24 04:19 · Score: 1

The problem is that the ones most likely to 'win' a group are more likely exceptionally good in A) lying, B) manipulating and C) other malevolent people skills than just 'good guys'.

--
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Re:screw both of them by WhiplashII · 2004-10-25 06:34 · Score: 1

Yes, but that is true now also - and it is far easier to lie via the media than to lie in person. At least we would get the best out of the group of liars elected, because after the first round knocks out all the non-liars the remaining people still have to narrow down the options. Also, "liars" tend to be good at detecting other "liars," possibly even predicting what they will really do, so it would still be a more informed decision then the current method.

--
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;

Bush Training plan won't work by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-10-21 06:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

A changing workforce requires us to modernize our financial aid programs. I will make loans available to help workers pay for short-term training that leads to an industry-recognized credential or certificate. We must also revise outdated loan restrictions to expand access to competency-based programs, allow students and workers to take courses throughout the year, and eliminate current restrictions to promote distance education.

All this will do is raise the cost on competency-based programs. Already New Horizons charges $17,500 for their suite of certification courses- NOT because this is what it costs, but because this is what can be gotten from a student loan.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Bush Training plan won't work by MindStalker · 2004-10-21 07:31 · Score: 1

He didn't say encourage loan amounts, simply what you can use loans for. And yes I agree that there is some overcharging, but ultimatly if people would wise up and understand they have to pay these loans back eventually prices would go down. Or maybe the people taking these classes think the classes will pay for themselves in extra earnings, therefor the price isn't inflated.
Re:Bush Training plan won't work by Gary+Destruction · 2004-10-21 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not to be off topic, but certification courses teach you just that -- How to pass a certification. That means you've learned how to pass a test, not how to understand the fundamental concepts of the subjects revelant to the field.
Re:Bush Training plan won't work by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-10-21 07:51 · Score: 1

He didn't say encourage loan amounts, simply what you can use loans for. And yes I agree that there is some overcharging, but ultimatly if people would wise up and understand they have to pay these loans back eventually prices would go down. Or maybe the people taking these classes think the classes will pay for themselves in extra earnings, therefor the price isn't inflated.

In my area- New Horizons does everything they can, including false advertising, to lead people to that last conclusion. Just last week they had an advert in the Oregonian that a person with an A+ certification, an MCSE, and Cisco certification, could be earning $74,000/year with NO EXPERIENCE. If you believe that, there's a bridge in Canby, OR I'd like to sell you.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Bush Training plan won't work by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-10-21 07:53 · Score: 1

Not to be off topic, but certification courses teach you just that -- How to pass a certification. That means you've learned how to pass a test, not how to understand the fundamental concepts of the subjects revelant to the field.

Not off topic at all- and a very good point! This is one of the major reasons why the inflated salaries used in advertisements for these certification courses rarely come true.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Bush Training plan won't work by MindStalker · 2004-10-21 07:58 · Score: 1

COULD EARN is the word. But there is a sucker born every minute. Do I feel sorry for them? No. Mainly because they are deluting my career field and making it harder for me to get paid what I'm worth.
Re:Bush Training plan won't work by MobyDisk · 2004-10-21 14:33 · Score: 1

There is a common belief that certifications are wothless because tests are worthless. I assume that is the basis for the points I just read. But it isn't so. It is not accurate to say that is the case for all certification courses. It may be the case for many courses, but dismissing all forms of testing and certification is unfair.

Psychometrics, the application of psychology to measurement and testing, is a well-established field of science. The problem is that it is often cheaper to do skip the pshyometrics and just ask random questions.

By applying psychometric principles to testing, it is possible to evaluate someone's ability in most subjects with a high accuracy. In the case of no-child-left-behind, if the tests are done properly they can be very very useful. If they are done properly, it becomes impossible to "teach to the test" which is befinicial to students, teachers, and parents.

Please do not dismiss an entire field of science, or all forms of testing, just because you think some test sucks.

THanks.

It would be nice if... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 06:26 · Score: 0

These comments were actually written by the candidates. They were probably written by a first year intern for the campaigns :/

The replies... by HexaByte · 2004-10-21 06:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Show that Bush has more depth on the subjects (yes, it may be just better coaching), while Kerry again and again says (in essence) " I can do a better job than him if I'm elected."

--
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!

Re:The replies... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 06:36 · Score: 0

I smell a Bush supporter :)

Seriously, if you think Bush was merely "coached" I have a bridge to sell you. He has a small army of people to write this shit for him, then two or three people to read it to him and explain all the multi-sylable words and concepts so that he can sign off on it.
Re:The replies... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 06:43 · Score: 0

i think it has something to do with campaign strategy. Kerry is trying to show he can be concise and straightforward, while Bush is trying to show he can think and speak in long, complete sentances.

And I would guess it wasn't just "coaching". Most likely neither candidate wrote a word of this.
Re:The replies... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 06:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

I doubt either candidate answered these questions without trained professionals polishing the responses. Neither is as stupid as the other would portray, but campaigns just don't run that way.

Fortunately, we scarcely need Bush's replies to many of these questions... we can already see how well the U.S. IT sector is flourishing under the policies of his administration. I notice he touts CAN-SPAM on the question of unsolicited email, and my inbox shows me how effective that has been. And of course we all witnessed how well effectively the Bush administration was in the Microsoft antitrust case.

Kerry may be no better, but I think it's worth a roll of the dice.
Re:The replies... by MindStalker · 2004-10-21 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Personally I'd rather vote for the guy who has intelligent staff who can offer real insight, than someone who simply says me too. Most of the best presidents have been great because of their staff.
Re:The replies... by SpaceLifeForm · 2004-10-21 07:36 · Score: 1

And you believe that bush actually wrote those responses? Bush could not have written those responses because he couldn't even speak them!

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:The replies... by Kevin+Stevens · 2004-10-21 07:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am a Kerry supporter and Bush hater, and I have to say that Bush's responses were far better. They were more detailed and contained specific ideas of what he has done, and what he plans to do.

Of course, I do not believe that Bush (or Kerry) actually wrote any of this. But at the same time, his team apparently understands the issues alot better than Kerry's team, and that is important. Do I really think Bush or Kerry have a friggen clue as to what VOIP is? Noooo way. In fact, I am not even sure that if either Bush or Kerry even read the responses, they would fully understand what was being discussed. However, when something like the Can-Spam act comes across their desk, it appears Bush has a much better team working for him to put it in little words he can understand and thus should be able to make better decisions on these types of issues.
Re:The replies... by MindStalker · 2004-10-21 07:38 · Score: 1

Well its really hard to judge the IT sectors strength as there is no baseline. Its not like your can take the late 90's bubble as something to compare it with, I'd rather have a surviving but strungling IT sector than one built on a dream that will burst and cost our economy in the long run.
Also CAN-SPAM has worked great for me, when combined with a decent filter I get almost no spam email messages, I have no idea if this has anything to do with CAN-SPAM or not, though I do love the Do-Not-Call list.
Re:The replies... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 07:38 · Score: 0

Am I the only one that thinks that keeping unsolicited email out of my inbox is my responsibility using things like spam filtering?

And oh how I long for the wonderful IT days under Clinton's administration. I mean hell Al Gore invented the Internet. :)

But seriously does anybody think that had W not been in office we wouldn't be seeing jobs going overseas. They work for cheaper so that's where jobs go, its that simple.
Re:The replies... by Edax+Rarem · 2004-10-21 08:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't you think a more intelligent person could appoint a more intelligent staff?
W did nothing but drum up a bunch of good ol' boys that were his father's friends.
Those that are questionable:
Rice (playing the obsequious lapdog and ignoring her job so she can go on the campaign trail with W, and lying for him in front of the 9/11 commission ("there were no actionable items on that memo" Hey Condi, it is YOUR job to take those actions)) is obviously just along for the ride.
And I honestly can't figure out Powell. I used to think he would be POTUS some day, but I think W has ruined his career.

Let's face it.. W's staff have screwed up as much as, if not more that W has.

The world was better off when the worse thing the POTUS did was get a BJ in the OO.

--
I hate my sig.
Re:The replies... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 09:14 · Score: 0

"Rarely is the question asked... is our children learning?"

If Bush wrote even a smidgeon of those replies, then I'm a banana hammock.
Re:The replies... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 09:46 · Score: 0

Doesn't matter how good your staff is if you don't listen to them. Bush has shown time and again that he's not willing to learn from those who aren't saying what he wants to hear.
Re:The replies... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 13:23 · Score: 0

If Kerry is trying to show that he can be straightforward then why does he use the phrase "I am open..." three times in his reponses?
Re:The replies... by MSBob · 2004-10-22 03:35 · Score: 1

Exactly. Most Americans seem to forget that voting for Dubya implies giving power to sleaze like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft and Rice. Now, it's funny how all those people faded into the background during the campaign and especially during RNC. It's a message in and of itself when Schwarzenegger is chosen to speak at RNC instead or Rumsfeld or Ashcroft. People's memories seem very short when it comes to public figurs.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.

Disappointing answers to a disappointing question by Dachannien · 2004-10-21 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

CompTIA asked both candidates about their stances on digital media and legitimate consumer use, and both candidates gave wishy-washy answers that indicated their favorableness to supporting the rights of consumers. But it's fairly obvious that they were both catering to their audience, having been tipped off by the nature of the question.

http://www.comptia.org/pressroom/election_2004.asp x#5

What should federal policy be toward protecting intellectual property on the Internet - recognizing the harmless role played by mere conduits - and facilitating the free flow of ideas based on those creations?

This just means that yet another opportunity to find out whether either candidate supports limitations on DRM/broadcast flag/DMCA is wasted. Why not ask a more pointed, but less coached, question? "Do you feel the DMCA has provided adequate, insufficient, or excessive protections to copyright holders?" "Do you support or oppose the mandatory compliance of electronic devices with the digital broadcast flag?" "Do you support or oppose the DMCRA?"

Kerry is a senator. by DAldredge · 2004-10-21 06:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

What bills has Kerry introduced to impliment his ideas?

Also, What bills has Bush asked the GOP leaders in congress to pass?

They say one thing and do another. Both major parties are full of people who would not know the truth if it hit them in the ass.

Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? by DAldredge · 2004-10-21 06:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

"My FY 2005 Budget would double funding for Justice Department programs that investigate and prosecute child exploitation and obscenity over the FY 2001 level. "

Notice how obscentiy doesn't have the world child in front of it? That is because the want to restart the 80's war on porn. Bush, like a lot of people on the right (and far left) have a major problem with porn and wish to use the goverment to get rid of it.

Google for "Protection from Pornograpy Week"

Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? by squiggleslash · 2004-10-21 07:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
Could be read either way: "prosecute child exploitation and obscenity over the FY 2001 level" could be:
1. prosecute "child exploitation" and "obscenity" over the FY 2001 level.
2. prosecute child "exploitation and obscenity" over the FY 2001 level.
I don't think you can read too much into that. A better solution would be to look at what the Justice Department is doing now. By all accounts, the pornography industry - legitimate and illegitmate both - are extremely concerned about the rhetoric coming out of John Ashcroft's office.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? by MindStalker · 2004-10-21 07:29 · Score: 1

Yes, but the supreme court already ruled on this so there really is nothing they can do is there. BTW "obsenity" is illigal just that what makes something obsence can change from place to place. But on the internet it pretty much is only child porn and encouraging minors to view regular porn.
Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? by DAldredge · 2004-10-21 07:54 · Score: 3, Informative

Protection From Pornography Week, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

Pornography can have debilitating effects on communities, marriages, families, and children. During Protection From Pornography Week, we commit to take steps to confront the dangers of pornography.

The effects of pornography are particularly pernicious with respect to children. The recent enactment of the PROTECT Act of 2003 strengthens child pornography laws, establishes the Federal Government's role in the AMBER Alert System, increases punishment for Federal crimes against children, and authorizes judges to require extended supervision of sex offenders who are released from prison.

We have committed significant resources to the Department of Justice to intensify investigative and prosecutorial efforts to combat obscenity, child pornography, and child sexual exploi-ta-tion on the Internet. We are vigorously prosecuting and severely punishing those who would harm our children. Last July, the Department of Homeland Security launched Operation Predator, an initiative to help identify child predators, rescue children depicted in child pornography, and prosecute those responsible for making and distributing child pornography.

Last year, I signed legislation creating the Dot Kids domain, a child-friendly zone on the Internet. The sites on this domain are monitored for content and safety, offering parents assurances that their children are learning in a healthy environment. Working together with law enforcement officials, parents, and other caregivers, we are making progress in protecting our children from pornography.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 26 through November 1, 2003, as Protection From Pornography Week. I call upon public officials, law enforcement officers, parents, and all the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.

GEORGE W. BUSH
Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? by DAldredge · 2004-10-21 09:00 · Score: 1

What the feds do is have a postal inspector request,buy,download porn from the site they want to go after/make an example of. That postal inspector is in a very conservite community and they use that communities standards to go after the site.

Just like they did in the 80's
Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 13:27 · Score: 0

Which is part of the reason everyone is so concerned about who is going to be in control of appointing the next couple supreme court justices.
Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? by lowmagnet · 2004-10-21 13:43 · Score: 1

They want to protect you from children saying obscene things. Isn't it obvious?

--
Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? by ad0gg · 2004-10-22 04:23 · Score: 1

WTF would is child obscenity? When your child says "shit","dick" or "pig fucker"?

--
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? by squiggleslash · 2004-10-22 08:11 · Score: 1

I would imagine obscene material that involves a child.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 07:06 · Score: 0

...hereby proclaim October 26 through November 1, 2003, as Protection From Pornography Week.

Damn, he spolied my plans for a Halloween necrophiliac orgy.

Re:Disappointing answers to a disappointing questi by eyeye · 2004-10-21 06:41 · Score: 0, Troll

I dont believe for a second that bush wrote any of that, he probably isnt even sure what the cup holder is for on computers.

--
Bush and Blair ate my sig!

Who makes this up by cheeseSource · 2004-10-21 06:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

The beginning of bush's second response:

"I support innovative communications technologies like Voice Over Internet Protocal (VoIP),"

Now, does anyone really think he knows what VOIP is, or even how to spell internet? His only evidence is that protocol is misspelled.

Seems like easy proof that someone else wrote the answers...

--
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)

Re:Who makes this up by Nasarius · 2004-10-21 06:50 · Score: 1

Seems like easy proof that someone else wrote the answers...
Well, yes. They don't write their own speeches either. It's no big secret.

--
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Re:Who makes this up by xlv · 2004-10-21 07:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Now, does anyone really think he knows what VOIP is, or even how to spell internet?

Which internet are you talking about? If you'd watched the last debate, you would know that Bush is well aware of the internets...
Re:Who makes this up by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 07:26 · Score: 0

I hear there's rumors on the Internets, that, you know, we're gonna have a draft. I don't know how these Internets are carrying these rumors. You know, they're just wrong! I think the problem here may be more of a question of getting rid of the bad Internets and keeping the good Internets. 'Cause I think we can all agree, there's just too many Internets.
Re:Who makes this up by Hard_Code · 2004-10-21 07:51 · Score: 1

I'm mostly concerned about the internets in whose dark dungeons kids are trapped...we have to reach out to them.

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?

Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by DAldredge · 2004-10-21 06:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things that the DMCA make illegal.

goto opensecrets.org and see how much the CA content producers have 'paid forward' into his campaign.

Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 07:08 · Score: 0

Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things that the DMCA make illegal.
I think you're making a bit of a logical jump here. The whole arguement behind these gun control types is that guns are inherently evil because they cause death. DMCA violations don't. While his record implies that he might be willing to do what you say, it's a bit of a stretch to say that means he will "go full force".

Of coarse you may not be willing to risk it, and I sympathize with that view.

And here's a link for the open secrets page you're talking about - also here's one for Bush.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by max+born · 2004-10-21 07:10 · Score: 2, Informative

You're probably right about that. The Democrats don't have a good voting record on supportng freedom in technology. It was senior Democrats like Diane Feinstein (CA) who initiated and passed the DMCA

And of the six senators who signed the failed Induce Act, four of them were Democrats.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by DAldredge · 2004-10-21 07:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

The GOP doesn't have a good record either. Senator Hatch's name comes to mind.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by FriedTurkey · 2004-10-21 07:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things that the DMCA make illegal.

Whoa. I think I must have missed a few hundred steps on the logical thinking you are doing.

A more logical conclusion could be drawn from which candidate is getting all the corporate money.

BTW - Kerry only supports assault weapon bans and not other types of guns.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by DAldredge · 2004-10-21 07:50 · Score: 1

Kerry is getting most of the content producers money.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

You may also wish to check to see what the AWB really banned...
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Minna+Kirai · 2004-10-21 08:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things

What record? Kerry has never voted to ban any gun, except for the Brady Bill, which is something that President Bush claims to support also.

Kerry's got the NRA against him because he supported gun show background checks, and wanted to force manufacturers to include complimentary trigger locks.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Wylfing · 2004-10-21 08:17 · Score: 1

You are probably right. He will push the Justice Department to prosecute "piracy" aggressively, and he will sign onerous new legislation to prop up failing business models, but Bush/Ashcroft is going to do the same thing. It's too bad but we Americans are headed for a very rough time over the next 3-6 years (it usually takes a solid decade to halt our episodes of collective rectal-cranial inversion, e.g., Prohibition). After that things will even out -- either government will adjust to the market or the market will route around government.
For the time being, I think it's a good idea to get a change in the office of the Attorney General. 2005 will be an extra-sucky year if Ashcroft gets the impression that America is supporting his behavior.

--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by tommyServ0 · 2004-10-21 08:34 · Score: 1

Um, yes he has.

And he's co-sponsor of S.1431, "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003"

This bill sounds noble, but it's too zealous, banning almost all semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, because they have a "pistol grip."

See text of the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1431:

--

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by TykeClone · 2004-10-21 08:38 · Score: 0, Flamebait

But he has a plan to do better if he is elected.
Besides, all of his record between 1970 and 2004 are irrelevant to this election - he served in Vietnam!

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Discoflamingo13 · 2004-10-21 08:41 · Score: 1

I was with you right up to the last sentence, where your non-sequitur lost me completely.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by DAldredge · 2004-10-21 08:45 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Senator John Kerry (a Massachusetts resident) illegally accepted the gift of a shotgun (of the type he wants to ban as an "assault weapon") from a resident of West Virginia on 6 September 2004! Under the federal statutes 18 USC 922 (a)3 it is a felony for Kerry to have accepted this gift. Under 18 USC 922 (a) 5 it is illegal for the West Virginia resident to have given it to him. Details of the offenses are listed below taken from BATF's June 2000 report Following the Gun: Enforcing federal laws against firearms traffickers. Kerry voted for these gun control laws, so he should be expected to obey them. If he thinks they should not apply to him, then introduce a bill to repeal them for everyone! Citations for the ban on the Remington 1100 as an "assault weapon" follow the trafficking section. Illegal for unlicensed individual to receive gun from resident of another state, or to give to resident of another state http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf /following/append_a.pdf QUOTE FOLLOWING THE GUN: ENFORCING FEDERAL LAWS AGAINST FIREARMS TRAFFICKERS, page 47 APPENDIX A Statutes Relating to Firearms Trafficking Title 18, Section Makes it illegal for To Mental Element(s) Penalty, up to; Section 922(a)(3) Nonlicensee Transport or receive firearm obtained in another state into his state of residence Willfulness; not required to know he was breaking a specific law, but must have had bad purpose or motive 5 years; § 924(a)(1)(D)922(a)(5) Nonlicensee Deliver firearm to unlicensed person whose residence is in a state different from transferors Willfulness; plus knowing or having reasonable cause to believe transferee resided in another state 5 years; § 924(a)(1)(D) Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms June 2000 END QUOTE [Note- several other unrelated offenses have been deleted from the table] KERRY WANTS TO BAN The Remington 1100 shotgun as an "assault weapon" in S. 1421 which he cosponsored on November 21, 2003 Senator Lautenberg introduced S. 1421 on July 17, 2003 " A bill to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes" Text is available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1431: John Kerry signed as a cosponsor on November 21, 2003 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN014 31:@@@N The bill states (in part): "Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: (30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following: [(A) through (G) deal with various rifles and pistols] (H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has-- (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip; (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or (iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds." Definitions: "(42) PISTOL GRIP- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Above from the text of S.1421 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1431: NOT ONLY DOES KERRY ILLEGALLY ACCEPT A GUN, IT IS ONE HE WANTS TO BAN!
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Minna+Kirai · 2004-10-21 08:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

1) If we wanted to read NRA.org websites, we could visit NRA.org. Link to them if you think it supports your position, but don't copy & paste. Sheer volune is no way to make a credible argument. Some of your copying is actually illegal infringement.

2) Some of those "FACTS" are lies, and none of them contradict my statement: The only guns Kerry voted to ban are guns that President Bush says should be banned as well.

That list is a standard dishonest tactic: Make a strong claim, followed by a huge volume of true facts with at least a peripheral relationship to the claim. Then state that you've proved your position, even though you've done nothing of the sort, and hope that people too lazy to read the whole thing assume you said something sensible.

3) One could make a fairly plausible slippery slope argument: "Kerry's positions are closer to a total gun ban than his opponent, so he will move us closer to an environment where a gun ban might pass". But instead of saying something reasonable like that, you just spit out a tremendous volume of unsubstantiable lies.

It's behavior like that which caused President Bush to publically resign from the NRA. Although he supports gun ownership rights, the NRA goes off on viciously false tangents and pretends they were actually part of the same thing.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Minna+Kirai · 2004-10-21 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was with you right up to the last sentence, where your non-sequitur lost me completely.

That's the technique: paste in a lot of true facts, so numerous that no one will have the energy to read them all. Then finish with a completely false conclusion unrelated to the previous facts, hoping to trick lazy readers into thinking it's somehow based on the body of the message.

I mean, he decommissioned some hunting land? He wants to tax guns? Stuff like that does NOTHING to support the idea he's a gun-banner.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Minna+Kirai · 2004-10-21 09:12 · Score: 1

This bill sounds noble, but it's too zealous, banning almost all semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, because they have a "pistol grip."

It's just errorneously written. "Pistol grip", as defined in that resolution, includes anything that can be used to "grip", which includes barrels, triggers, tomatoes, and anything else with solid substance. Many bills have numerous small errors that would be ironed out before it ever comes to a vote.

But that doesn't matter, because S.1431 is the bill that would've re-newed the "Brady Bill" assault weapons ban- and President Bush said he was in favor of it. On matters of this bill, both candidates claim the same position!
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by DAldredge · 2004-10-21 10:16 · Score: 1

Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer & Ted Kennedy would have a major impact in who gets on the USCS if kerry wins.

They also have all said that they thinks all guns should be banned.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by FriedTurkey · 2004-10-21 10:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Kerry is getting most of the content producers money. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

No problem. You should probably let other people write your posts to slashdot.

BTW - The AWB was largely symbolic
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by flyingsquid · 2004-10-21 10:53 · Score: 1

It's a bit ridiculous to imply that the AR-15 is some sort of target-shooting weapon. Sure it's a target shooting rifle- in the same way that the Beltway Sniper was a target shooter. The reason it's accurate at long distances is because it's the civilian version of the M-16 assault rifle. And the Beltway snipers used one, incidentally. It's designed to kill people accurately, at long distances, and in rapid succession.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Sevn · 2004-10-21 11:35 · Score: 1

Actually, it's just a semi-automatic rifle in a varmint caliber (.223). It isn't really designed to kill people accurately at long distances either. The caliber is very hard to make accurate guns for. That's why the truly accurate ones are very expensive. A 300 dollar surplus CETME in .308 is about as accurate as an AR-15 that costs twice as much, and does a hell of a lot more damage with a much higher probability of a kill. It's a good thing that the beltway sniper was enough of a dumbass to use an AR-15 instead of a real sniper weapon based on .308, .300 winchester, or one of the other more powerful, more accurate 30 caliber weapons actually designed to kill people that are far away.

--
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Minna+Kirai · 2004-10-21 11:54 · Score: 3, Informative

The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced in Congress--Clinton Gun Ban "Reenactment" Bans Millions More Guns

For the last time, stop the plagiarism! If you think somebody else made your case better than you could, then link to it. Don't pollute slashdot with copies of NRA propaganda.

And one more time: Bush said he supported that bill! Either Bush was lying about that, or he is just as anti-gun as Kerry.

And one more time: Kerry never voted for that bill.

There is something funny about that bill, though. Of course it's obviously too vague to be effectively implemented. But it also reflects a special fear politicians have: the assasin's rifle. 5 years ago there was an uproar about the availiblity of the Barret 50, which reminded all the Washington people that they're never really safe.

One specific quote:Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."

That's false. Yes, the AR-15 is banned, as is the M1 Carbine, which is a different, shorter weapon than the actual M1 Garand rifle. I also can't find anything in the text about Springfields. It would be pretty crazy if it actually banned those, because a Springfield is no different than any deer-hunting rifle.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 12:03 · Score: 0

He didn't have to vote for it. He co-sponsored the thing.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 14:00 · Score: 0

BTW - The AWB was largely symbolic
It might have been largely symbolic if it didn't effect you at all, but it was a real pain in the ass for some people. It would be more accurate to say that the AWB was largely a pile of shit that was sold to the public as an example of how politicians were helping to protect their children.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Spoing · 2004-10-21 14:12 · Score: 1

That's interesting. It raises the following question: Who sent him the gun and why? It doesn't pass the sniff test for being a legitimate honest gift since it is so close to the election.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-22 03:07 · Score: 0

It might have been largely symbolic if it didn't effect you at all, but it was a real pain in the ass for some people.

Who are those "people"? Mass murders are inconvenienced? What ordinary citizen needs an assault weapon?
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by DAldredge · 2004-10-22 03:41 · Score: 1

FromASearch (FAS)
Seriously, though, I'm referring to John Kerry accepting a semiautomatic shotgun from a supporter during a campaign stop in West Virginia. The president of the United Mine Workers of America presented Senator Kerry with Beretta A300, and Kerry accepted it, saying "...I can't take it to the debate with me."

It came out after he accepted this gift that the gun would have been banned, had a bill that Kerry cosponsored passed. When confronted with this information, Kerry supporters shrugged it off as an attempt by the Bush Administration to paint Kerry as anti-gun. (Frankly, I think cosponsoring a bill that would extend the assault weapons ban does the painting for you.) Instead, Kerry was to be seen as pro-gun and pro-hunting.
Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. by ZB+Mowrey · 2004-10-22 08:42 · Score: 1

Mr AC, you must be retarded. Your vehicle is FAR, FAR more dangerous than even the most powerful weapon banned under the law (which was duplicitous in that the weapons and parts banned were prohibited because they looked like military weapons - pistol grips on rifles, bayonet mounts).
Who NEEDS personal, private transportation? Wouldn't it more effective to just let government worry about getting me from place to place? Why should I have the CONSITUTIONAL RIGHT to travel at my own direction and pace? After all, I'm endangering others, aren't I? Maybe we could start a division of gov't just for that purpose, and have Congress renew its charter every couple of years just to keep it legal. Sound fun?

--
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 06:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

He seems to have the same problem my mother had, which is called "narcissistic personality disorder" - It's a common character disorder - and it seriously impairs the judgement of people who have it. Very Seriously. They have an inability to feel empathy with others, they tend to have delusions of grandeur (which is another, more traditional name for this disorder) and all the worst leaders in history have had it. (Nero, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, etc.) It is uncurable. And people who have it are *always* *pathological* liars.

Don't trust me on this, you should know that this is the opinion of the psychologists who work with intelligence agencies. (on the others, so far, they have been silent on Bush, no doubt because of another tendency of narcissists, the tendency to be incredibly vindictive and vengeful, and to never forget a slight..)

Before you just brush what I am saying off, I strongly recommend that you read Ron Suskind's article "Without a Doubt" in this last Sunday's New York Times Magazine and you will see what I mean.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUS H. html

This disease is a mental illness.. Seriously.

Do you want someone with a mental illness running this country?

Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 07:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

He seems to have the same problem my mother had, which is called "narcissistic personality disorder" - It's a common character disorder - and it seriously impairs the judgement of people who have it. Very Seriously. They have an inability to feel empathy with others, they tend to have delusions of grandeur (which is another, more traditional name for this disorder) and all the worst leaders in history have had it. (Nero, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, etc.) It is uncurable. And people who have it are *always* *pathological* liars.
You also seem to be forgetting some of the other sufferers which include some of the greatest world leaders the world has ever seen. Margaret Thatcher. Winston Churchill. Teddy Roosevelt. Charles De Gaulle. Ronald Reagan. Not to mention Thomas Jefferson, William the Conqueror, Queen Elizabeth I, King George III, Czar Nicholas III, Jefferson Davis, Julius Caesar, and Joan of Arc. Sound familiar?
These were unquestionably great men (and women), people who lead, people who pushed their countries further than they could ever have gone otherwise. They had no "delusions of grandeur", because there was nothing delusional about them.
Don't trust me on this, you should know that this is the opinion of the psychologists who work with intelligence agencies. (on the others, so far, they have been silent on Bush, no doubt because of another tendency of narcissists, the tendency to be incredibly vindictive and vengeful, and to never forget a slight..)
Nonsense. You can not both have grandeur and be vindictive, at least, not in this way. And I'm quite sure that if Bush was anything like the character you paint him to be, he'd have found something to be vengeful about. The fact is the intelligence agencies are in greater shape than they've ever been before, supported to the hilt by an able President who's not going to stand for any nonsense. And that's the crux of the issue, an issue little people like you fail to understand, great Presidents, great world leaders, lead.
Before you just brush what I am saying off, I strongly recommend that you read Ron Suskind's article "Without a Doubt" in this last Sunday's New York Times Magazine and you will see what I mean.
I think it's safe to suggest that Suskind doesn't understand what he's on about. Little people rarely do.
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 08:16 · Score: 0

"Little people"? You write like the rest of the self-assured smug bastards that got us into this mess. Do not confuse Bush's confidence with "greatness". He needs to perform great deeds first.

I think Mr. Bush has stood by and let plenty of nonsense happen on his watch, like the leak of a CIA agent's name for political gain (playing politics with national secrets is treason), or obviously forged documents about yellow cake uranium, or, how about, tenuous intelligence sexed up in front of a doubtful world community, and now people are coming home from a brutal long-term war with limbs blown off. Nonsense!
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 08:28 · Score: 0

These people are great because they were unquestionably great. Really depends what you mean by "great".
Also, "Little people rarely do"? Wow - you're an asshole.
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Edax+Rarem · 2004-10-21 08:32 · Score: 1

I _just_ read that article. And I agree with you 100%.
We should all be afraid... very afraid.
Even more scary are those fanatics that support this guy. Like he is the Messiah. I got news for you... He isn't.

God save us.
[What am I saying? He thinks he is god]

--
I hate my sig.
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Slime-dogg · 2004-10-21 08:51 · Score: 1

Dude, the NY Times is not a very credible source for anything other than kindling.

Then again, I haven't really heard a major lie come ouf of Bush's mouth. He said he'd cut taxes, and he's done so. He said that we'd take out Iraq, and has done so. I'm quite sure that he felt quite a bit of empathy after 9/11, as the rest of us did.

Bush isn't on trial here for purjery. A certain US president came rather close to it, but he unfortunately didn't get any heat for it. A president that was adored by NY media outlets, who was most certainly a pathological liar.

--
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 09:03 · Score: 0

"Little people"? You write like the rest of the self-assured smug bastards that got us into this mess. Do not confuse Bush's confidence with "greatness". He needs to perform great deeds first.
Bush is a great man. That you cannot see it, that you feel the need to make excuses, to pretend somehow he is not mentally stable (perhaps the illness lies with you? You are, after all, not George Bush, you are not Margaret Thatcher, you are not Ronald Reagan - great people you cannot even bring yourself to aspire to be) shows me everything I need to know about YOU, not George W. Bush.
As for great deeds, look at his leadership of this country for the last four years. When others would undermine it, he stood fast and punished those who would not stand with the rest of us. He fought the threats when nobody else was willing to. You stood idly by and took advantage, you were lead, because you were not a leader. He is one. He has grandeur, not delusions.
And yes, you are little. You did not stand, you chose to cower. More than that, he lead, compared to him, we are all smaller, though some are smaller than others.
I think Mr. Bush has stood by and let plenty of nonsense happen on his watch, like the leak of a CIA agent's name for political gain (playing politics with national secrets is treason), or obviously forged documents about yellow cake uranium, or, how about, tenuous intelligence sexed up in front of a doubtful world community, and now people are coming home from a brutal long-term war with limbs blown off. Nonsense!
So much negativity. You miss the point. Bush lead. Others may have followed - some doing the wrong thing without Bush's consent, others doing the right things but for reasons we don't understand but Bush clearly did - but he lead, he turned this country from the weakling it was before into the most powerful national on Earth.
You better believe it.
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 09:25 · Score: 0

First, I'm not the one that accused him to be mentally ill. That's just crazy jive from another AC.

Second, aren't all men created equal? Don't we hold that truth to be self-evident? Isn't the notion of a "little person" contrary to that? Your notion of "little people" and "big people" comes across as just another ad hominem attack and I don't consider it a very convincing argument.

Third, he may have lead... but in the wrong direction. You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, and know when to run. Tragically, he just held 'em, and now we're stuck. Canada, Mexico, Germany, most of Europe, and the UN called his WMD bluff, and boy are we paying for that now.

Like Kerry said, you can be certain about something, but you can be wrong. I'm sure Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro are very certain America is the great evil of the west, and they can sure whip their (little) people into a fervor, but they're wrong! Same goes for Bush.
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Creepy+Crawler · 2004-10-21 10:24 · Score: 2, Informative

I voted for him, and I wish I didnt... then again, Gore wasnt better.

Look here for the 2000 debates, second speech.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

One excerpt about Iraq:

---start---
MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?

GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.
---end---

The next if military interventions and the beleif that Bush had about the military (and what he'd never use it for).

---start---
MODERATOR: Well, let's stay on the subject for a moment. New question related to this. I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?

GORE: Can you run through the list again?

(line comments by gore/moderator snipped for brevity)

MODERATOR: We talked about that. Want me to do it with you? Lebanon.

BUSH: Make a couple comments.

MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
---end---

There's just 2 examples that are from rock-hard sources, and not swayed in content by me at all. Those things are what Bush said, and what now is done, Bush lied about. Bush said he'd make the coalition strong, yet we invade. And now, our troops are being used to 'nation build', something Bush was against in 2000.
--
- Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 10:39 · Score: 0

Were the anti-war protesters "lead" by a "great leader"? Weren't the protesters taking a stand? Standing up to a man determined to go to war?

It seems to me that your definition of a "great leader" is anyone who's willing to forego safe and and reasonable actions for "bold decisions" that jeapordize our nation's security and stature. Betting it all on black makes you "daring", it makes you "bold", but it sure as hell does not make you "great".

And this, this is just nuts:

... he lead, he turned this country from the weakling it was before into the most powerful national on Earth.

What? We weren't the last remaining "superpower" before we invaded iraq? Didn't we previously bomb the hell out of Afghanistan? Did we not have the most powerful military and economy the world has ever seen in 2002?

And honestly, could we really invade another country now or in the future under the doctrine of pre-emption? There is absolutely no way we could afford it, nor would congress go with it, nor would any of our traditional allies help us. Not with the way Iraq is going.

The invasion of iraq did not make us stronger: it made us weaker.

We went in alone, without the support of Canada and Mexico -- two huge symbolic failures of this administration's inability to build a true "coalition".

It's been over a year and we haven't taken control of all the cities.

It's not safe to drive on the roads without armored vehicles and lots of firepower.

We're losing coalition partners.

Civilians are being beheaded. Aide workers are being kidnapped.

Insurgents and terrorists are crossing the borders freely.

Videos of our troops being killed are being filmed and then used as recruiting tools for more terrorists and insurgents.

We played into Saddam's plan to draw us into a guerilla war.

We're hemorrhaging money.

The elections in January are in doubt.

The war is not going well, and does not look like it's getting better. It was supposed to be over months ago. It was supposed to be just the media mis-reporting the facts. It was supposed to be just a few "dead-enders". But it's not. It's getting worse.

Truly "great" men would acknowledge this and do everything in their power to fix the situation. I've given Bush and his administration a year and a half to make things better -- and he's failed.
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by (trb001) · 2004-10-21 23:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

The fundamental problem you're overlooking is that, while our forces shouldn't be used for nation-building, nation-building is still an important job. It's just supposed to be left up to the UN. The UN fscked this one, just like they did Bosnia, so we're taking care of it.

As far as rebuilding a coalition, I'll repeat what Bush has said in all three debates...we have 30 countries in the present coalition. We aren't getting France and Germany, we never were, case closed. You could have bribed them with a lifetime supply of wine and cheese and it wouldn't have mattered. It still doesn't, they aren't sending troops. I don't blame Bush for doing something "with only" a 30 country coalition.

BTW, this isn't a flip-flop like so many would love to characterize it. Flip flopping, ala the charges thrown at John Kerry, are when you say one thing then contradict that stance with nothing having changed inbetween and without relying on hindsight. In Bush's case, nation-building wasn't something we should use our forces for because the UN should do it. When the UN *wouldn't* do it, we had to.

--trb
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-22 07:13 · Score: 0

Wow. You people are nuts. I posted the parent as a spoof, someone who clearly has the same egomaniacal disorder. I can understand a few people getting pissed at the obvious insults, but modding it up as "Insightful"? That surprises me. It's nasty, insulting, snide, and not in any way insightful. Moderators, get thee off thy crack!
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by ZB+Mowrey · 2004-10-22 09:05 · Score: 1

Then again, I haven't really heard a major lie come ouf of Bush's mouth
Have you been hiding in a cave in Afghanistan for the last four years?
Look Here

--
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by AEton · 2004-10-23 09:46 · Score: 1

According to my psych textbook, diagnosing other people with mental illnesses is a symptom of borderline personality disorder.

--
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-25 08:21 · Score: 0

It's not surprising at all. It's not that much different than the crap that spews from Bill O'Reilly or Limbaugh or Hannity ALL. THE. TIME.

Only difference is you weren't on message with today's RNC memo.

It would be more accurate to say staffers response by dtolman · 2004-10-21 06:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Magazine interviews are commonly filled out by the candidate's staff. It would be more accurate to call this then the candidate's staff's response - probably based off the staffer's knowledge of the candidate's positions, the platform, or some other source. For all we know, the candidate's aren't even aware of this interview - do they even read these over before these things get published in their name?

Kerry got in trouble for this (common) practice a few months back, when a staffer wrote in (incorrectly) that he owned an automatic weapon he grabbed as a war trophy...

Somewhat nice to see by Brown+Eggs · 2004-10-21 07:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

While only a little offtopic, was it just me or was it nice to read somewhat coherent answers to good questions that were not immediately followed with "And I would do a better job than him" or "He will cause the downfall of your country" or some other such drivel?

I certainly wish the campaigns themselves (and especially the debates) had more of this flavor. While clearly canned answers (Bush knowing what VOIP is????), it is a refreshing thing to see in a race that has become increasingly ugly.

Oh, and was anyone else a bit annoyed that 3rd party candidates (or even Nader) were not included? I am sure the Greens, Libertarians, and especially Nader would have had interesting responses (thought many of those can be dug out of the appropriate campaign website).

No child left behind act = Draft ACT? by BrookHarty · 2004-10-21 07:42 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Did anyone else notice that the "No Child Left Behind Act" has a section where all Jr/Sr high schools submit the students information to the Armed Services? Including all test scores and grades.

Could this be the "no child left behind when the troops leave for global police actions ACT"....

Re:No child left behind act = Draft ACT? by MagicM · 2004-10-21 08:09 · Score: 1

Did you mean this section? All I see is "access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings".

And right below that, it states "A [student or parent] may request that the [info] not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request."

Where did you get your information? (And what does it have to do with the topic, for that matter?)
Re:No child left behind act = Draft ACT? by BrookHarty · 2004-10-21 08:17 · Score: 1

Well, since Bush touted both "Privacy" and "No Child Left behind" in his answers, a nice follow up was due.

His privacy statements are as follows "Tools for the citizen", so its the citizen/consumer (or parent) to now allow this information.

As for the Draft, why else would you give every student's private records to the Armed Forces, except recruitment.

So basically, Bush's privacy policy is "opt-out", even for children.

Kerry's is opt-in.
Re:No child left behind act = Draft ACT? by Poppler · 2004-10-21 08:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, I have heard about this. And let me assure you, Bush does NOT want a draft.

This is, of coarse, a sneaky, underhanded way of getting info for military recruiters. But it's just for the junk mail, the phone calls, etc. I took the SATs at age 13 and started getting all their crap in the mail - same system, only this way they get everyone.

Bush & co want an all volunteer army because that way the country is much less reluctant to go to war. If half the soldiers don't believe in the war, things would be a little tougher for those trying to sell it.

Imagine how different public opinion would be if there was a conscripted army fighting in Iraq right now.

--
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
Re:No child left behind act = Draft ACT? by MagicM · 2004-10-21 08:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Okay, maybe I should have included the entire paragraph:

"(1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings."

So yes, this contact information is being shared for recruiting purposes. They don't need this info for drafting purposes. That's what Selective Services is for.

The only truly bad thing would be if they are sharing other information (like the test scores and grades you mentioned) with Armed Services. But I can't find evidence that they are.
Re:No child left behind act = Draft ACT? by The+Analog+Kid · 2004-10-21 11:03 · Score: 1

Yes I have, and ofcourse the student can stop the information, but by the time they find out it's too late.

Grasp of the issues and solutions by exodist-Admin-Ra · 2004-10-21 07:46 · Score: 1

Kerry seemed to simply state the problem and say it needs to be solved and that he would try to fix them. Bush seemed to have a clear grasp of the finer details in each problem, adn in many cases suggested valid solutions or spoke of valid solutions already in the works. Kerry seemed to want to have the government try to solve all the problems, Bush seemed to think that the government should provide the tools so that people could solve their own problems, and of cource the problems on the internet can't be solved, only amplified by government intervention. (I also liked when he said protecting children from pornography was primarily the parents job, cause it is.) However I found both candidates were complete morons on intellectual property, there stance on the myth of intellectual property is liek praying to Zeus in modern times. its silly. And as for weather or not they were the ones actually speaking, does it matter? If Kerry and Bush have good advisers writing good things, then as long as they follow their advisors advice what is the problem? a president has so much to do that no president can possibly know everything on every issue all the time, he would need refresher information and advisors to consult with. Trying to manage every issue is like trying to learn everything of every science. That said, I support Bush, the republican party philosophy of smaller government and less government interferrance is better for the internet, to bad they don't stick with that on the internet do to corperate IP concerns, but the democratic party isn't any better at that. I think the green party is the only group with any sence on the digital/computer issues, specifically IP. To bad I don't liek their other views. -Yeah I know I am gonna get reamed as a Bush supporter on this forum, but I am not gonna let intimidation prevent me from my right to free speach :-D

Re:Grasp of the issues and solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 07:59 · Score: 0

I support Bush, the republican party philosophy of smaller government
In the last four years our government has gotten bigger, not smaller. Bush is all about big government. Sure, he's against environmental regulation, but otherwise he's all gvmnt. all the time. The job increases he is always citing are government jobs. He's gone on a mad spending spree with our tax dollars. Just cause he isn't spending on social programs doesn't mean he's not spending, and doesn't mean the government isn't growing. He created a whole new beuracracy (dept. of "homeland sercurity") when all that was needed was better coordination between existing agencies. thats what big government is all about.

If you really want smaller government vote Libertarian. Neither major party has any interest in reducing the size of government. Sure there are a few good Republicans left, but not many, and certainily not the one running for prez.

Maybe you are supporting Bush for other reasons as well, in which case go ahead. But if government bloat is a big issue for you, you should be aware that Bush is not exactly helping.
Re:Grasp of the issues and solutions by exodist-Admin-Ra · 2004-10-21 08:30 · Score: 1

re-read it, it was easy to miss, I said I supported that philosophy, but it was to bad they didn't follow it. I willsay this, I am conservative, and I support 90-95% of what bush has done and will do, I want smaller government, but I know it isn't always possible. I do support bush for many reasons, and will continue to support him. Honsetly I like the libertarian party for the most part, however I have a big problem with a lot of the aclu and the libertarian party seems to have good ties with it (I am all for seperation of church and state, but the aclu is whacked on how far they will go) I am for choice, this includes the choice to eather say or not say under God int he pledge of alegiance, they want to remove that choice, currently it is in there, if you want to say it you can, if you don't want to say it don't, removing it removes the choice. however leaving it in also diminishes choice. the ultimate solution would be leaving the space blank and saying whatever you want when it comes around. there are other issues to, but of cource all are as complicated or more so than my solution. And I admit I am a right wing nut job -(jibjab.com) bush is to liberal for me, there I said it. and before peopel accuse me of being wealthy or well made I will say this, I make $11 an hour 20 hours or less a week paying my own way through college to go into software development age: 21 parents: middle-class unable to help me with my expences because of strain. but I do not want the government to say oh your having a hard ime, here have some money we just took from the rich... I will earn my own way damnit, and everyone else can to. if you are really really bad off and realy truly need help than I am all for it, but not financial help, iving peopel money will not solve their problems, giving people help so they can learn to earn their own money will. (give a man a fish vs teahc a man to fish, etc.) I hope that clarifies my stance.
Re:Grasp of the issues and solutions by ZB+Mowrey · 2004-10-22 09:41 · Score: 1

Have you ever looked at the history of the Pledge? If you ask me, no child should ever be asked to blindy chant obedience. If you love your country and want to pledge, no one will ever stop you. But where do you draw the line when classes are told that 'now it's time to say the pledge. Would everyone please stand?'
What if all your friends stand? Would you be brave enough to continue sitting?
For what it's worth, I spent the vast majority of my eighth-grade year (1990, god does that make me old?) FORCED to sit outside my first-hour English classroom because I wouldn't stand or recite the pledge. My teacher punished me for not sheeping along.
In circumstances like that (which I know happen, don't try to kid me), I support a full, 100% revocation of the pledge in any form of law. It should remain outside legal bounds. Again, if you want, have fun. But don't make it routine practice.
Also, the ACLU has made some oversteps, but they are operating under an assumption that government isn't worth trusting. Interestingly, that's the same attitude the Founding Fathers held, and the same attitude held by a majority of our people. Why do you think people don't vote???

--
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

Wonder who wrote these? by Confessed+Geek · 2004-10-21 07:48 · Score: 1

I wonder why I even bother to read these things. It somehow seems unlikely that either canidate actually has the time or the inclination to sit around and respond to these things. I'd like to see one where the first question is:

"Do you solomly swear upon your honor and favorite religious symbol that the answers given in this document are written, typed or dictated soley by ...."

ARRRRGG!!!! by thewickedmystic · 2004-10-21 08:09 · Score: 2, Funny

This is SO frustrating!

It is just more of the same!

Kerry doesn't answer the questions at all (I am open to...)

While Bush gives answers I don't like (We need to implement nation-wide morality laws that forbid anything that could effect anybodies children, even if you don't have any!)

Errg!! I think I am going to vote for Cthulu this year. I am tired of trying to figure out the lesser of two evils!

--
"Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority." - Dr. Who

Re:ARRRRGG!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 04:28 · Score: 0

Who are you going to vote for?
Can you repeat the name?

So why doesn't everyone here just vote 3rd party? by Free_Trial_Thinking · 2004-10-21 08:40 · Score: 1

That's what everyone is hinting at. So just get it over with, vote for a spotted cat for once ...

But I don't know who you should vote for.

My real question is this:

Is this 'intellectual property' situation hopeless? YRO is always so depressing to read.

>

Foot notes and bill numbers for above by DAldredge · 2004-10-21 08:41 · Score: 0

1. Signed on as co-sponsor of S. 1431 on Nov. 21, 2003.

2. CNN "Late Edition," Nov. 7, 1993.

3. Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 295, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 294, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 293, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 375, Nov. 17, 1993; Vote No. 365, Nov. 9, 1993; Vote No. 133, June 28, 1990; Vote No. 103, May 23, 1990; Vote No. 102, May 23, 1990.

4. Vote No. 28, March 2, 2004.

5. Vote No. 87, April 12, 1994.

6. Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004 ("poison pill" amendments).

7. Vote No. 142, July 9, 1985.

8. Vote No. 4, Feb. 2, 2000.

9. Vote No. 140, July 9, 1985.

10. Vote No. 134, May 20, 1999; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004.

11. Vote No. 118, May 14, 1999; Vote No. 224, July 22, 1998.

12. Vote No. 227, July 30, 1993.

13. Vote No. 141, July 9, 1985; Vote No. 115, June 28, 1991; Vote No. 113, June 28, 1991; Vote No. 278, Nov. 27, 1991; Vote No. 53, Mar. 19, 1992; Vote No. 262, Oct. 2, 1992; Vote No. 385, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 386, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 387, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 390, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 394, Nov. 20, 1993.

14. Vote No. 325 Oct. 12, 1993; Vote No. 178, June 27, 1996.

15. Vote No. 64, April 2, 2001; "Kerry asks FEC to Block NRA Channel," AP, Dec. 9, 2003.

16. Vote No. 104, May 17, 2000.

my bad by Free_Trial_Thinking · 2004-10-21 08:43 · Score: 1

Whoops wrong section, this is politics! Sorry, I revoke my post.

They Left Out the Most Important Question by clickster · 2004-10-21 09:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Where is the "vi or emacs?" question? What a waste of time.

--
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Kerry's answer on spam.... by MisterMoney · 2004-10-21 09:16 · Score: 1

"I am open to considering the best means available to ensure people do not receive unsolicited email."

gee. that swayed my vote.

It would've been nice... by Undefined+Parameter · 2004-10-21 10:41 · Score: 1

... to see some of President Bush's responses include plans for the future rather than statements of past actions. On the flip side, it would have been nice to see some of Senator Kerry's responses include statements of past actions backing up his plans (and unstated claims therein).

It also would have been nice to have a few "third party" candidates respond, as others have said. Still, what's done is done, and we can only ask the persons who set up this Q&A set to include third party candidates, next time.

~UP

--
Eat the Path.

Ashcroft won't be around if Bush re-elected by jgardn · 2004-10-21 10:53 · Score: 1

You didn't hear that Bush said he might replace Ashcroft if he gets elected?

This is from Reuter's...

"Big cabinet changes likely if Bush wins"

--
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.

cybersecurity czar by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 11:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

Bush's cybersecurity czar quit, abruptly, because he was unhappy with the way things were going.

That's very disturbing to me. One day's notice? Frustrated?

Are we ready for an attack? I don't think so, especially if the current administration is unwilling to listen to their own cybersecurity czar. I know when Kerry takes office, he'll listen to his people.

The problem is TicketMaster. by otterpop378 · 2004-10-21 11:42 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I know this seems a bit off track here, but I live in Oregon, and have already sent in my ballot. So my political season is all but entirely done. The big problem I'm having with the President issue is trying to go to the concert.

Yes, they have reformed the Presidents of the United States of America, and they are touring again. 2 Nights in Portland no less. Yet I go to get my tickets, and there's $5 service charge PLUS they want another $2.50 to LET me print out the tickets myself. Sorry for the rant, but damn, As someone who doens't make minimum wage, paying an extra $20 for 3 tickets is kind of a bitch.

What does this have to do with the topic? Nothing really. They have the name in common i guess. But at least the concert knows no partisan boundries. I'm a moderate democrat, my brother is a super-conservative republican, and we're going with his friend that doesn't vote.

Why am I still typing this? Im THAT bored. Nothing to do here at work but try and order tickets for concerts...

Bush didn't write those responses by Guspaz · 2004-10-21 13:03 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't know about Kerry, for all I know he might not have (Though his responses where he appears to have no idea what the question is talking about would indicate he did).

Considering his statement in the debate about "I hear there have been rumours on the internets (Yes, notice the plural he used for internets), do you REALLY think he'd then answer the VoIP question like this:

http://www.comptia.org/pressroom/election_2004.a sp x#2

Bush is no idiot, but I'm pretty sure that the question/response was way over his head.

Re:Bush didn't write those responses by Brandybuck · 2004-10-21 15:06 · Score: 1

So nice to see that people are leaving their preconceptions at the door.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Bush didn't write those responses by Guspaz · 2004-10-22 06:14 · Score: 1

I'm Canadian, I'm allowed to have preconceptions about the US presidential candidates ;)

Besides, outside the US, nearly everybody hates bush. How's that for preconceptions?

I'll say again, bush isn't an idiot, but I don't think he knows enough about VoIP to respond to that question, when he seems to hardly know what the internet is. This is the problem with these type of non-live Q&A sessions, I have to wonder if the candidates ever even see the questions, or if flunkies respond to them.

Re:Disappointing answers to a disappointing questi by Brandybuck · 2004-10-21 15:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

While both did give wishy-washy answers, that's because they're politicians. But once you get past that, it's interesting to see that the candidate who gave the better answer was Bush.

Bush: "Blaming the technology does not address the issue. We must vigorously enforce intellectual property protections and prosecute the violations, not the technology."

In other words, fight copyright violations, not software. Isn't that what everyone has been saying here for the past half decade?

Kerry: "I am open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes or transfer it to a digital media device for the purpose of non public performance or display."

In other words, he's examining to see if it's okay for you to have a right that you already possess under Title 17!

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Re:Disappointing answers to a disappointing questi by Young+Master+Ploppy · 2004-10-21 21:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

"he's examining to see if it's okay for you to have a right that you already possess under Title 17!"

Read it again, calmly this time, and suppress your instinctive knee-jerk reaction:

I am open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ENSURE that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work MAY back up a copy of it for archival purposes or transfer it to a digital media device for the purpose of non public performance or display.

What he actually said is an implicit acceptance of your right to "fair use". If you don't see that, read it again.

Now compare the emphasis of the two:

Bush: "We must vigorously enforce intellectual property protections"

Kerry: (roughly equivalent to) "I'm open to looking at whether we need more legislation to protect your right to fair use."

NOW which answer do you think was best?

--
http://instantbadger.blogspot.com

The only question I would want answered: by tuxedobob · 2004-10-21 21:41 · Score: 1

"What do you think the other guy would do better at?"

Whoever's full of less bullshit wins.

random selection of leaders by Cryofan · 2004-10-22 01:27 · Score: 1

I think that is a great idea. I am in the process of writing a script for a politically oriented science fiction movie. One aspect of the movie is a future society where political representatives are randomly selected from a large pool of qualified citizens.

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon

Re:random selection of leaders by HungWeiLo · 2004-10-22 09:44 · Score: 1

Watch the "qualified citizens" part.

--
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.

Nobody asked the important question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-22 02:19 · Score: 0

What will you do about offshoring of our IT jobs?

Re:Disappointing answers to a disappointing questi by Brandybuck · 2004-10-22 05:59 · Score: 1

NOW which answer do you think was best?

As a libertarian, I think both major candidates are tyrannical statists, but of the two, Kerry seems more statist when it comes to intellectual property.

Copyright law already ENSURES that a lawful owner of a copy MAY make an archival copy. This law has been affirmed by court decision. You don't need Kerry to examine the issue, because the issue is already settled! All we need is a chief executive who will protect the rights we already have! (unfortunately, that will be neither of the major candidates)

Bush: "We must vigorously enforce intellectual property protections"

Gee, sounds an awful lot like the people here. "We must vigorously enforce the GNU General Public License!"

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Re:Disappointing answers to a disappointing questi by ZB+Mowrey · 2004-10-22 08:14 · Score: 1

Alright, my two cents isn't worth even that, but it might be worth a moment of thoughtful consideration. (FTR (for the record), I will be voting Badnarik. Those who don't like that, can find something painful or disgusting to do to themselves.)

Copyright law doesn't ENSURE our ability to make a copy of lawfully acquired works. It affirms it, but anyone is currently free to produce works with whatever copyright protection mechanisms they wish (and DMCA force to prohibit the breaking thereof). If read in that context, Kerry's position seems to imply that he's *thinking* about a law that would require producers to allow consumers their fair-use rights.

Of course, this is all bullshit. He's a pol like the rest, and will lie to his audience, just like every pol before him. Anyone want to start/join the NOTA (None of the Above) party? I've been thinking about running on a platform that says I'll vote NO to everything that crosses my desk. Who's with me? :)

--

Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

Who difference does this make? by The_Biliskner · 2004-10-22 08:14 · Score: 1

The small roll that Presidents take in the legislative process is even further marginalized by the fact that none of these issues are really mainstream. The only thing we know for sure is that regardless what Orin Hatch gets passed through the congress, Bush will sign it. After all, he hasn't vetoed a single bill since he took office.

Yeah, Right... by qtone42 · 2004-10-22 08:16 · Score: 1

Scanning the answers to the questions, I find myself asking who actually answered them.

I've watched them both many times, and while I can imagine Kerry saying most of that, I don't think he did.

Bush on the other hand: There is no way in hell that those thoughts, embodied by those words, have ever been formed by the mind or lips of the President.

Not a chance.

--QTone

No, look at Pell grants by whovian · 2004-10-23 07:16 · Score: 1

Bush does NOT want a draft.

In the last debate Bush boasted that his administration had increased the number of Pell grant recipients. But nowhere have I heard in the media the fact that in order to be eligible to receive Pell, males must register with the Selective Service.

So if the gov't ever does need recruits, they could just starting pull names from the list rather than instigating a full-blown draft board.

Bush may not want a draft, but then again, politicians do change their mind.

--
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.

No questions about H1-B? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 02:11 · Score: 0

Only the editors of /. can be blamed for this omission, most important to IT workers.

Re:Disappointing answers to a disappointing questi by squiggleslash · 2004-10-25 02:09 · Score: 1

Copyright law already ENSURES that a lawful owner of a copy MAY make an archival copy. This law has been affirmed by court decision. You don't need Kerry to examine the issue, because the issue is already settled! All we need is a chief executive who will protect the rights we already have! (unfortunately, that will be neither of the major candidates)

Make archival copy of CSS protected DVD. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

If there is not in existance a device that passes through a content protection system that is authorized by copyright owners that backs up your content, then you do not have the legal right, under the DMCA, to back it up. Period. The end.

That's why many people want to amend the law to allow you to do this.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Slashdot Mirror

Kerry and Bush Answer Questions on IT Industry

137 comments