Slashdot Mirror
Would John Kerry Defang the DMCA?
dave981 writes "Over at ZDNet, Declan McCullagh asks, 'Would John Kerry defang the DMCA?' Kerry's response: 'open to examining' whether to change current law '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.' It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is."
Are people seriously going to vote for the better candidate on copyrights and making backup copies of software? There seems to be more important issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, and terrorism to judge candidates for president. I know /. is full of nerds, but speaking as a nerd I don't vote like a nerd.
if he does defang the DCMA, maybe he can work on the patriot act as well.
No.
Don't Crease the Weasel!
No differnces between these two candidates? Ok, I don't expect deep political analysis from a tech columnist anymore than I expect a clear understanding of tech from a political one, but Jesus Tapdancing Christ, you can't get wider policy differences than you have this year.
Although I do give credit for his well researched analysis of the tech policies of each candidate. Even though Kerry hasn't done squat on the issues in his two decades in the Senate, by vigorously enforcing DMCA and working to exoort it, Bush is causeing harm. If Kerry could have passed the smell test I might have voted for him on the least harm principle.
Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.
Democrat delenda est
For those who forgot their high school civics our live outside the USA...
The president cannot directly write make a law at all. Only members of the House and Senate can nominate bills for consideration. (When the "President's Budget" comes every year, some member of the House must support the bill enough to put it into "the hopper" or it doesn't get off the ground.) The president's only role in the legislative process is to approve bills that have passed both houses of Congress, and that can even be bypassed
Therefore, even if Kerry wins the presidential race, he still will have no direct impact on laws. He'll only be able to sign a DMCA repeal or softening amendment if Congress sends him one to consider.
As always happens in the even-numbered years, all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for re-election. Right now, it's a "Republican steamroller" because Republicans control both houses and and the White house. However, the Republicans hold on to a very thin margin to make their majority in both cases, so this could completely flip or end up in a mixed state after the elections. The Congress has much more say over the laws than the President gets.
That's not too bad, though. It means neither side has gotten to him yet. We have an opportunity to make a case.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
It doesn't matter who wins the presidency. Nothing will happen. At first I was going to say that the president only signs laws. It's up to congress to change the law. But in the end, this is now the Corporate States of America. And no one in Washingon will ever get off the gravy train.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
He'll get around to that right after he and the Ambulance Chaser finish making the paralyzed rise up and walk, the deaf hear, the blind see, yada yada. He's campaigning, so he will promise whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.
I voted for Kodos
I didn't realize the president could simply wipe existing laws out of existance.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Would it really matter. It is already a law, and as president he has no control over it. However he would have power to veto it if changes came down the pipe to alter or kill it off.
Why do we as americans put so much into the presidential elections, when infact our congress critters have the power to draft and approve new laws, while the president is in the position to say yes or no to them?
Neither politician has the moxie to say in public that he agrees with gay marriage...
That's because neither of the candidates support it. Bush doesn't support it and wants a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Kerry doesn't support it but is against any such legislation.
Strangely enough, both candidates are nearly mirroring their stances on the issue of IP theft:
Said Bush: "I strongly support efforts to protect intellectual property and will continue to work with Congress to ensure all intellectual property is properly protected...We must vigorously enforce intellectual-property protections and prosecute the violators, not the technology." He noted that his administration launched an initiative to enforce such laws and has worked closely with China to support penalties associated with violating American intellectual-property rights.
Kerry, meanwhile, has a slightly different stance. "I do not condone the illegal sharing of copyrighted material," Kerry said, though he is "open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ensure that a person who lawfully receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes."
Poor Jim Lehrer of PBS, who moderated the first presidential debate, was left scratching his head about what actually differentiated the two men who would be president.
I just pointed out a major difference... Bush is against X and legislates against X (including denying rights to Americans because he wants to bring religious morality back into the country). Kerry is against X as well but doesn't have any plans to do anything about it.
Using John Kerry's Senate voting history to say that he supported or opposed any given thing is like trying to upconvert a low-bitrate signal... you end up guessing to make data you don't really have.
For example, there never was a true vote "on the war". Congress has not ever even voted on an official decloration of war during recent years. What was actually voted on was permission to use the armed forces if things couldn't be resolved any other way. Kerry claims that Bush forgot about that if-clause and went to war too quickly.
This is a problem anybody who tries to advance from the legislative branch into the executive branch always faces. Legislators are always asked to vote on hundreds of things on the record, while the President and governors only have to consider the final versions that have cleared their legislature. It may seem like a flip-flop to vote yes "on" version A, but "no" on version B of the same bill, but versions A and B by definition cannot be the same thing. What such a voting record indicates is not that the person was opposed to the main concept of the whole bill and then changed their mind. It instead indcates that there was some flaw in version A that was fixed by the time version B came around so they could now support the bill.
Well, he's a Senator now. Since the Senate's one of two houses of Congress, and Congress makes the laws, it might be good to ask what Kerry's done -- if anything -- in Congress to change or even "examine" the DMCA.
The POTUS does not make laws, that's what Congress is for. This is simply propaganda. Like blaming a sitting president for deficit spending when the Congress is the one with the power to spend.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Pander, I can pander
I will tell you what you want to hear
If you elect George Bush
There's a lot of things you'll have to fear
Given the Congress will most likely be GOP, Kerry will probably be ineffectual on any DMCA changes. And they would be low priority anyway.
that kerry is known to say whatever will please the audience and go back on it later if he is in front of another crowd. For example, when among homosexuals, he talks about homosexual marriage but will never mention that in a black church or among blacks in general and people make sure no one asks about it. The same goes for his position on the war. Among anti-war groups, he is anti-war among more main stream people he is a moderate. Gievn his history, he will not do anything about the DMCA. do you really think the movie actors and recording artists that have given millions to him in cash and campaign ads will accept that? Politicians always consider reelection. If Kerry weakens the position of his base, he will not be elected.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Amazing the right wing bull that gets injected into this... and yet we forget that CONGRESS PASSES THE LAWS.
Hello. Talk to your congressman. Preznits blow up countries. They don't pass laws.
http://images.radcity.net.nyud.net:8090/5145/79226 1.mp3
Do the presidents really have time for this? I suspect they would have any incentive to even think about this.
First of all, I agree with the guy who said that there are bigger issues this time around than geek issues.
But having said that, I don't understand why the parties stand where they do on this stuff. Hollywood people are huge Kerry supporters, so you'd expect him to be falling all over himself to do whtaever he could to help them out.
Bush, on the other hand, gets creamed by Hollywood types all the time. They donate tons of money to his opponents, do benefits, make statements on talk shows, etc. But Ashcroft is behaving pretty much like the industry's dream AG.
The only explanation for this that I can think of is that the candidates really believe what they say. The Republicans probably really do believe in the private property argument -- I imagine they find piracy deeply offensive.
I don't know -- it's always been a small thing that's puzzled me.
this is one of those issues where the factions don't line up neatly with the party lines
1 .h tml,
See Ed Felten's blog from about 10 days ago:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/00070
where he asks, rhetorically, "Do the Democrats really want to be known as the party that would ban fast-forwarding?"
(P.S., Leahy is up for election this year in VT.)
No, if he wanted to he could RIGHT NOW introduce a bill in the Senate to do it.
He has not. What does that tell you?
this is not a serious enough issue to warrant vote, but if this truly helps bush leave the office, like he should, then amen!
No, he would not. Its not a liberal or conservative thing, its a power thing. Its about campaign contributions and power.
I don't care for Kerry, but that doesn't matter because he is not any less corrupt than any other politician (read as: 100%)
So no, Kerry would not do anything that would take money away from his power, just as Bush or any other life long politician would not. And people ask why I am not voting this year....
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is
Is this supposed to be news?
*Warning... partisan joke coming*
Why not? The current one seems to have been able to de facto wipe existing portions of the constitution out...
*End joke*
Oh, to live in an era where any politically-oriented Slashdot post didn't degrade into a hate-fest between sides.
Not this year.
JP
Stiny! Get me a danish!
The worse the DMCA gets, the more chance reasonably licensed media like the Creative Commons stuff has of catching on.
The worst of all worlds is if they water down the DMCA just enough to say that Windows Longhord is the only legal way of copying songs, and its DRM will enforce 1 copy per household.
Isn't the DMCA more than just the ability to make "backups" of anything? Sure, that's what it sounds like topically but it applies to anything that supposedly circumvents copyright protection.
Granted most of the other popular cases involve circumventing "security" to be able to make backups of something-or-other. On that note, I do dislike the fact that when one of my cd's get uber-scratched and I still wish to listen to the songs, I have to purchase a new one by law...where I could've backed it up instead.
In the end, though, the financial implications of the DMCA is in the forefront of the deCSS issue. Why am I not allowed to watch legally purchased DVDs on my favorite linux distro? I don't believe that has anything to do with backups at all.
It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is
That's his whole problem, IMHO.
Not meant as a flame or anything, I'm voting for him and all...but in his quest to not offend a single voter, he's not really been firm on a lot of things. The DCMA being relatively minor on that list.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Why not? Ever since Truman, it seems, laws and the Constitution certainly don't matter. Every war since WWII has been undeclared. Executive Priviledge and the Executive Order rule what actually happens, not law. All a future President Kerry would really have to do is order his Attorney General NOT TO ENFORCE the DMCA, and it effectively disappears.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's ironic that the verb "defang" is used here. Especially since Mr. Kerry looks like Frankenstein's monster after a pancake and mascara session.
Take your suggested important issues of Health care. For a geek in his mid twenties I would think that the evolution of technology and how freely is can evolve would be of higher importance than Healt care. He is unlikely to get serious sick during next 40 years but for sure need to find a place/ environment where his technical talents can be used.
I will forego comment on the Iraq quagmire and how we go into this mess.
Help fight continental drift.
Hey, Kerry can call a summit on the DMCA. He can hold it in Cambodia with the UNSC.
If the above statement is confusing to you then ask around.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
CBS News actually says something useful WRT personal security:
--
Subject: CBS Report * Please Read
Keep a watch out for people standing near you in the checkout line at retail stores, restaurants, grocery stores, etc who have a camera cell phone in hand. With the camera cell phones, they can take a picture of your credit card, which gives them your name, number, and expiration date. CBS reported this type of identification theft is one of the fastest growing scams today. Be aware of your surroundings, forward to all your friends and family.
Kerry's survey response said he is "open to examining" whether to change current law "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 another device. CompTIA's open-ended question had merely asked "What should federal policy be toward protecting intellectual property on the Internet?"--without mentioning backup copies. [emphasis added]
People, let's don't get so excited just yet. This statement is so broad that in reality can mean almost anything. He is not even examining it yet, much less has any opinion on this subject. Please, however, don't read this as an answer "no" either. It basically mean "I'm not telling" but using a very intelligent and polite wording. Please keep in mind that saying that he is open to the change itself rather than marely examining its merits, might be disastrous for the campain, so we won't hear it even if he was strongly against the entire DMCA. Please remember that DMCA is a gift for media barons. Those very same barons who control public TV debates. So let's stay calm and try to understand that this answer, or the lack thereof, was the only reasonable move in those circumstances.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Yeah. Seems to be a trend here. Is for something, then against. Where is his core?
Wish Nader was taken more seriously.....
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Man this issue made me change my mind to vote for Kerry.
1) "Open to examining whether to change" does not imply "will advocate change".
2) "Changing" the DMCA doesn't necessarily mean "changing it in the way that geeks would like".
3) "Examining whether to change" can lead to the conclusion "no, it needs no changing" just as easily as its opposite.
4) "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" could be the first paragraph of the INDUCE act. After all, the INDUCE act was spun as going after P2Pers, not those who were "lawfully making backups for archival purposes".
5) Finally, "lawfully obtains or [lawfully] receives transmission" -- leaves a lot of wiggle room. What if "Lawfully" means "in accordance with every term of the EULA under which it was sold?"
Conclusion: Kerry's got no intention of asking Congress to weaken the DMCA; he's pandering for every vote he can get in the home stretch of a tightly-contested Presidential race.
That's not a partisan slur -- both parties are bought and paid for by Hollywood, and you can bet your eighth bit that no matter who wins in November, any "changes" to the DMCA in the next four years will be to Hollywood's benefit, not yours.
"open to examining"
This says nothing. "Oh.. Uh.. We'll look at it." Please, John, tell us how it is. A simple "don't bet on it" would be much more appreciated. I'm tired of politician-speak. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Yes or no, John. I'm a man.. I can take it!
What is your penile percentile?
between having one-on-one discussions with North Korea and having a six-on-one discussion involving the most powerful nations surrounding NK (who just happen to have a more vested interest in the situation than we do), then he should probably stop writing about politics and stick to playing with technology toys.
1. He probably won't have control of Congress.
2. He is in the entertainment industry's back pocket like the rest of the Democrats.
Be real - he will do nothing about it.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
"Real American Security includes having enough troops at home to protect the homeland against ALL comers- and an immigration/border system that actually prevents certain people from ever entering the country"
Which will result in your trigger-happy border guards killing Mexicans for the crime of coming over to do a job that needs doing. Thank, you, Pat Buchanan!
Iraq, Jobs, Deficit...Kerry won't have any time or inclination to address much else, even if he wanted to.
That there's a Republican controlled Senate and a Republican controlled House. Introducing such a bill would be a waste of energy, as it would never pass in a Congress that passed the DMCA in the first place!
Kerry, on the other hand, might still feel beholden to some of the big-name stars that have been stumping for him.
If copyright law and the DMCA are your single issue, I'm not at all sure that you want to vote Kerry.
See what I've been reading.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Why is it that every post on Slashdot these days that mentions Bush or Kerry winds up with partisan nonsense? This article is about the DCMA and how Kerry has indicated that he would be open to re-eximining it. However, half the posts are about Iraq and the possibilty of the American Union crumbling if one or the other is elected.
I for one, feel that Kerry indicating that the DCMA may be opened for examination is a positive point. This discussion may raise the issue to the fore such that it becomes a issue for debate (or relentless repition of partisan talking points as the American media is wont to do). Lets hope that the tech folks out there continue to voice their concern over the stupid DCMA and that Senators and possibly presidents are open to understanding just how sweeping that law is. The may lead to change and rewriting of the law.
Let's hope so at least.
Wow, you couldn't even take the time to question or refute the argument? Or even to state a different point of view? You are a waste of storage and bandwidth.
See here
all from the land of tv, movies, cd's? The only question is how much *more* restrictive things would be under Kerry.
Kerry was a senator when the DMCA was passed. How did he vote?
The odds of this happening, of course, are highly improbable. Unless you're a huge campaign contributor, of course, and judging by precedent, you may still have to wait until the last hours of the president's final term...
Both of the candidates will say whatever they have to to win, so it's better to look at their actions rather than their words. There has been one case so far where Senator Kerry had to decide about security vs. freedom, and he came out on the right side: when offered by the secret service, he refused temporary flight restrictions around his campaign stops, so that private aviation is not disrupted or shut down the way it is when the president or vice-president visit a town.
Since he's not likely to win any votes that way (I mean, how many of you really care?), the choice suggests a real personal preference for freedom over security. Perhaps that preference will carry through to the DMCA, though that may depend more on the cabinet than the president.
Not trying to be partisan here (although I am a Republican who's already voted for Bush), but take a look at the official Senate roll call vote for the DMCA (S.2037, 1998):
i sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2& vote=00137
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_l
All but one senator voted YEA for the DMCA... including one Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.). Now you can put his remarks into the proper context.
How serious is the Senator from Massachusetts?
Because he'll vote for it before he votes against it ;-)
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
Hell Bush has wiped out entire constitutional amendments, what's a law?
Leahy is up for election, but unfortunately the opponent is a wingnut. If the Republicans had run anyone even arguably moderate on social issues, I'd be voting against Leahy, whose IP stance I detest (and have written him and our other VT politicians about repeatedly - none of the rest of our establishment will stand against him on this though - wimps).
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
but Jesus Tapdancing Christ, you can't get wider policy differences than you have this year.
Eeeh... not so much. One big policy problem that I have with both of them is that they are both in favor of the "War on Drugs", and locking people away for a long, long time for hurting nobody (other than maybe themselves, and not even that if you're talking about pot). To me, this is a basic civil liberty that I believe all people are entitled to, and this issue is more important to me than a war in Iraq or "terrorism", so I voted for the Libertarian candidate.
I don't respond to AC's.
hahah.
Day After Election:
"You've been SUCKERED!"
-Winner
"It was unfair! Make me the winner"
-Loser
/b
|f(x)dx = F(b) - F(a)
At this point, Kerry will say anything to get elected. Kerry flip flops on every issue that came his way. He cannot be believed.
Note that the trial lawyers who back Kerry and Edwards will want to keep the DCMA the way it is.
"I have great respect for artists, consumers and the companies that make lots of money from them all. At the same time, I feel uncomfortable inflicting my personal beliefs onto any of them. Digital information is conceived in human minds but does not become profitable until sold."
I'm still not sure what he's going to do.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Y'all might not have noticed sitting here at slashdot, but changing the DMCA is an *extremely low* priority to most politicians. For all they know about the DMCA, all it does is close a loophole in copyright infringement laws that made it easy to pirate movies, because that's what every "technology expert" (read: software industry lobbyist) has told them.
Both parties passed the bill and strongly support keeping it as is, so don't try to turn this into a Democratic vs. Republican issue.
... is doing any/everything which has even the slightest chance of slowing, stopping, or reversing the trend of what's happening to civil liberties in the USA.
ALL other issues are fundamentally dependent, in the final analysis, on the the preservation of civil liberties.
He seems to be a man of conviction. Keep in mind that the masses are composed of sheep. They need a leader telling them where to go, when to do something and how high to jump. GWB is more of a leader than Mr. Kerry. Whether GW's positions and opinions are correct is another issue, but they tend to be inline with my positions more or less.. certainly more than Kerry's.
What is your penile percentile?
"It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is"
ABOUT ANYTHING! The man says both ends of the coin for everything.
Every war since WWII has been undeclared.
Section 8, Clause 11 of the US constitution reads: Congress shall have the power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Can you name me one armed conflict that the Congress did not give authority for the President to use force? What kind of declaration of war were you expecting?
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
I also played ping-pong with Vietnamese villagers' eyeballs but was against the war...
It would be nice if issues like this came up for a national vote. In California we have such things (called "propositions") that allow voters to vote on issues rather than let politicians decide.
This way choices would not be bundled to a candidate in an all-or-nothing way they are with Kerry-Vs-Bush decisions.
The only real drawback I have encountered is that some issues get a bit legalistic such that voters are confused. But if they published endorsements with them, then voters can decide along the lines of their favorite politician if they don't want to try to read legalese. The California voting material does not always directly supply such info.
Table-ized A.I.
Uses: 27 words, two consultants and a speechwriter.
Says: "Dunno."
1. Democrats are for *more* government control.
2. Conservatives (and less so todays Republicans) are for *less* government control.
Hence, in order for the Democrats to 'control', they utiilize [increased] laws, taxes, regulations, etc. to a far greater extent. That most certainly would include the subject here. Democrats always use their power to *decrease* your freedoms, in trade for (presumably) doing more for you. But it is they you decide what they do for you, if anything. It is *not* you that decide that in any way.
Therefore, whatever you *think* you might be getting on this subject, you would lose more elsewhere. And lose even this thing later on.
If it were not for the Terrorism battle, I'd be voting this way. But since *nothing* else matters if you lose the war, I must vote for Bush.
Right, but he voted for it before voting against it.
Kerry is impressionable, and agrees with anyone for 10 minutes after they have made their point. It's clear from his "positions" that he is devoid of core principles.
I'm not saying he's a bad guy. Being able to hear both sides of an argument is important for someone whose job consists of spouting off at the mouth for hours on end (ie senator).
I'd rather someone who can make a decision, even an unpopular one, than someone who will say whatever you want to hear.
this sig has been rated E for Everyone.
Translation: I don't want to tell geeks that I have absolutely no intention of changing something I'm quite happy with, when it very well might sway them to vote against me. I'll wrap it in nice terms that sound like I might consider it, but frankly my senatorial bribes were just too big to forget. I'm a billionaire who likes elitist entertainment (duck hunting, golf, etc), so I really don't care about this shit anyway, and even if I did, I could afford whatever fee the intellectual property cartels will put on it anyway.
In other words, the President may not be able to *make* the changes himself, but he is able to SET THE DEBATE and this is a power in and of itself.
:)
That and the whole commander in chief thing, appointing judges and other government officials, running foreign relations, etc makes it such that the President has the capability of really shaping and molding the federal government from top to bottom. Of course there is this whole bureaucratic thing that they have to get around.
Wikipedia does a good job covering these and other subtleties of the President's power. A must read for every American voter and/or the curious or concerned foreign citizen
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
Kerry's stance on the DMCA sounds a lot like his stance on the Patriot Act: He basically thinks these are good laws, he voted for them, but he doesn't want to risk losing independent voters by making a statement one way or another.
This is how I view this election: Bush is saying "If I'm elected, I'll cut off your right hand!" and Kerry is saying "If I'm elected, I'll cut off your left hand!" Well, I could spend time strategizing about which hand I would rather have, but whoever wins, I'm going to lose. Like many here on Slashdot, I'm voting for Badnarik. I know that whether Bush or Kerry wins, I will lose, so at least I'm going to cast a vote that has some meaning.
before he reinstates it
This
I can't find this on http://dne.com/. This doesn't look like a blog or news site. And I see no mention of anyone named "Dan Rathernot" (a pseudonym? "Dan Rather Not"?).
Getting back to the thread, three of the biggest copyright offenses occurred under the Democrats: the DMCA, the Copyright Term Extension Act, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (part of which lifted caps on media ownership).
In 1996 few people cared about the caps being lifted, in 2003 many people from a wide variety of political leanings cared. Few people cared about the CTEA until the case went to the Supreme Court (Eldred). I have yet to see widespread concern about the DMCA (perhaps it will take some high-profile cases to wake people up, like a woman being stalked electronically where the stalker gets the information by filing bogus copyright infringement claims under the DMCA. If most ISPs are willing to divulge information on you and the market has yet to make privacy a marketable concern, this should be easy to accomplish. Yet feminist groups haven't begun to complain about the power this bill poses to those trying not to be harassed.).
If you don't pay big bucks for Kerry's campaign, you will have no say about his administration. The same is true for Bush. I'm not even convinced that having millions of people walking in the streets over copyright concerns will change anything for the better (it didn't work for the anti-war movement and on that issue tens of thousands of lives were at stake). I'd find it entertaining and I'd certainly join the march against the DMCA, but I wouldn't do it with hopes of making life better.
Digital Citizen
Florida's state legislative branch passed a law about how votes were supposed to be counted
Florida's state executive branch approved a vote count result based on the law
Florida's state judicial branch disagreed, and attempted to institute a new vote counting procedure
USA's federal judicial branch said no, you have to follow the law as written
But it wouldn't have mattered anyways, because the federal executive branch candidate at the time won the state's vote using both counting measures... as well as won using a few more alternative counting measures offered by the national press.
When Bush gets interested in AMERICAN security (as opposed to Irai Secuirty, Afghan Security, Saudi Security, Corporation Security, etc), let me know.
The real test of liberal tolerance isn't in how we treat our friends- it's in how we treat our enemies.
Your post, my friend, appears at odds with your signature.
The president appoints the FCC, who then try to pull of stuff like the "broadcast bit." We know what the Bush FCC appointments have led to. We also know that Kerry and the Democrats are politically against further media consolidation, since they have seen how it leads to corporations whose news coverage policy favors the Republicans. For the same reason, the Republicans largely love consolidation.
It's at least possible a Democratic administration could be brought to see that these IP issues are also media consolidation issues, and to correctly judge where their natural interest is in this larger picture.
Also, with the Republicans having become the anti-science party, aren't the Dems the tech community's best chance of a ally (outside of, say, the Green and Libertarian positions - which of course we should encourage since ecological diversity is as valuable in politics as anywhere else)?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Why do so many computer nerds vote democratic down the line?
I reset my case.
Kerry is also promising to end terrorism.
Think about it. These Muslim extremists have a religious belief that killing in the name of Allah is their divine service. Martyrdom is what they want, and killing one group only ignites passion for their cause.
Bush is at least being honest about the situation when he says that he doesn't know if there will be an end to terrorist acts. Kerry just throws out a blanket statement that he's going to end terrorism.
Ok, how are you going to do that?
Don't know, Kerry is very dodgy on the specifics of his foreign policy initiatives. Just read my current journal entry for more info on that.
At this point, I think Kerry is just saying anything to get elected. Kerry's statement about the DMCA is very ambiguous, meaning that he doesn't really have a strong mind to change it. He did vote for it, after all, so why should he change it?
The price of tea in China is skyrocketing... and oh yeah, Bush sucks.
While the President is powerful, this is a job for Congress. He can't pass legislation (as President), in any form, on his own. It would be more accurate to say that, if presented with the bill by Congress, he would consider signing it into law.
"Trust me, they all do. They all want cake."
Does anyone seriously believe that a Kerry administration would not take RIAA money and behave exactly the way they are paid to behave?
If you think that John Kerry is a man of priciple, let me tell you about some moon acreage that I have for sale.
Will Kerry defang America?
Are you proud to be honored in Ho Chi Minh City as a North Vietnamese hero with your portrait prominently displayed?
So why not vote independent then and let the responsibility of screwing up the country fall on someone who didn't vote their conscience? At least you will have voted responsibly.
Especially if both of them are the same (I think so!). Vote Libertarian or Green or whatever you think would do a better job as president. Keep in mind any president would be moderated by a cabinet, a House and Senate, and a judiciary, and as such there's only so much damage a president can do, and only so much change he can affect.
GPL Deconstructed
I don't like the whole Iraq situation, but I think Bush is right in "taking the battle to the enemy". Of course, it's highly arguable whether or not Iraq ever was an enemy.
As for letting bad people into the country, that is a double-edged sword. On one hand, Slashbots complain about invasions of privacy. On the other hand, if you're not thorough then bad people will slip through. How exactly are you supposed to check out someone without invading their privacy? If you do a full FBI/CIA background check on everyone then travelling will become impratical. If you don't check anyone out at all then bad people will get in. There has to be a compromise somewhere inbetween. Don't give me that Thomas Jefferson quote. I think things are different now. Thomas Jefferson lived in the days before true weapons of mass destruction. Shit, we have the capability to flatten a nation to the ground with the push of a button.
You might be surprised to learn that, despite all the shit I said above, I'm voting for Kerry. I think terrorism is an important issue, but it's only one issue.
The Republicans have had control of the house since 1994. I believe the DMCA and Copyright Term Extension Act were passed in 1998, and of course the last act you mentioned was presumably passed in 1996. However, Clinton could have vetoed these which would have required Democratic support to override, so the Dems are not exempt from their connection to these acts.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Kerry will say anything to get elected.
:)
Oh, I'm sure he and Edwards have "a plan," but not even God knows what it is.
It has been my experience that the "geek nation" is, by and large, on the left side of the aisle in most things. Certainly that is true in my office where I pretty much stand alone as the only Bush supporter amongst a sea of Kerry supporters (or, as is more correctly stateing it: a sea of Bush haters).
So, I found it rather surprising that, at least at the time I read through the comments, by and large there seemed to be more support for Bush than Kerry (or at least right-wing ideals vs. left-wing ideals). I just found that surpising.
I'm not so sure I take that as evidence that the incumbent is in better shape than I had been supposing recently, but it is an interesting observation. Likewise, if I check back in 20 minutes there might be a deluge of vocal Kerry supporters chiming in, who knows?
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
I realize that most history professors revere Wilson, who was himself a history professor, but the man had little use for the constitution and individual liberty, unless it got him the vote. Hell, Wilson was so bad that when his VP ran for president in 1920, people voted overwhelmingly for Harding because he wasn't connected to Wilson.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Has anyone caught on the Kerry does not really seem to understand the job of President of the United States? Listening to his speeches makes me choke, he talks about going into Russia and finding their nuclear waste... What authority does he have to do that?
He talks about how we don't have our allies for the war, when in reality, we do have allies, althoguh we are missing some nations
Let me take this moment to thank all of those serving in the US Military overseas, all the countries helping the US in the war, and to all the soldiers of those countries.
I know I wouldnt be all to happy to help Kerry if I was a US ally and he kept saying I did not exist.
Kerry talks about creating laws as president, although in reality this is his job as a senator (now if he had shown up for work, maybe he would have realized that)
Bush may not be your ideal, but he makes a decision to the best of his knowledge, and he STICKS with the decision that he makes. He shows some signs of leadership while Kerry might as well be a lemming.
I saw this somewhere, probably here in the form of someones sig, but I think it is important to say again...
"While you may not agree with Bush's decision, but you must agree that he has the ability to make a decision"
(yes this has been modified, but the general idea is the same)
I was unaware that anyone had forced you into a gay marriage. Good thing, or they might have forced you to have an abortion too, if you were in a traditional marriage.
I don't particularly like gay marriage or abortion either. But I think that there are far worse things in the world, and in these particulars, I'm not going to force my beliefs on others, and I ask them not to force theirs on me. Gay marriage is, in particular, a victimless 'crime,' and perhaps it is more a statement of property rights. In that light, perhaps Vermont's Civil Unions were a good idea, because marriage *is* a religious institution, and the state shouldn't be messing there. (Current ammendment proposals tend to outlaw Civil Union rights, too.) As for abortion, it leaves me queasy, the later the queasier, but there are *worse* things. If the "religious" forces expressed half the love for babies that they do for foetuses, maybe I'd feel differently about this.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
> All a future President Kerry would really have to do is order his Attorney General NOT TO ENFORCE the DMCA, and it effectively disappears.
But companies themselves are using the DMCA against consumers in all sorts of freaky ways. If the AG stopped doing so it would be great, but that's only half the problem.
The unofficial
Actually, nerd originated as knurd, being someone who didn't drink and thus the opposite of the jocks (or as they originated the ocs, the reverse of SCO).
Clearly this meaning predates the days of Linus.
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
If he's going to be political about it, he's trading off angry nerds against the industry lobby, and making a definitive statement of any kind will completely alienate at least one of the two parties, which given the nature of the race so far, he can't afford to do.
One side of the argument interprets that question as "Are you going to scandalously and unjustifiably infringe our rights to use technology freely and exchange information without constraint?". The other side hears, "Are you going to allow people to freely copy intellectual property as an alternative to purchasing it, thus creating a huge risk for us to mitigate in the coming years, turning back decades or intellectual rights protection?".
It would take a moron to say, "Yeah, I'm gonna totally let you copy anything you want, any time you want, regardless of what it is or who made it or whether its yours to copy, by nobbling the only law that was written to protect the technology that protects the intellectual property". So if you want an answer that dumb, go ask the other candidate (although it'll probably be equally dumb, but in the other direction).
The DMCA is horribly constrictive, but its supporters fear its removal because without it they have no defense against illicit copying and channel control (upon which large percentages of their revenues depend) other than trying to incentivise people to buy it rather than get it for free.
And given the choice, people will always take it for free. (cue the "but i download music and pay for it later" rebuttal that's utter rubbish).
In my opinion, the answer was so predictable that the question was a waste of breath (ink?).
Salocin.com
Same here, and I've written him, too.
I came out and said expressly that I hated having to decide between his IP stance and more far-right Supremes. (At this point I should disclaim myself... I've been informed that NPR and BBC are both left-wing arms of the State, that Fox News is a more centrist and balanced source. No doubt further information will be coming that Clarence Thomas is a centrist.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Sounds to me like Kerry is winding up for one of his famous flip flops. Never trust a politician's stance when he/she uses grey level words like "examining" or "under consideration".
Judges have the responsibility for determining whether the laws of a state are consistent with its consistution. If the Massachusetts constitution says that people have equal protection under the law, then judges are doing what they have a obligation to do in striking down any laws which contradict that right. If you don't like that and you live in Massachusetts then change the Constitution, but don't complain about judges doing their jobs.
Kerry is a Lawyer...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Sounds like more of the same to me.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The Man from Beacon Hill's "New War" on the Constitution
A great read for anyone who thinks Kerry will do anything to help you regarding the DMCA.
Think of this as a lesser-of-two-evils situation, and you might be able to stomach Kerry long enough to vote for him.
I disagree.
that voting for someone is going to throw away the work of the microsoft lobby (among others)?
DON'T PANIC
Of course no one is going to cast a vote for Kerry solely because Kerry *may* take a more rational stance on copyright law. The bigger issue is the underlying ideology of the two candidates with regards to issues of consumer freedom. The two candidates' philosophies on this issue are a microcosm of their larger beliefs. It's reasonable to extrapolate further policy changes by examining this issue closely.
So here's how it boils down: If you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of large corporations, vote for Bush; if you think consumer rights are an important issue, vote for Kerry. It's that simple.
Am I the only one who thinks there are far too many laws on the books already?
"Hey Albert, Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."
Vote with your money, does not matter who gets elected the govt. is going to do what it does best and that is smoke & mirror politics, if more people would quit buying DMCA labeled products they will eventually get the picture, you might not like this idea the the proof is on the pudding, forget DMCA labeled software, music, video, movies, games, everything...
ya gotta break some eggs if you want to make a omlette
learn Linux, forget buying windows, no more DVDs. or music CDs, give all the corporate pigs that produce this crap a war of attrition...
The House is unlikely this time around, but it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility they'll take back the Senate.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
According to the official Roll Call, Kerry voted Yea on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, as did 98 of his peers.
Unlike most of our current politicians, I don't consider the New York Stock Exchange and Multinational Corporations to be more important than citizens.
You know that there are a lot of people who work in the NYSE building, right? Remember, what you want is _equal_ protection for all citizens. The NYSE is more likely to be a target for terror than your house (target valuation), therefore it _should_ have more protection. Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of noninstitutional investors who would be effected by a run in the stock market. Who was hurt worst by the depression? Small time investors. "Average joe" types. Look, I agree that security starts at home, but we have to be realistic about cause and effect.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
So if I vote AGAINST Kerry I can claim I voted for him? I'm soooo confused!
Bottom line, his vote is what it is.
If he knew that he wanted to be president he should have known he might have to run on his record.Given the choice on November 2nd between being punched, and being shot, I would choose to be shot, Because maybe then people will realize how screwed up the get punched vs. get shot political system is, and then my kids won't have to be punched or shot.
So, since I'm getting shot on principle I may as well vote for a third party and get shot anyway.
Abolish Copyright. Restore Freedom.
He gave a completely non-commital "your cause is important to me and deserves further review" response. Does anyone here think he actually cares? The guy's a freaking billionaire, he doesn't care if he has to pay for music more than once! Why do people think he's the candidate of "the people?"
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Congress' intent when creating the DMCA was two-fold:
They envisioned making it easier for legitimate, white-hat-wearing businesses to stop the violation of their copyrights. What they actually provided, of course, was "takedown", a sledgehammer a lawyer can use to swat a fly.
The "copyright managment information" Congress was most concerned about were things like holograms on jewel cases, but the wording of the law also include the text of copyright notices in programs, EULA wrappers, and so on.
Courts are becoming increasing sophisticated in how they interpret the DMCA in cases where it's invoked. I think as more and more people, including judges, get their information online instead of from the mainscam media, attitudes will change about what is "fair use" allowed by the DMCA and what falls under (what you'd think is the capital crime of) "piracy".
There is real tension that cuts across the lines between the Left and Right. On the left you have Hollywood wanting protection ("for the artists"), while civil libertarians want anarchy. On the right there is the limited government crowd, but also the capitalists. Probably it would be overstating it to say the tension within the two sides is greater than that between them, but I can't decide.
At any rate, I don't think either Bush or Kerry would do anything about it, but the courts probably will settle on good rules to curb the abuses of the takedown mess.
sigs, as if you care.
Prohibition was an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore it was Constitutional. Stupid, but Constitutional.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
When you think about it, "something in place" is not a good excuse for voting for something that is patently in violation of their Oaths of Office (i.e. They swore to uphold the Constitution- voting on something that is concretely in violation of the same is NOT upholding it!). If it was flawed, they should have fixed the damn thing or tabled it permanantly.
I do not accept his rationale on this issue.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Quite right, I was referring to the Democratic Party president (since we're talking about Kerry "defang[ing]" the DMCA), but thanks for the clarification.
Digital Citizen
Uh, how could prohibition be unconstitutional if it was A FREAKING AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION?
Sheesh.
Fellowship 9/11
It's pretty clear that your mind is made up, so don't think I'm trying to change your vote. However, I would encourage you to read up on the some of the misinformation shoved down our throats by both parties. FactCheck.org is an excellent resource--it was recommended by Cheney in the VP debate.
A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders.
ZDnet is owned by CNET. The same story is on CNET (http://www.news.com/) today too. But the discussion threads beneath the two are separate, so as, I suppose, to make it look as if ZDnet and CNET were separate properties.
What the hell is this?
The radical Islamics are the ones killing off the Iraqi National Guard troops in the name of Allah- they just butchered 50 some-odd people in the name of Allah just this last week.
Grow up and find out what is REALLY going on in the world- and it's not all lilly-white pure on our side, but they're not innocents over there that we "oppressed".
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
whatever shit you want to hear then do what ever Hollywood etla pays him todo. Remember this is the man who sat with the UN security council for hours and knows more about what they want the President Bush, er scratch that Kerry lied, again. Security council has no idea what he's talking about. What an ASS. At least he didn't invent the Internet!
From http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2& vote=00137/
On Passage of the Bill (S.2037 as amended )
[snip]
Number: S. 2037 (Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 )
[snip]
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
In other news, here's a rollcall for the PATRIOT Act. It's a dead horse, but I just noticed that Sen. Sensenbrenner ( R-WI ) sponsored this beast and Sen. Feingold ( D-WI ) cast the only dissenting vote. It's amazing to me that no one voted against the DMCA.
I know this has been a bit offtopic, but it was interesting news to me being an ignorant Wisconsonite.
*shrug*
I guess I'll go back to my chronic Googling now...
A-Day
I never claimed to be for liberal tolerance- however, if I was, tolerance means letting other people do as they will even when we disagree with it, tolerating their behavior. Promoting the security of Iraq against it's own dictator is NOT tolerating that country's sovreignity or internal behavior. Ousting the rebel Taliban Government does not show tolerance for Afghani culture. Supporting the House of Saud against a Wahhbaist rebellion doesn't help either, nor does putting the interest of Multinational Corporations ahead of American Citizens.
Tolerance in this case basically means a combination of Star Trek's Prime Directive and Augustine's original Just War Theory- don't invade other nations that you know nothing about, and fight your battles on your own territory only.
Only in this way, teaches Augustine of Hippo, can you say that you have shown love for your enemy and refrained from judging him, as the Lord asked us to do. Christian Liberalism taken to the extreme. And if you don't think Augustine knew what he was talking about- he was in Rome for the Great Sack- he knew battle.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
doesn't the slashdot crowd generally lean towards the idea that the whole system is broken, that neither bush nor kerry is the solution to the problem?
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
He was not in compliance in any way shape or form with the cease-fire treaty with Gulf War I. The UN acknowleged this. It's part of why they did very little about us doing the Gulf War II incursions.
Oh, and by the way, they DID find that while he didn't have WMDs, he was equipping up to have them within only a couple of months of the lifting of sanctions, etc. He had people burying hot reactor parts in their yards, etc.- they've just began to scratch the surface with this mess. It's not all like you've been led to believe it was, either way.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
are the american people so stupid that they`ll fall for anything with a catchy sounding sequence of letters for a name?
Examples : P.A.T.R.I.O.T. , S.T.O.P. , I.N.D.U.C.E. etc etc.
(ps) For those that dont quite realise what an acronym is ( im guessing Bush + Co and a moderate chunk of their supporters ) - look hereIm sure a word is thought up, and the words describing what the new law is about are fitted around it.
That's so out of character for him.
Does Kerry even know what the DMCA is?
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Are there idiots, that don't research the issues? Yes. But how many are there that are voting for Kerry because "Bush is an idiot." They don't point to any factual case or issue, but they watched farienhieght 911 and it made Bush look like an idiot. Its like on slashdot where you have one troll post "M$ is teh suck" and a respose like " Linsux is full of Open Sores". The comments don't really add much to a debate of specific operating system features, but they get posted a million times. Just like politics in America and everywhere else.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
It's easy.
"Hey, members of Congress: Repeal this law, or I'll veto every goddamn bill that passes my desk from this day forth."
Kinda puts the pressure on, doesn't it?
The DMCA was sponsored by hollywood liberals. Why would John Kerry oppose them?
see who is giving money to his party.
that is where his efforts will be.
Kerry might be the lesser of two evils but make no mistake he is just as in bed with the media corporations as anyone else. Hes just covering his ass on that response - he can't say "i'll abolish it" and he doesnt want to loose voters by saying he won't. Unless something is done about the dire state of bribery in America theres no hope of anything but token gestures and theres little hope of showing European governments they can't get away with this either.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I'm still waiting to see what that "ironclad evidence" leads us to...
It takes 2/3rd to move a bill from the debate stage to voting stage. The Republicans currently have 50-50 with tiebreaker status, so any heavily tilted bill tends to get filibustered, which has the effect of putting bills into limbo.
This was the same argument given to Clinton from 1992 to 1994 when the Democrats had full control of the both the Executive and Legislative branches, but did not have super majority to pass whatever law they wished. Fortunately, we citizens were protected well by this balance...
Bush and Kerry are really pretty close on all the things you mentioned.
So why not vote for the candidate you like most on the issues of digital rights? Those are the kinds of things that have more far-reaching consiquences beyond the concerns of the moment. Do you really think either one is going to affect the economy to a degree very significantly differet from the other?
Personally I prefer not to vote for Democrats at a national level because they have too many ties to big media (local candidates are fine, I vote for whoever seems best while tending towards Libertarians). Perhaps the Republicans have more ties to big business (not really sure if that's true, but that's another discussion) but I feel most of the most egregious assaults on digital rights have come from the media industry and I'd prefer to keep them an arms length away from power.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not only that, but have you considered what will happen if Iraq stabilizes and becomes our ally? That country is very rich in resources, once stabilized they will be a very powerfull ally in the war on terror. Not to mention an ally that has access to the enemy's backdoor to boot.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
That goes double for the lefties amongst you who are going to vote for Nader. Kerry isn't going to turn your country into the leftie paradise you dream of, sure. But at least the bloke isn't a messianic, militaristic moron who sends thousands of soldiers off to die to settle a family vendetta...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Lots of dictators are evil (Prime example: North Korea), yet we don't go after them. Here's an AK-47. Have at it!
Oh, and BTW W's Dad and Reagan fully supported Saddam during the '80s. Go and read some history books and see some old photographs. Politics isn't as simplistic as you'd like it to be.
...is "If you want to hear that I will do it, then I'll tell you that I will look into it. What you don't know is that this will involve asking one or two people who already don't want to do anything about it what they think, so the long-term answer is 'No, so go away.'"...
It's typical of politicians to say that stuff, expecially if they're trying to get into office.
With John Kerry SPECIFICALLY, bear in mind that he has a very hard time giving a straight solid answer. He does not seem to have any convictions of his own. He seems to prefer changing his mind on a whim over anything. It's pathetic.
With Bush, you can like him or hate him. Either way, you know exactly where he stands on a given issue, and if he decides to do something, he doesn't back down from it just because some dolt that want his job is proclaiming that he's made a mistake. (NEWS FLASH! President Bush is human! He's going to make mistakes!)
Kerry's recent attempt to pin this weapons disappearance on Bush is one of desperation. Bush wasn't there to guard it himself. If there's anyone to blame, it's the people who were supposed to be guarding it, and if the issue was manpower, then throw their commander into the mix, too. You can't really go much further than that. Wouldn't it be interesting, if the place was supposed to be guarded by Iraqis? Whose fault would it be then?
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
I think it would be a nice changes if senators and members of the house were required to enter a small paragraph explaining what they are thinking about while voting for something, that would go along with the public record of how they voted.
In short, we need more meta-data on the governement.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Vote Bush and it won't matter anyway; The apocalypse will come before the lawyers get around to the files you're sharing.
Four more wars!
Politics is about compromise, and in a democracy people will always be bitching about how much the President (and the alternatives) suck. I think we all have a tendency to look back the "the good old days" with a bit too much nostalgia.
Remember that Lincoln was exoriorated constantly during his Presidency. JFK barely got into office. Truman was dirided as a spineless puppet of the Missouri Democratic Party machine. The now venerated Reagan was lampooned as being out of touch with reality.
How often is it in the course of your daily life that you find someone, even a best friend, with whom you agree on all major political issues? Now look around and take into account the fact that the United States encompasses urban high-tech professionals, rural farmers, recent immigrants, long-established families, people who grew up with the Internet, people who grew up before the arrival of television, Catholics and Atheists, followers of Ayn Rand and believers in social justice, and tell me how you could possibly find someone who could run for President of a land this diverse in a two-party system and not be a compromise candidate?
You'll never find a candidate that appeals to you 100%, but that's the nature of the beast. The real question is which issues matter most to you. Saying that the candidates both suck masks the fact that they have widely divergent views on a broad range of basic issues, from how to fight terrorists to how to manage our natural resources. I'm not wild about Kerry, but I do think that he's going to be far more effective at fighting terrorists than Bush, I think he doesn't mistrust democracy as much as Bush does, and I think he understands that our natural resources are worth protecting. So I'll be voting for Kerry. Your criteria may vary widely from mine, but I don't think Kerry sucks.
America's system of government is flawed to be sure, but Democracies in general are messy. There are systems that are easier (hey, the Italian trains ran on time in Mussolini's day, right?) but they've got problems of their own.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Exactly.. Protecting the NYSE and multinational corporations are not more important than the citizenry, but the citizenry benefit from protecting said organizations indirectly. You like having a stable economy, right? That relative faith you have in the economy is because of the NYSE and multinational corporations. How short-sited one must be to think that the government does everything for large companies and little for the citizenry.
What is your penile percentile?
Presidents do not hold absolute power to repeal laws, but judging from Bush's record they can repeal regulations and rules.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Seeing as he voted for the Patriot Act, not likely.
Except he has explained that the Patriot Act will be unnecessary after two or three years of his administration. This was talked about at our KC meeting with Sen. Carnahan and people from the Senator's campaign.
It doesn't get a lot of talk because there are some hard international decisions that will be made, including putting an end to the support for Israel which has been a devisive wedge between the US and Europe (as well as the middle east). This is the kind of stuff the predominantly Jewish media in the US would cause massive panic over so it is best not said to the masses but rather in groups that are able to maturely deal with the facts. By stopping the foolish policy of propping up Israel, it will allow that part of the middle east to revert to its natural state, cause the palistinian terrorism to disappear, and allow us to relax restrictions on liberties like the Patriot Act.
Israel has been a half-century failure. They've shown consistently they cannot get along with others. Most western nations understand it is time to let Israel be run by Palistinians and end this failed experiment. Then we can have true peace and get back to important domestic policies and economic development.
"It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is"
Really, ya don't say?
So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats.
Activist judges.
Every time someone blames something on "activist judges" my estimate of their IQ goes down about 5 points.
When a judge strikes down a long-standing law because it violates the constitution of their state or country, is that activism? Is it bad?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Sorry, man... as long as we still use the archaic, undemocratic FPTP voting scheme, I will NOT throw away my vote. I might consider using something like VotePair, but I actually really like the democratic candidate thsi time (my only beef is his views on Isreal, but hey, Dean said what I felt, and got slammed by AIPAC).
Seriously, the only way to really get any 3rd parites involved is to update the horribly unrepresentative vote counting system in this country.... but before we do anything *really* profound like oh, say, instituting IRV, for example... I think we first have to look at other forms of electoraly dysfunction like Diebold and vote-disenchranchisement.
Just a note, only soldiers on the losing side get tried before international tribunals, the winners don't put up with it. Look at WW2 and all the Soviets charged with war crimes for killing german civilians or the Americans charged with war crimes for killing Japanese civilians.
Now keep looking.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
"Stop sending money to Iraq so we can hust down terrorists and kill them" is currently the Kerry line. Never mind that the terrorists have been drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...whatever 100% detail-free claim, promise and/or assertion that would win him the presidency.
The great thing about Kerry is you can support him even if you totally disagree with him on the issues. Just wait five minutes or go listen to him in front of a different audience and you'll hear him say exactly what you wanted to hear.
Hey, if its popular today, its cool with Kerry, if its unpopular tomorrow, its unpopular with Kerry... I get confused watching this man, seriously, he is like the Uber Politician, always changing to support whatever is trendy at the time, reguardless of right or wrong... Opine-It!
One, Kerry has not taken a strong stand against it. This is politician for "I will not do anything about this, but try to straddle the fence to gain votes."
Two, even if he took a strong stand against it, how long before we hear: "I voted for DMCA reform before voting against it."
Wake up and smell the coffee everyone. If you want real change, you're going to have to vote third party.
I would think so too except that he voted for the DMCA in the first place! I know everyone else did too, but if he voted for it he should in essence already be "briefed" at least in that he has a broad understanding of what it did and could talk a little about what it was meant to do. But that answer could have been given to any question, like "Would you vote to make little capes on dogs a crime?"
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Really? I've never seen such a difference in two people choosing opposite methods of 'solving' each problem than I have this year.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
Someone who didn't believe in private property would not be trying to give it back to them.
The question is how you give it back without the people who really don't believe in private property taking it for themselves.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I strongly disagree with Leahy's stance on IP issues, but in other respects he has been an excellant senator. (He was the speaker at my high school graduation, when he was district attorney. I did volunteer work for his first senatorial campaign.) Much as I dislike his IP stance, it would be hard to find a candidate I would consider preferable. It would have to be someone whose overall position I considered so much preferable that it was worth replacing a very senior senator like Leahy with someone with no seniority. In my case, this is academic since I don't vote in Vermont anymore, but I would hope that those who do would think twice about voting just on his IP stance.
In this particular case, I suspect the Kerry supporters aren't particularly interested in commenting because they don't expect much change on DMCA-related issues. For them there are much more important reasons for voting for Kerry - like not being a complete fucking moron who has managed to waste $200 billion dollars, a thousand lives, and every bit of goodwill the US had in the outside world, on an unnecessary and counterproductive war. Oh, and not be inclined to appoint more Antonin Scalias to the Supreme Court - that's a big one for many Democrats. Oh, and Kerry might help stop putting the federal government in ever-greater hock to the central banks of China and Japan.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Get with kerry on the "international TEST" if you think he agrees with bush on terrorism. I don't think he understands or believes that there is ever a right time for a nation to act in its own and only its own best interests.
HERE'S THE PRESIDENCY 101 GLOBAL TEST
http://www.reason.com/0410/fe.jb.john.shtml
How much of that "World Wide Terroism" has the US seen?
Some of the terrorism we have seen has been in places we really have little presence - Spain, Russia. Are you arguing that Amercia really should be in every country trying to stop terrorism everywhere?
I'd say keeping most of the terrorism that could affect the US confined to Iraq is actually doing pretty well, compared to how things could be.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
All a future President Kerry would really have to do is order his Attorney General NOT TO ENFORCE the DMCA, and it effectively disappears.
Not necessarily. Many statutes either explicitly or implicitly create a right on behalf of public citizens to sue directly offenders of the statute. Much of America's enviornmental litigation happens this way - the Sierra Club, etc. sue companies who violate the rules, even if the EPA hasn't gotten involved. What would happen here is that some company would sue under the DCMA and it would probably be up to the appellate courts to determine whether not not the DCMA gave copyright holders the right to do this.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
"Kerry is against X as well but doesn't have any plans to do anything about it."
I'm paraphasing.
Kerry: I don't want to be think of as a Catholic president, but a president that happens to be a Catholic
McCain is against gay marriage, but he's my favorite politician. Why? Cause he had stated that he won't force other people to accept his belief (using his legistrative power)
How come when anyone asks this question they just get modded as a troll? I think this is a valid question. I ask the same thing of Republicans I know and get the same response. No answer just a dumb look like Im stupid if I dont know. The point being I honestly dont think Republicans even know why they are voting for Bush. They do it just because someone told them they had to.
You know that there are a lot of people who work in the NYSE building, right?
I'm not talking about the building- current policy seems to indicate that buildings and people can be easily replaced. I'm talking about *business interests*- MNCs world wide.
Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of noninstitutional investors who would be effected by a run in the stock market. Who was hurt worst by the depression? Small time investors. "Average joe" types. Look, I agree that security starts at home, but we have to be realistic about cause and effect.
A depression wouldn't hurt anybody if we hadn't have given corporations power over basic needs of the citizens to begin with- the worst mistake of having a capitalist economic system is extending it to things that no corporation should ever control, like food, clothing, shelter, water and medical care. Because we have, and because the corporations want to earn huge profits, they're making practically everything we need elsewhere- thus requiring large amounts of fuel to ship it to us. Which makes OIL a major national security issue- since without oil we don't get food, clothing, shelter, water, or medical care. Thus our involvement in the Middle East.
It's this involvement of corporations in the governmental duty of providing for the general welfare that I take the largest issue with; we could EASILY make everything here at home if we choose to, thus cutting our shipping fuel needs down exponentially, thus enabling us not to get involved with the Middle East at all, if we'd only make it a priority to have our basic needs met with goods produced here at home. And if we weren't involved in the Middle East we wouldn't be terrorist targets. I personally blame the Bush family for a lot of this- Prescott Bush (the current President's grandfather) was the reckless businessman who decided to exploit middle east oil to begin with- a totally immoral and stupid thing to do in the long run. But that's what the NYSE rewards: immorality and stupidity. We'd be better off without any of those idiots.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Indeed, the people in Spain or Russia or other parts of the world where terrorist attacks have taken place are far safer off than the people in the US.
The people outside the US like aid workers in Iraq sure are safer, eh?
Yes sir, It's a wonderful time to be from outside the US and stick your heads in the sand. "Oh, if only that mean Bush is defeated all the terrorists will vanish!!"
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
that would be because it is the winners that determine what a warcrime is...
war is not a gentalman's sport, the entire idea that there are rules to war is somewhat absurd. both the rules and history are written by the winner.
"open to examining" = won't do anything about it
Kerry's message is "Whatever he's doing, I'd do it difefrent and better".
When they actually say something it ends up being pretty close - a lot closer to each other than the Greens or Libertarian answers at least. If the only sample set you have is Republican->Democrat of course they appear different.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
On the surface your argument seems to make sense until you realize that the "big-name stars" are not the ones who get burned when you copy a DVD. The DVD gets burned, not them :P
No seriously, the MOVIE STUDIOS are the ones who are going ape shit on enforcement because they are the ones who stand to lose the most, whereas the stars are mostly paid BEFORE THE MOVIE EVER HITS THE THEATRE.
In fact IIRC there have been several big name stars and indeed directors who have come out AGAINST the current state of "copyright affairs" and the way the MPAA polices it. Now the MPAA has not been nearly as vicious as the RIAA, but the point is that MOST big name stars/artists are not all like Lars Ulrich.
Shi, even Lars Ulrich isn't like Lars Ulrich, check it
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
What difference was it that Saddam was in charge (realize that he gassed the religious extemists...) and now it's not Saddam that is in charge- the extremists aren't in charge now either.
So, the parent's post really isn't accurate or insightful no matter HOW you paint it. Neither is yours.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
But what are his views? Honestly I really am not trying to troll here. It seems that he never really takes a stance on any topic (or more like he takes the stance of the majority of the people he is speaking to at the time). The only thing in the last 4 years he seems to have taken a definate stance on is WMD's in Iraq as a justification to go to war with them, and that has already been proven that he was wrong.
Vote Kompressor! I can't believe why he doesn't get the media attention he needs, he holds excellent views! He wants to destroy the music industry AND has landscaping experience!
Give me a job. Please?
I am getting to get seriously modded down, and that is just a reflection of how Demoncats, er, Democrats and their supporters love to censor the media. There are currently bigger fish to fry than the DMCA. There is a good reason for the DMCA, we need to strengthen our grip on IP for the moment. It will be loosened in time, heck, it already has been loosened considerably.
I am very disheartened by what I am seeing on Slashdot. Typically, I have a lot of respect for my fellow geeks (but maybe you are not geeks, merely nerds). The problem I have is that so many people that I consider relatively intelligence are making weakly backed observations and are making uninformed comments. Do not try to speak with authority when you have not mastered a subject. Bush has not been lying (maybe a little, but we _ALL_ do to an extent). Regardless of what Kerry says, I can tell you with the utmost confidence that John Kerry would have invaded Iraq if he were president during this past term, even without 9/11.
John Kerry has done absolutely nothing in his 20 year tenure in the US Senate. During his campaign, he has acted like a prosecutor who has no evidence. He simply makes bold faced lies to the jury, and even though they are objected... the jury still has to hear it. This is an age old technique.
President Bush is certainly not a perfect man, but he has held his position with integrity. He has made decisions that are very difficult, and I am sure that I would not have done a better job, nor would anyone else. He did what any president would have had to do. The economic decline had nothing to do with George W. Bush. He has turned the economy around, and that is irrefutible. If you argue with that you are a fool. Seriously, there is documentation to support this. Whereas the opposition to this merely makes accusations. Healthcare has been horrible for years. John Kerry's plan will never, and I repeat, never be passed. It is too outlandish, and I really hope it never is passed. President Bush's plan is more realistic and addresses the root cause of the issue (many developers should understand what root cause analysis is). Republicans are none supressing minority votes... that is all speculation (and lies). In regards to terrorism, Bush did what was necessary, the public demanded it, as well as his moral conviction demanded it. We did _NOT_ rush to war, as Kerry always states, to the contrary, we probably waited too long to go to war. Us not finding WMD's is a reflection of our hesitance to go to war. Watch, they are in Syria. Also, I do not care if we ever find any WMD's... Iraq was breaking treaties that gave us permission to monitor his ability to have WMD's... how can we know if he has any or not if we cannot monitor? That, in and of itself, is enough reason to remove him from power. Heck, he should have been removed during the Gulf War, but the UN got in the way, just like they have tried to do in this conflict.
This is just all ridiculous. The Democrats are total liars, and anyone who follows them is a complete fool. The Democrats support every single issue that is questionable. They support gay/lesbain marriage (only positive for gay/lesbian community), they support stem cell research from embryos and abortion(only positive for feminists, and do not get me started on that). Questionable item after questionable item. And to top it off, the Democratic Party is becoming mroe and more socialist. If I can recall, I only know of one socialist idea that has been even remotely successful, and that is Open Source Software, and I can argue that the only reason that it has been successful is because of the capitalist economy. Further, it is not really all that socialist... in socialism, the state own everything... rather than the individual who created it.
I am tired of this, I could go on for days. Democrats are foolish. Democrats tend to be selfish, or lazy, or have no one who relies on them. Every government run system runs horribly. Look at the things that ever
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
Disclaimer: I'm an independent and don't think a whole lot of Kerry. I'm mystified at this whole "conviction" thing. Convictions don't mean shit when they are for the wrong reasons. Iraq was wrong, I'm not a pacifist, just realize that they were poor and not as much of a threat as they were made to be. The world had no problem with us routing the Taliban. Iraq has made us worse off. I know several people personally that travel abroad and there jobs have gotten much harder because when people realize they are American they cool down to them. Bush may be a decisive leader but he doesn't make good decisions.
This is exactly the correct answer. There are hundreds of tons of reasons to vote for John Kerry, but the DMCA is not one of them.
First we prevent the Eschaton. After that we can work on the details of IP law.
We don't have a stable economy- I have no faith at all in either the NYSE or the multinational coporations, and any faith I had in the economy was dashed when it was proved that we still allow the economy to be cyclical and based on chaotic math. And it's rather obvious that in the last 40 years or so, the entire tax structure, military excursions, and regulatory nature of the federal government has been skewed away from the citizenry and towards the large companies. The only way we'll ever get it back is with voting in a third party or the violent equivalent.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Actually the original thinking, if you read older interviews with Condoleezza Rice one thing they were hoping to get out of going into the middle east (besides just removing Saddam) was a stable Islamic democracy friendly to the US in the middle of the region.
Time will tell if that's the case. The whole lighting rod effect was not I think a thing anyone was going in for exactly - but would you deny it seems to be the case? After all, why go throuhg all the trouble to get a group of people doing something in the US when you can just blow up a few people here and there with ease in Iraq? Very sad, but can you say it's not true? I'm not saying it's good, it just an observation I have of an effect it seems to have had. More effort and money is going into tryign to destabilize Iraq than going after other targets.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This close to an election, any party will promise anything to get votes.
All you really have to go on is a persons previous legislative voting record.
Look at what they have actually done, introducted and voted on.. not what they claim they will do for you if you give them your vote...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A President doesn't really have authority to do anything about a law that congress has already passed.
Article 2, Section 2 of the USC provides pretty limited power for a President.
The best he can do is to influence congress to pass another bill ammending the DMCA.
And given all his other priorities, the war, social security, health care, etc., he's not likely to pick a fight over this.
everything is "worth examining".
That does not mean he will examine it, he just says its worth examining, in effect he really said nothing at all.
Not necessarily- we've got this thing that has been developed over the last 1600 years or so called the Just War Theory- the idea of what makes a just war and what doesn't- and anything that doesn't is a war crime.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This is the guy who said, during campaign number one, "maybe it needs to be a little less free" in response to a reporter reminding him the negative hype he was getting at the time was a result of free speech in america and on the internet. The campaign finance "reforms" of 2002 didn't help much with this, either - funny thing is it's (ironically) come back to bite him in the butt.
Meanwhile, you can't even give enough to the little guys to make a difference, and they have no giant PACs to fund them under the table (like those other two guys have).
but I don't need the State to sanctify my marriage and my responsibility to my family. If the State recognizes some other arrangements as valid, I don't particularly see my family unraveling because of it.
I miss the good ol' days when Republicans wanted to limit federal power. Until, of course, they got their mitts on it. Remember the "Contract with America"? A balanced budget amendment? Fiscal responsibility? Now its record deficits and the only amendments I hear about are anti flag-burning (Hint: any country that makes it illegal to burn its flag deserves to have it burnt) and defining marriage.
p.s. Abortion is easy: It's about property rights. The fetus is trespassing on the mother's body. We use the minimum force required to remove the trespasser. That means early term abortions for now, until some people figure out how to transfer fetuses and grow them to term.
You are flat out wrong. Iraq was the right war, at the right time. You are missing many clear points. There is definitive evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to put weapons in the hands of terrorists in order to form a war on American soil. I would love to see it actually, becase it would be very funny. All of those Europeans that wonder what the US's "fascination" is with weapons... just let me say, we would not need our military. Further, Saddam broke international treaties that allowed him to remain in power. That, in and of itself, is reason enough to go to war. How can we be certain if he had WMD's if we are not able to monitor? That is why we had to rely on intelligence that may very well have been wrong (this is not yet definitive, like Kerry would have you believe). And even further, there are plenty of reasons France and Germany did not support the effort: 1) the US had trade embargos with Iraq restricting their oil from being sold to the US. This oil still found its way here, through proxy nations in the Middle East. This has proven itself through the increase in oil prices. 2) Saddam took that money and purchased weapons (no, I did not say WMD's) from both France and Germany (as well as others). Why would they want to miss out on that money? I am tired of hearing uninformed people speak about Iraq. I am in the military (only a reservist) and my brother-in-law is visiting from Iraq (on leave from the Army). He has not leaked any intelligence, but you can tell, from his conviction that he believes in fighting this battle, as do so many others serving (As they did _VOLUNTEER_). There is usually a reason for such conviction.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
True enough- but perhaps the winners should HAVE to put up with it as well. We'd certainly have more people thinking twice about going to war in that case.
We have, for instance, the Just War Theory to go by- Was a war porportional? Did it avoid civilian casualties (every civilian casualty is a murder, and should be tried as such)? Was there right cause? Were there other noncombatant countries involved because the war didn't respect national boundaries? These are the sorts of questions we SHOULD be asking, even the winners need to give humanity justification for their actions.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
They say that all 4 branches are equal, but we know the MPAA/RIAA branch has the most power. Just wait until they start their War on Terror!
Well, you don't see Standard Oil selling kerosene as such since it was broken up as a monopoly in 1911
- but you can bet SOMEBODY sells a heck of a lot of kerosene since it's used as jet fuel.
Find coupons in Greeley
I appreciate your eloquent insights, but perhaps you should read up on Kerry's history in the Senate and his approach to fighting terrorism. Foreign policy is about more than just "defense". I don't agree with every aspect of the Kerry approach, but your generalizations are uninformed:
How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank describes how Senator Kerry dealt a huge blow to terrorist financing in the 1990s.
Kerry Would Fight Terrorism Better delineates the approach Kerry would take to try and not only fight terrorists but stop them from sprouting up in the first place.
Kerry Faces the World discusses how Kerry's foreign policy approach is very similar to that of the first President Bush.
On the one hand (and on the other) gives The Economist's view of Kerry's foreign policy approach.
Bluster and determination are not enough to fight terrorists. You have to be smarter and more flexible than they are. And you have to believe that a free and open society is inherently stronger than a society run by a closed, secretive government. In my opinion Bush believes that only by severely curtailing the very freedoms we are fighting to preserve and insisting on blind obedience can we beat terrorists. To me, that is playing right into their hands.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I'm afraid The People were givin the pink slip some years ago...
I want to CHANGE things. The only way to change things is to do something different.
If we kept doing the same things every four years (vote for the lesser evil) then we should never expect the situation to get better.
Here are the reasons NOT to vote for the lesser evil.
I'm 27 now. I will get a chance to vote (and change things) every four years. If I live to 100 (not unlikely), that's 18 more elections. 18 chances to change something in my lifetime.
Every election that comes around, I try to convince more people to vote their conscience. It can only go up, because as it stands most people vote for the lesser evil. If only 50% of the population vote, and only 26% are needed to elect a president, then it only takes me convincing one out of four people to radically change the process, if those people also go out and try to induce change.
It ONLY takes 25% of the population to permanently change the institution. That's because only 50% vote right now. If even 10% voted their conscience, that would mean Democratic and Republican candidates would have to fight, and differentiate, to win.
And a last question for you: Since when has voting for a lesser evil actually done any GOOD? Here's counter cynicism for you:
We are screwed regardless of whether Kerry or Bush wins. With that stipulation, then, it doesn't MATTER if Bush OR Kerry wins. If that is true, and voting third party allows Bush OR Kerry (it doesn't matter which), at least you've registered your vote.
If instead you vote for Bush or Kerry, you are only propogating the institution.
My logic only works if you acknowledge that we are screwed regardless if Bush or Kerry win, and as such voting for either is actually useless.
GPL Deconstructed
You see, that's what happens to me, except that I don't even have republicans to ask (I don't live in the US, but their politics...scare me).
I've been looking for arguments to vote Bush, and all my searches have turned up is arguments against Bush (often masking as pro-Bush sites, but with sarcasm), generic crap against Kerry, and a few things (framed as anti-Kerry) that are actually a matter of opinion (abortion, among others).
No list of great accomplishments of the Bush administration, no great plans for the future. And still, it seems Bush support is vast. And through it all, no admitting they were wrong about Iraq. I wonder why the US isn't covered in billboards stating that Bush lied about the WMD.
All this support for Bush, with a terrible track record and no sign of improvement as motivations. And when, in the interest of keeping an open mind, I ask why people vote for him, I get ignored or modded as a troll. It makes me furious.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
This is exactly tha case. It needs to be said more often. Look at what the person does, not what he says, to truly know his beliefs.
is not that he's flip flopping, but that if you're sufficiently nuanced in your argument, the American people tune you out. Have you actually read his speech in the Senate on the Iraq war vote? Or on the funding? His position was very clear then, and it has not changed. He said very clearly that he was voting to give the President war powers only if inspections broke down and only with the help of our allies. Now, perhaps he should not have voted for it at all, but that is not the issue here. He did not "flip flop" or change positions; today he says the same thing about Iraq. It's just a little more nuanced than "for" or "against," so you have to actually use your brain a little to figure out his position. A lot of us (Americans) don't like to have to do that.
Would Jesus?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Tell me about that guy named Kim in North Korea. You're nothing but a sycophant. There are worse problems in this world than Iraq, I'm sorry that you can't see that and tow the party line.
Waco was kind of a slip there - or were you serious?
Canada is very nice and all, in fact I would not mind living there myself. But even Canada has some problems.
Frankly I think the reality is just about any place on earth is pretty safe from terrorism, short of a hotspot like Iraq.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are obviously missing the point that we have many allies in the Pacific (well, not necessarily allies, but we have common threats in North Korea). It would be foolish for us to make a move at this time.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
First of all where is all of this definative "proof". Maybe Saddam was telling the truth when he said he tried to buy WMD's but no one would sell them to him. Dont bring N Korea or Iran into this at this point because they were following UN sanctions until we invaded Iraq. They have both publicly stated that the US was the reason they restarted their nuclear programs. It seems that Republicans are just having a really hard time admitting to themselves that "THEY DID THE WRONG THING".
How come no Americans are getting into trouble for buying Iraqi oil when it was illegal to buy it? Could it be that the people giving Saddam all this money where all of Georges friends? No you wont admit that either. Why have we stopped going after Osama? Could it be that George doesnt want to upset the family that has "donated" 1 billion dollars to his family? Again, you seem to have a really hard time admitting the truth to yoursleves.
One day you are going to wake and realize that the last 4 years has been nothing but George trying to figure out how to divert as much of your tax money to his personal account as possible. Even at the expense of American lives. Are we going to see 200 million Republicans Jonestown on us when they wake up and realize this? I certainly hope not I have been a Republican my whole life and have many friends that are Republican (misinformed as they are) I dont like seeing them set themselves up for a fall like this.
Kerry is at least adult enough to consider the other side when making decisions. Bush has publically stated that if you are not Republican you are not considered an American to him. We dont need 4 more years of this childish exclusionary politics where only half of the population get represented.
I said it 4 years ago and it is true today and I will say it again. If we elect Bush unemployment will be worse, the stock market will be worse and education will worse. I only say that because every time we elect one of these "supposed" Republicans this happens.
Soooo you would have removed all sactions from Saddam? Stop all inspections? He was a really nice guy. The UN set up the inspections, Saddam stopped them. The UN set up sactions, Saddam bribed his way around them (French diplomats and UN leaders made loads of cash from the bribes). At what point does ANYTHING happen when the UN has passed sanctions? After 9/11 I have very little patience for tin horn dictators that want to strut around an thumb thier noses at the US. He has provided a safe haven for criminals, he was acting like he had WMD and being coy about it. Act tough to your neihbors, and tell the cops they cannot search your pockets and see how long that lasts. The plan is working, ask Libya why it came to the table.
You are a fool. An unpopular decision. You speak of "unpopular decisions". Do you even have the intelligence to read this site? I will speak this in very plain language so even you can understand.
1.) Bush told Congress that he was going to get multilateral support. (Do you know what multilateral means? Here: multilateral.)
2.) Kerry supported that.
3.) Bush said "Fuck it, we'll go it alone." And by alone, I mean without the blessing of the Permanent Security Council. You right wing fucks can go on and on about how having the Dominican Republic sending 12 soldiers to be part of the coalition of the willing is multilateral.
4.) Kerry said, "Hold it, I don't support that."
And that kind of disingenuous bullshit is where you idiots get your talking points from. Did you get sexually excited to be able to spout whatever Sean Hannity told you last night? Is Karen Hughes calling you at all hours of the night to make sure your feeble mind understands whatever 4th grade jingoistic bullshit the Bush Administration is drolling out this week?
Thanks a lot you naive idiot. It's your fault that our nation is in the toilet. Now, please post your angry response to Free Republic and then sign a fucking Republican Bush Oath of Allegiance so you can go to a Bush Rally and chant "FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!" for an hour while your idiot man-child figurehead stumbles around on stage.
Got any hard numbers (or even squishy ones) on Saddam's totals?
Here's our civilian totals.
You seem to think that an insurgent mess with indiscriminate mass murder via car bombs is better than a generalized public order under a repressive strongman.
BTW, when do we invade North Korea? How about Sudan?
gewg_
You're right, with our effectiveness at finding WMDs (the proof was a slam dunk remember?), I doubt that we could take out North Korea's nuclear program.
John Kerry is running for President. Congress makes laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Fascinating document.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
We are in the process of "negotiating" with the terrorists right now. All they seem to understand is bloodshed. Osama came to the table with his "offer" of destroying the twin towers. His demands were simple: Submit to Allah and enslave your wives and children in the Koran. We responded with a "counter-offer" of bring democracy to the middle east and destroying the Muslim fanatic religionists. Our demands are simple: Die.
They're trying to bring more "negotiators" to the table, but our military has been careful to "limit" the number of people allowed to "debate". We have also been certain that all the "meetings" have been held overseas, in particular in a country that has been helping prepare "diplomats" for years - Iraq.
I especially like the part where the people in Fallujah decided it was time to have a "debate" between the Jordanian terrorist - err - "diplomat" al-Zarqawi and the Iraqi nationalists. The Marines are now preparing to bring their own "negotiators" to the "table" in this debate as well, at the invitation of the nationals.
So negotiations are going quite well. We have "convinced" several hundred top al-Qaeda members, as well as the entire Hussein regime, to submit to our demands (die!) while they have only been successful in holding "conferences" at a train station in Spain and a few other places around the world. None of the "meetings" have occured in the US, thankfully, except for a minor incident at the LA Airport. We are actively seeking the "approval" of our plan by members of the Al Qaeda network who remain and other "diplomats", including Yassar Arafat.
Recently, debate has been intensifying with North Korea as well. Historically, North Korea has been a major supplier of the tools that the "diplomats" have been using to "debate". We have brought five nations to the table to meet with North Korea. Hopefully, dimplomacy will not explode there as well, but should that happen, we are ready. Our demands on North Korea have been simple: Stop giving "diplomats" their equipment, and don't try to develop more "persuasive" equipment. We also have a demand on the table for the leadership in NK to step down and free their people. Their demands have been pretty much to stop debating and go home so that they can continue to "debate" their South Korean brothers.
Iran is an interesting issue. Unfortunately, John Kerry, a master debater (he did very well in Vietnam, apparently) has proposed that we give Iran the nuclear materials they need - like Clinton gave the North Koreans. But Bush has been firm in his resolve on this issue. He is encouraging multiple parties to get involved in the debate, including our new partner, Iraq. Hopefully, this will be a relatively calm "debate", but if push comes to shove, there are many people in Iran who would like to "debate" their government about democracy, namely, the lack thereof. We would be more than willing to provide air support for these debates. Israel has already threatened to debate the nuclear issue with Iran at one of Iran's nuclear facility.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
WHO cares, if they won, they don't have to put up with anything. that's the point of winning. War doesn't respect any boundaries and a SOVEREIGN nation doesn't answer to any outside its borders except for war. SO, if the WINNER is accused of war crimes SOMEONE is going to have to start ANOTHER war in order to prosecute those "crimes". That is the nature of war, and it is naive and foolish to believe otherwise.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
No, if he wanted to he could RIGHT NOW introduce a bill in the Senate to do it.
He has not. What does that tell you?
It tells me that the Senate is not in session right now dipshit. Even leaving aside the realipolitik of sponsoring a bill that has so little upside for a presidential candidate, the simple fact remains that it is not possible for him to do so.
What does that tell the rest of us about your ignorance of the political process?
For one, do not respong with Anon. Coward. Secondly, your statement about North Korea is flame bait. I do not care what they state their reason to be... that is like blaming a wife getting beaten by her husband on the fact that the husband does not have a job (once again, root cause. a doctor should treat an illness, not the symptoms). Also, it is not the American companies purchasing the oil, but the other companies in the Middle East that are deceiving. Third, we have not ceased the search for Osama bin Laden... that is a foolish statement, even the liberal media has not stooped low enough to say that. I have seen stories on CBS, for crying out loud, about our continued search for Bin Laden. Further, George W. Bush is not worried about upsetting the Bin Laden's... they believe that Osama is a disgrace. They have not consulted with him in over 20 years, and further, he turned his back on them for not embracing his radical views on Islam. Get a clue. And do not bring taxes into this. Bush has lowered taxes for every single tax payer, period. Every single tax payer received a $600 check after the fact. And if Kerry gets elected, there are a few things that are certain: 1) he will be an advocate of same sex marriage, 2) he will be a coward in the face of adversity, and 3) he WILL raise taxes.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
Do not bring the WMDs back up, that is inconclusive. Because of the UN, we may not find WMDs for some time, if at all, even if they were there. And also, if the UN would have backed us up on their own policies, we would not be fighting this war in Iraq. So, if you want to start pointing fingers at things other than the root cause, point them at the UN. With only using the Navy, we would be at a near stalemate without causing a nuclear war. North Korea is touchy and requires some finesse. Kery is suggesting that we just go bust down the door. That is not going to happen without global devistation.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
Oh!! Of course NOW you want to forget about WMD's. Do you know anyone who has been to or died in Irag?
for the fact that none of the things that the Bush campain has characterized as flip-flops were anything of the sort. Concider Iraq. Prior to the first Iraqi war Kerry opposed because we had not exhausted all diplomatic measures. Before the second Iraqi war he gave the president authority to use force provided that he first exhaust all diplomatic measures. And now after the war, he is still saying that we should not have gone to war until we had exhausted all diplomatic measures. The only reason that he "voted for the second war", and against the first, is that what they were actually voting (not the war directly) was very different. In fact several republicans have flat out said that that piece of legislation was intentionally crafted in a way that regardless of how someone opposing the war voted, it could be used against them in the next election.
You just have to listen to Kerrys speeches over the last 30 years and see that he has had the exact same position on war ever since he returned from Vietnam - that war is sometimes necisarry but we should never again send out troops to battle until we are certain that there is no other option.
This whole flip-flop garbage is nothing more than a FUD campain started by Karl Rove - one in a long line of FUD campains which he is a master of. There are a lot of legitimate reason to dislike Kerry as a candidate and I respect those who cannot vote for him because of fundemental disagreements on the role of government. But I find it deeply distubing how many of my otherwise intellegent friends are basing their entire opinion of Kerry on the Bush campains' FUD.
Then again, it doesn't help that the people running Kerry's campain are incompetant. They won't let him explain his full position, because of his history of getting into long drawn out discussions that bore the public, and create more words that can be twisted and taken out of context, so they try to boil it down to sound bites. Well that might work for someone like Bush whose opinions are mostly ideological in nature, but for someone like Kerry it makes it sound like he is avoiding the question.
And it isn't hard to craft a simple explaination either, for example: "When you the people of the United States vote an official into office you give him the power necisarry to do his job. If he abuses that power, and does not live up to the promises he made, you are rightly angry. It is not a flip-flop to be state the fact that your trust was abused.
I voted to give the President the power to use force in Iraq if all other options were exhausted. I did this because this president, any president, would need that power to effectively negotiate at the UN. But this president abused that power and rushed into war. My opinion on this war has never changed, but my trust in this Comander in Chief has."
In this (DCMA) situation, he is not flip flopping but rather refusing to take a position, which both candidates do when they do not concider the subject to be important, but are afraid of alienating voters.
Actually, yes I do. And the reason we need to forget the WMDs is because there is more reason to go that whether we found them or not. And do not be a foolish Anon. Coward.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
The issues surrounding intellectual property represent a very profound shift in the American perception of copyright which has been taking place over multiple decades, and which affects the lives of every American and even people in other countries.
Intellectual Property law will not only influence what you can and can't do with what you purchase, but also what kind of hardware you can and can't purchase (including all manner of portable devices and even the electronic components of your cars, appliances, and so on), to what degree you must allow monitoring of your hardware, how much it will cost, how much the content will cost, and (of course) how much content-creators can actually earn (vs. how much the content-provider sucks up).
The economic impact of these issues is hugely significant. Given that technology is infiltrating every facet of modern life, the effects of these decisions will determine what monopolies can and cannot exist, and what degree of control said monopolies have over our entire lives.
I am surprised that you, a geek, cannot see this.
WHO cares, if they won, they don't have to put up with anything. that's the point of winning. War doesn't respect any boundaries and a SOVEREIGN nation doesn't answer to any outside its borders except for war. SO, if the WINNER is accused of war crimes SOMEONE is going to have to start ANOTHER war in order to prosecute those "crimes". That is the nature of war, and it is naive and foolish to believe otherwise.
And yet it worked, given a very large meta culture, between 400 AD and 1400 AD (to the point that for a while in there, it was considered immoral to fight for more than three days a week- Friday to Monday was considered the Sabbath and it was not legal to hold a seige during that time even if you won- or the Inquisitors would charge you with heresy).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Wow. Slashdot Politics really is as bad as I thought if it advocates that Kerry actually has a position. That is like saying that Bush speaks perfect english.
I'm sorry but Kerry has one consistent position: he's not Bush. Everything else that comes out of his mouth is spin. That said, Bush is the same thing: he's not Kerry and everything that comes out of his mouth is spin.
If you think for ONE MINUTE that a president might even remotely try to do something with the DCMA that involves giving citizens rights, you are an idiot. Neither of these candidates will lift a finger to help. When the bloviation, spin and pandering stops, what you have is one candidate that favors large, non-union corporations and one that favors large, union corporations. One will fix healthcare by dealing with a provider-cost issue. The other will fix healthcare by dealing with a buyer cost issue. One will pack the court with biased judges. The other will pack the court with biased judges. One changes position to popular demand. The other tries to change popular demand to his position. Oh, yeah, and both will continue to slog it out in Iraq.
Nice choice. I wish the people in this country would stop trying so hard to disagree and get a consensus already on stuff that matters. At least we all agree that we disagree that the country's headed the wrong way. Unfortunately, if bad things happen in the north, the solution is to go south, not northeast or northwest.
-- $G
... but maybe he can guarantee the votes of all RIAA haters if he also said 're-evaluate RIAA'?
We have already showed them that "the people" are too stupid to be the boss.
The real boss is the rich. Duh. Its always been that way.
LOL, it's pretty fucking conclusive. The little money they siphoned from under the table deals wouldn't allow for the Weapons programs that didn't exist. The yellowcake claims were lies. The aluminum tubes weren't suitable for missles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Both of those facts were proven before the war but ignored. I'm not backing Kerry on North Korea. We'd have a much stronger position in the world if we didn't invade Iraq. Iran is enriching Uranium right now. How man US troops have died for claims that were false? What did George W have for breakfast? I'm guessing you know, you reek of partisan party line politics. I'm what people would call a conservative, but I'm a registered independent, and I'm not buying any of this crap from this administration. Imagine my dismay at what the only viable alternative is. McCain should've won the Republican nomination in 2000.
Do I care? The best thing that John Kerry can do for this country is move to France and take the senior senator of Mass. with him.
You can vote for the guy behind the crimson flag or the guy behind the maroon flag...
I don't see your real name in your nick. Making comments about being "Anon" is pretty hypocritcal.
The first part of the article is so utter bullshit. It's either pure propaganda or Declan McCullagh is totally out of his mind. I stopped reading any further.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Meanwhile, we have turned our attention away from the real bad guys. Osama is on the loose, and Iraq and North Korea have budding nuclear programs. We have also totally ignored a humanitarian nightmare in Sudan, where tens-of-thousands of people have died (50k-70k) and hundreds of thousands have become displaced.
We had no reason to go to war, no reason for the 1000+ American soldiers to die. There's no reason for the many innocent Iraqis to die in the crossfire. We were told there was irrefutable proof, that the evidence was a slam-dunk. We were told those crafty Iraqis move their WMD every week or so. Our "proof" for the war in Iraq turned out to be some flimsy forged documents and unchecked hearsay. And most of the propaganda coming from the US Government before the war has been debunked.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
It would be pretty easy for someone to tie me to this nick... pretty well known among a few open source groups.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
McCain should've won the Republican nomination in 2000.
Amen brother!! (The same AC).
No one has lost their life because of a lie by the administration. If you want to attribute the lost lives to lies, then point the finger toward the UN, toward Saddam Hussein, toward France, or toward Germany. BTW, I am in the military. If I lost my life due to this, it would be with honor. We have not had successful attacks on US soil since 9/11 have we? Nope. Have they tried to bring it to us? Yes. Have they brought the battle to other successfully? Yes. Look at Spain. Look at Russia. If we went after anyone else in the Middle East, we would have received less support than we did in Iraq. Plus, Iraq would have allied with anyone over there, even Iran.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
Try googling for "Baghdad Year Zero".
I would expect you to say it would be an honor to die for your country. One can only hope.
The US also made loads of money off Saddam too. In fact the US was the major user of "Oil-for-food" program and even increased its oil quota before invading. I suspect due to the fact they knew they wouldn't have to pay that money back to Iraq.
Well, he didn't. Besides, he can say whatever he wants after the fact, but he would have done relatively the same thing, or he would have been impeached, laughed out of office, assassinated by some US citizen. You do not seem to remember how everyone felt after 9/11... if anyone would have reacted differently, it would have been considered Anti-American. Definately not a good thing during a time when party lines blurred and everyone had one goal. Of course, now Democrats are trying to capitalize off of it.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
"In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides. But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government--a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.
Full article here
We had a successful attack on the US on 9/11 didn't we? Who was president then? When you learn to write logically, which means understanding the failure of your statement about no attacks since 9/11, get back to me. I guess what you are really claiming is that anybody that says that Bush said something he claims to not have said is a liar? As for you allie comment, we allied with Iraq, when Saddam was in power. Yes look at Spain, look at Russia, look at Bali, Iraq stopped none of that and could be considered a big reason for the escalation of terrorism.
...To get the needed votes, and then quickly turn vapid. However tantalizing these tidbits of precursory campaign posturing may seem, the claims never quite seem to have the same importance once the term of office has been instated. Every four years, the sensationalism is always the same; Tell people what they want to hear, and then hope they forget what you sed. Anything close to chinking the armor in the DCMA simply smells like a troll for the geek vote to me. I wouldn't my breath.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
He is great pals with Fritz Hollings, and both of them would screw us over. I mean when Kerry annouced his run for candidacy he did it in Fritz Hollings state.
That is what I stated.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
Yet you don't have the courage to just use your name here and make comments about being "Anon"?
Huh. Another reason we should have removed Saddam. You cannot bring up the Iran-Iraq war. At the time Iraq was no threat at all. Iran was a large threat. We used Iraq then. Wouldn't you position one enemy against another? If not, you are wasting your time and spreading yourself too thin. That is the same thing that defeated both Napolean and Hitler.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
It's no longer on the current official website for John Kerry, but one of the issues he had a stance for was about copyright, in which he stated that he would vigorously defend America's copyright system against piracy. Taken directly from his website back in Feburary --
* Copyright-Based Industries Are Critical to Economic Growth: Products of the mind from America's scientists, engineers, computer programmers have little value without intellectual property protections. Copyright based industries alone now account for nearly 6% of all jobs in America and 7.75 % of GDP. These industries are in jeopardy because of the Bush Administration's failure to enforce international treaties to protect America's creative community from piracy.
* Stop Intellectual Piracy: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative estimates that losses theft of U.S. intellectual property in 51 foreign countries total $9.7 billion. In China alone we lose $1.8 billion to piracy. Yet even where we have strong agreements, piracy remains a major problem due to a failure to fully implement the TRIPS agreement and an unwillingness or inability to crack down on the problem. A Kerry Administration will take theft of the jobs of America's creative workforce a trade and foreign policy priority.
If you'd like to see the website yourself, it's right here:
John Kerry for President (Feburary '04)
Sure it doesn't say anything about copyright/piracy in the US, but you can guage his opinion on copyright from those statements. I don't think his stance on copyright has changed, and he would most likely support the DMCA, if not strengthen it further.
Dear slashdot user,
Even Halliburton was involved in the Oil for food scam, when Dick Cheney was its CEO.
Read about it here.
Because we have, and because the corporations want to earn huge profits, they're making practically everything we need elsewhere
To the extent that's true, it's because it's cheaper to make stuff elsewhere, even including the cost of shipping it here. The cost savings are reflected in lower prices to customers and increased returns to shareholders.
we could EASILY make everything here at home if we choose to, thus cutting our shipping fuel needs down exponentially
And raising prices, and lowering our standard of living. See "comparative advantage".
Your one possibly valid point is that the cost of oil doesn't take into account the negative externalities of being dependent on terrorist-infested hellholes, which may or may not be the case. If it is, then raise the tax on oil to compensate. But ending all imports would be immensely destructive.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Iraq used WMD's during that War, I can bring up what I want. Don't want to assert your logic about attacks? Tell me how Iran was more of a threat than Iraq then? Provide a cogent argument that puts the US in a moral position to support the dictator that used WMDs in warfare. We didn't position one enemy against another, I'm starting to think you get your information from the ether. The War between them wasn't precipated by us, it had to do with Saddam thinking he could make Iraq a grand state again with him as the Great Caliph.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
---Benjamin Franklin
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
---Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it.
Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true.
---Julius Caesar
I agree Bush is a man of conviction. His convictions boil down to "me first." He is a member of a ruthless group of unprincipled opportunists who want to impose a radical agenda on this country. They are actively hostile to democracy. Their policy on the environment is somewhere between indifference and apathy. Their concept of social responsibility is identical to that of Jacob Marley.
If you believe that this country should exist for the exclusive benefit of a rapacious elite at the expense of the mass of the people, then your beliefs are in line with the current administration. It is a pity that our elders and betters do NOT know what is best. The number of cliffs upon which our species is precariously situated demands that thinking people reject the tyranny of the elites. The real shame of this election is that we are unable to field a better candidate to defeat Bush than Kerry.
...is indicative of his opinions on other issues.
I'm not American, so I cannot vote for US president. If I could, I certainly wouldn't do so simply based on the candidates' views on intellectual property rights. That said, they are an important indication of the general ideology of the candidate and how they each prioritise individual rights.
If I could vote, I do not think I could bring myself to vote for Bush OR Kerry. I'd have to select a third-party candidate, even if they stand no chance of winning. I'm not afraid of vote-splitting sending the wrong person to the White House (as Gore supporters contend Nader voters did last time), because I do not thing the US is any better or worse off with either "real" contender as president. It'll just be....different.
Kerry is "open to examining" the DMCA. He is "open to examining" EVERYTHING people are pissed off about. His present opinions often contradict his voting record and even some earlier statements. Kerry also talks at great length about what his opponents have done wrong but doesn't offer very convincing alternatives to the problems the US faces.
My impression is that Kerry is like Canada's current Prime Minister Paul Martin in that he has no ideology or concrete principles at all. If you want to know what "Kerry's America" would look like, examine "Martin's Canada". Basically, it is a continuation of what the last guys did. Things will coast along and the leader will wax indignant about what a mess things were left in and how we have to get to the bottom of things. Committees will be struck and reviews conducted. Unworkable bills will be introduced that will die on the order table. A lot will be said about how complicated the solution is until the next election (and the next if re-elected) until he is voted out or steps down. In Canada, that means more problems with underfunded/ill-equipped military, more megaproject boondoggles and fraudulant spending uncovered, more mad cow-related export bans and timber tarrifs. In the US it would mean you'll still be in IRAQ, RIAA will still be suing 12 year olds, prescription drugs will still be overpriced and inhuman, fundamentalist/extremist islamic terrorists will still behead American captors and anyone else who stands in their way.
As far as Bush goes...well at least we know what to expect. He is nothing if not consistent in his perpetual war on terror. No part of his policy seems untouched by the War on Terror. As someone who is inclined to believe in free-market economy and less government, I would be a traditional Republican supporter. However, it disturbs me that he seems to be losing sight of what he is defending (personal liberites--the "free world"). As a result we are getting BIGGER, more intrusive gov't. On economic matters the Bush government has been disappointingly protectionist/isolationist as well (sometimes in the name of national security--other times just becasue of public pressure to prop up an industry or the economy in general).
I'd say that although the ideology is a polar opposite that GWBush runs the US very much like Pierre Trudeau ran Canada in the 70s and 80s (fans of Trudeau are cringing as they read this). Both are somewhat autocratic. Both did damage to international relations with traditional allies. Both have made questionable moves to broadly curtail freedom in the name of national security (Read up on the "FLQ Crisis" in Quebec and how Trudeau dealt with it--thankfully it was short term, but the "War Measures Act" made the Patriot Act look like a municipal parking bylaw by comparison--and it was in effect across the nation even though the danger was in one region of the country). Trudeau walked over opponents/critics in his obession with his "Just Society" much like Bush does now in his "War on Terror", and both obsessions touched every facet of live for the average citizen.
The good thing is that both countries are democracies of a sort, so eventually you get the opportunity to "throw the bums out". Ultimately who wins this week won't be the downfall--as long as citizens defend democracy.
FLIP...
... 'I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,' Kerry said." (John Aloysius Farrell, "Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status," The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)
r ee_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm
Kerry 2004 announced Saturday: "I will work with Congress to lift the immigration ban on HIV-positive people that has prohibited the United States from hosting [an annual AIDS conference]."
FLOP...
February 1993, Boston Globe: "The US Senate dealt President Clinton his first legislative defeat yesterday, voting to write into law the Bush administration's policy prohibiting people infected with the AIDS virus from immigrating to the United States. The defeat came despite Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's spirited battle in defense of the president's commitment to lift the prohibition. The Senate voted, 76-23, to prevent people infected with the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, from immigrating, after defeating by a 56-42 vote an amendment by Kennedy that would have kept current federal policy in place for 90 days but left Clinton free to change it after that. Kennedy accused the Republicans of both racism and partisan mean- spiritedness.
Voting for the prohibition were Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut; Sen. William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine; Sen. John F. Kerry; Sens. Judd Gregg and Robert C. Smith, Republicans of New Hampshire; Sen. John H. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island; Sen. Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island; and Sen. James M. Jeffords, Republican of Vermont.
FLIP...
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. "Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China
FLOP...
In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Pas
I guess one could say the same for yourself. I would suggest reading as well about the issues and what he has voted for. He does after all have a senate record for how many years? Senate records: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_th
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
To the extent that's true, it's because it's cheaper to make stuff elsewhere, even including the cost of shipping it here. The cost savings are reflected in lower prices to customers and increased returns to shareholders.
However- in so doing we're ignoring the larger cost of using up the world's energy resources before we have a replacement. One of the softer options I've heard for this is to charge $1/mile surcharge for energy research- so that the corporations actually have to pay the REAL cost of shipping. I wonder if you'd still buy those Levis if they had a $12,000 surcharge on them?
And raising prices, and lowering our standard of living. See "comparative advantage".
Comparative advantage is largely a lie because it fails to take into account the environmental cost of excess energy usage or the human cost of constant retraining before the original training is paid for. Ricardo lied to you.
Your one possibly valid point is that the cost of oil doesn't take into account the negative externalities of being dependent on terrorist-infested hellholes, which may or may not be the case. If it is, then raise the tax on oil to compensate. But ending all imports would be immensely destructive.
The thing you fail to take into account is that all other countries, thanks to free trade, are potential terrorist-infested hellholes. Free trade insures that the multinational corporations will hoard resources that average people need to survive- thus creating terrorist-infested hellholes wherever they touch. Ricardo was worse than a liar- his system has the intended consequence of creating a system of haves and have nots with the sole purpose of making sure that the have nots will eventually use violence against the haves. FAR better not to mess with trying to apply capitalism across borders to begin with.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Are you two? Because you sure sound like it.
But, if you can, ask yourself why Kerry hasn't introduced bills over the past 20 years to fix what he says are the greatest problems facing America...
And I would hazard a guess, but I think I know a little more about the DC game than you do.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I found it here, but I highly doubt it's going to give you any hints on when to duck. =)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Kerry cannot be a worse alternative than Bush currently is. The binary nature of American politics demands we either stay, or bet.
I've seen 4 years staying the course. Betting for change seems to be a sure thing to me at this point.
Kerry in a landslide.
Blogging because I can...
However- in so doing we're ignoring the larger cost of using up the world's energy resources before we have a replacement.
Um no, that's reflected in the price. As a commodity becomes more scarce, the price rises, encouraging conservation and exploration of alternatives. Although I suspect trying to explain basic economic principles to a self-described Marxist is going to be futile.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Answer: NEITHER. They're both tools.
Vote third party. (Green or Independent are good choices).
...he will change his mind anyway.
Last time around (well I know, it was 60 years ago) all the whiners of western Europe were looking up to the US to save their ass.
I hope it never gets to it but if it does I bet they will be looking up to the US next time around too. Same for you Aussies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
Kerry may not owe so much to big business yet.
If he's willing to declaw big media - let's
let him.
My opinion is the state has no business in the
bedroom and corporations have no business in
criminal law.
I didn't realize the president could simply wipe existing laws out of existance.
If W gets a second term, he probably will get that ability...
Kerry is attacking Kerry!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If it really doesn't matter, then vote Libertarian. For any race, not just president. Help to build a viable third party. And sometimes Libertarians win local elections (or of course even govenorships).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"If the "religious" forces expressed half the love for babies that they do for foetuses, maybe I'd feel differently about this."
Correct:
Babies are not entitled to medical care, prenatal care, food or clothing under the current system. This is provided by parents that may or not be able to. To abolish abortion as one part in the Republican agenda and at the same time determine that people that don't have jobs are essentially worthless is not entirely honest especially if they are parents. What the Republican agenda purports to be freedom isn't worth much to those who the system has already failed.
I don't need a sig.
bob@Osprey:~>
Since the person behind most of these laws like the DMCA and buddy buddy laws for the likes of the RIAA is no other than Hollywood liberal democrat Howard Berman and since the people who benefit from Bermans laws are the ones out there stumping for Kerry now, he will make sure he does nothing to stomp on their toes if they help get him elected.
With Kerry no one can be sure that he says what he means and means what he syas.
Riiiiight, b/c you can believe that Bush says what he means and means what he says. I'm not saying Kerry is completely honest (it IS an election campaign, after all, not a process known for honesty), but seriously, look at the last 4 years. I'll admit that Bush has consistently said whatever he thought it would take to convince the public to support what he wants to do. Ignoring the hot-button issue of whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong, Bush has consistently developed new rationales for the war as the old ones proved false. "Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda" Nope. "Iraq has WMDs" Nope. "Saddam was evil" Yes. But it is obvious that these were merely rationales for attacking, not reasons. What were the reasons? We don't know, Bush wouldn't tell us.
Another example is the tax cuts. Remember way back when the tax cuts were supposed to be a vehicle for returning the surpluses from Clinton back to the average American? Then when the surpluses didn't appear as predicted, and the economy actually hit a slump, tax cuts were the perfect vehicle for reviving the economy!! Again, Bush obviously wanted to pass tax cuts, and simply used whatever rationale current events suggested would best convince the public. Consistency, but not honesty.
And if your army was bigger than the pope's, you could tell him/them to get bent, and some did.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
But he is STILL Just the President. he can't just send laws away.
Now I've got that darn song stuck in my head. (I'm not sure if it's worse that all I had to do was read the URL and I started humming the tune...)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
A large portion of this thread is a discussion regarding Bush/Kerry/Iraq, not Kerry/DMCA. Isn't the whole darned thing -5 Off topic ?
Would you employee someone who didn't show up to work 90% of the time? Of course you wouldn't, it would bankrupt your business. Well, maybe you would; Turn on CSPAN sometime. The place is empty. Those are your employees in action. They don't read the legislation they pass. They don't show up for work. They've pretty well delegated all authority to multinational corporations.
Woohoo! Go vote in your gerrymandered district. Vote on your paperless voting machine. This is the most important election evar! Vote and think you are free.
You can't be serious...
Stalin?
Please. Wake me up when Mumia writes "The Gulag Archipelago", and we'll talk about Stalin.
And while you have your appointment book open, better put me down for a wake-up call when one of the Guantanamo inmates produces his own "Book of Alfred Kantor". We can have a nice chat about Hitler, too.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
I feel like the political situation in America right now is so profoundly delicate that it would be a bad idea for Kerry to tread in overly progressive areas such as this. He is competing against a campaign (not a candidate) that is positively masterful at putting spin on things. If he were to openly propose or support the removal of legislation like the DMCA, I feel as though his opponents would have no trouble selling really ominous sounding lies to people about how he has no respect for capitalism. Right now, the people whose votes we need would lap that kind of shit up.
-Zeecog
So Iran didn't really endorse Bush?
I mean, if the half-assed disclaimer was a flimsy smokescreen to hide their true intentions, why wouldn't the half-assed endorsement be a similarly cynical ploy to hide... whatever it is they're really up to?
And what are they really up to, anyway? You've pierced the veil; can you tell us the Iranian government's true position on the subject? Any compelling arguments about why we should believe them when they say A, but disbelieve them when they say !A? Or does it all boil down to "A discredits my enemies, so I'm going with A"?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Sure, Kerry's a "flip-flopper", but he's not a moron.
Here's what bush would do.
First, ask someone else what he should say.
Then make a speech where he is incomprehensible.
Then release a position statement written by a staffer which is gramatically correct but meaningless.
Then make a speech blaming it on terrorism.
Then claim its Clinton's fault that N. Korea now has nu-cue-lur weapons.
Then claim Kerry is a flip flopper.
And as stupid as that sounds, people fall for it. I mean, even you think he's not an empty headed moron.
Huh? You are trying to give iraqi property back to the iraqis? What kind of nonsense is that?
I tell you what. I'll believe that iraqis run their own country the day they join OPEC and negotiate to get the highest possible price for their oil.
Until then I will continue to presume that they have no real control over their most valuable property. We will give them back the worthless shit and keep the best shit for ourselves.
evil is as evil does
" It's clear from his "positions" that he is devoid of core principles."
And our other choice is a supersitious moron?
Really, what do you say about a guy who first claims an mystical being from heaven talks to him and tell him what to do about scientific research?
He not just dumb, he's ignorant. He's an empty vessel that cheney et al fill up with nonsense. Then he gets on TV, gives a crappy speech that in nonsensicle then people like you say "But he has character!"
Sure. So does the retarded guy down at McDonalds, but that doesn't make him qualified to be president.
You may not have personally like Clinton (I didn't), but he did a good job as president. Yes, he got blow-jobs in the white house, but so what? He got the job done.
This clown we've got now things jesus told him to invade Iraq, so now we're in a quagmire.
Great. Jesus is running the country. We're all fucking doomed, and people like you think mystical angels from the sky directed by a god will save us.
DO you realize how stupid that sounds???? And is?
Ugh, it sometimes seems like the election process is the kind of choice we get when we choose vanilla or French vanilla. Is one much better than the other?
I am an American. As such I've been told many times, many ways, that I live in the greatest and most free country in the world. I'm not really buying it any more than I buy the belief that Ford is indeed superior to Chevrolet. But when I see the choices, I mean the bona fide choices, that we are given to vote for for President, I don't buy the arguments. Are these two really the best people in the country to hold the office?
The whole process is not much more than a sales pitch for white bread. When it comes down to the taste test, what is better Wonder or Tastee? I can't tell much of a difference. But it is what it is and we are stuck with it.
We are rich and powerfull nation. We can exert out influenence on almost anyone anywhere. Face it, if we don't like someone our president can sic our military on them and we are all but assured of victory. Isn't that really what happened in Iraq?
In the past four years, we have seen our freedoms eroded with things like the DCMA and the Patriot Act. If Bush is elected we are in for more of the same. If Kerry is elected, do we really expect to see much change? I don't, not really. Perhaps, but just perhaps, he is the lesser of two evils.
Is that any way to vote? To pick the lesser of two evils? Is this what makes America great? I sure as hell don't think so. There has to be a better way. The system we have may have made a hell of a lot of sense two hundred years ago when representation meant an arduous journey of hundreds of miles. But today, with the technology we have, every person who cares could actually be self-representing.
Change comes slowly to established machines like American politics. I recognise and understand that. Hell, I'd even say that is a good thing - that it changes slowly. But there comes a time where a catalyist exists and changes can be sudden. Like the end of communisim in the USSR and the taking down of the Berlin wall. Then change can come suddenly.
An idea occured to me that maybe we just don't see this kind of event coming. Maybe the electronic voting machines are the key to the ignition of change? I'm really just rambling now, but what I am saying is that we need REAL CHANGE not just a slight step from center but a full on change of course! We have the means - but do we have the courage or do we need some sort of catayist to kick us out of idle and into gear?
I'm not preaching revolution here. Really, I'm not. I'm just trying to say that our form of government is out dated and in need of serious change and that to me, the time seems right for something to happen.
Will we be the generation to do it? Frankly, I hope so. But we have to come up with better choices than we have on the ballot this year.
And exactly how much Bush bashing has there been? Oh yeah, that's right--none.
Nice try, troll.
Yes.
and
No.
That's John Kerry America.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
I love these whiners calling you "mean spirited".
I voted for Bush last time. But its clear that he's too dumb to be president. I mean, I wouldn't give the guy a job to be a low level manager. He's really really dumb. Its like the emperor's new clothes. I watch these debates and I realize the guy is just plain dumb beyond measure.
Is kerry perfect? Who cares? Anything is better than Bush.
And I've voted for a republican for president ever since Nixon. But this guy is beyond dumb. Its time to think about the country and get this guy out. He's the worst thing to happen to us since Lyndon Johnson.
Bush really is the hero of the stupid.
Do you consider your spunk 1/2 a person?
If it runs down your girlfriend's legs after sex, do you consider he a murder because she got rid of a million 1/2 people?
Do you realize how stupid you sound?
You want the government out of *your* life, but all the sudden you want the government busy with women's body's to force them to have children because your susperstition says "be fruitful and multiply".
Here's another hint. Gay people are not going to hell. Got doesn't care when guys watch porn. God doesn't really have "chosen people". Its all superstitious nonsense to give weak minded people an anchor to hold onto. You make fun of those island people who worship crashed airplanes. Then you do the same thing, call it "christian" and then want us all to live your little version of the "perfect life".
Oh, and god doesn't care if you say "fuck", or if you just live with a girl and don't marry her (and fuck her, of course).
Stop shoving your superstition down my throat. Mind your own fucking business.
"They want women in birkas and to stop alcohol."
That's okay. Republicans seem to think they should control women's bodies. Oh, and they want to stop alcohol too. For other people. Not themselves.
What's the difference?
In my humble opinion formed mostly from my experience as an almost life-long resident of Massachusetts, the good Senator Kerry is completely serious - until the election is over. Then he is serious about something else. The something else usually is getting re-elected.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
After reading through some of these posts, I've once again decided that people are stupid. This means you even if you think it doesn't (that includes myself).
Hell the guy doesn't even have a platform he is running on. Took him over 6 months to decide where he stands.
You have just boiled this election down to a single sentence. Well done!
Kerry just might wipe out the DMCA... in favor of something that takes more rights away.
He is the geek's candidate, after all. He knows all the nuances of the flip-flop.
Seems like my .sig was finally ack'ed on /. ... ;-)
Paul B.
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
So uh, "We may possibly consider letting you own what you paid for, if you're lucky, and as long as CEOs can still have their fist up your ass."
I wonder what would happen if the **AA existed 200 years ago. Candidates would be saying "We may allow you to chop wood, perhaps, as long as you use it for your stove and not something illegal, such as a bonfire. You should be thankful you live in a country that allows you to chop wood at all."
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Well, considering the survey was being conducted by a technology organization, and the responses are going to be read by geeks like us, he's going to do what any politician would do - pander. Kerry voted for the DMCA, btw, so he was pandering to the Hollywood elite.
Bush, on the other hand, gets creamed by Hollywood types all the time. They donate tons of money to his opponents, do benefits, make statements on talk shows, etc. But Ashcroft is behaving pretty much like the industry's dream AG.
The actors aren't the ones that care diddly about the DMCA. Hell, most of them probably don't even know what the damn thing is or what "DMCA" stands for. In this case, Bush & Ashcroft are doing one of two things - a) enforcing the law that's on the books because they feel its right or b) enforcing the law that's on the books because they're pandering to Hollywood executives and the executives of technology companies.
The only explanation for this that I can think of is that the candidates really believe what they say. The Republicans probably really do believe in the private property argument -- I imagine they find piracy deeply offensive.
I don't think its a matter of being offended. Its simply a matter of pandering to the people that make the donations. The Democrats are pandering to the classic Hollywood elite - the folks that were blacklisted back in the day, and the Republicans are pandering to the high level executives of Hollywood. Neither party will fix the problems with the DMCA until someone stands up and fights for consumer rights because they truly believe in it and understand the issue.. and meets the other big requirement - they're uncorruptable (people like Sen. John McCain would probably fit in this 'uncorruptable' category).
Actually... I've run the numbers for effective tax rates for earners in Single, Head of Household, and Married filing statuses including the payroll taxes, Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Standard Deductions, Exemptions (including phase out), for various household sizes and incomes here:
http://fairtaxblog.blogspot.com/
in an attempt to bring together a factual discussion of the FairTax proposal. Taking all of these into account the poor are generally still paying a negative effective tax rate (thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit).
Please note though, as I've assumed (for purposes of my comparison) that 100% of income is spent, I've not included the Federal Saving Tax Credit (for low income savers). Also note that when you get to higher incomes you gain a lot of extra latitude in avoiding taxes that I can't really account for systematically, so the effective tax rates for higher earnings are probably somewhat exaggerated in ways I can't correct for.
I ran Kerry's election-year-politican-English through Babelfish's election-year-politican-English ->normal-English converter and what he said was: No.
Are you trying to make me support a side I do not agree with? Yes, that is a report that demostrates that many bush supporters do not understand crap. I know, I agree. Could others come up with a simular poll showing the exact same things about Democratic supporters? Of course. In any case, my opinion is not based upon what everyone else believes. Nor should yours or anyone elses. The sooner we all learn to think for ourselves, the better off we will be. Just as my Sig says.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
There have been a few attacks elsewhere (like Spain and Russia) but those seem like local deals.
I might buy that terrorists were not operating much in Iraq if they were doing much elsewhere - but they are not. And it follows the rule of simplicity - if you want to hurt America, Iraq is the simplest place to do so. So while there may not be a lot of hard proof, it makes a lot of sense.
I'm sure there are also some in the US, I just don't think that's been a focus for active efforts.
Quagmire possibly, that's more a judgement to make in five years I think. We're too close to the whole thing now to be getting a good big picture. A lot depends on the Iraqi people themselves and the new government taking over and really seperating themselves from the US I think.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You have a good point about other locations - I wouldn't be panning a summer trip to North Korea even later next year. I guess that's kind of a sepereate case from terrorism as it's really the government to be afraid of...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
See around Truman's time, this thing called the "UN" came about, and as part of that treaty the US (and the other folks in the UN) signed during the UN's creation, they outlawed war, unless you are attacked first.
So, the planet has been war free (technically) since the 1950s.
I know I feel safer now.
"Have you ever noticed how Pro-life people always look so unevolved?"
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
This has never made any sense to me, it's like people want to be mystified and are unwilling to accept the truth at simple face value.
Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist. The only way he kept power was through the threat of retalitation. That he had used these chemical weapons back in the Iran-Iraq war timeframe is evidence of that.
So if people thought that he didn't have these weapons any more... Saddam wouldn't be in a particularly safe position.
And that included not just Iraqi dissidents, but also the threat of invasion by Iran.
So Saddam tried to play a little game, where he walked to knife edge pretending to comply, but at the same time keeping just a hint of skepticism going, to keep his enemies uncertain about attacking him.
This is not my theory, it comes from David Kay and the others involved in the weapons inspection.
I've not heard Bush admit to any mistake. What he usually does is find someone, usually in the military, which he can blame the failure upon.
Kerry has said he'd make the same vote. Which is consistent, as you note, for he was voting to authorize threat of force to get the UN inspectors back in.
Where he differs from Bush, is he wouldn't have invaded if the inspections were working, as appeared to be the case back in March of 2003.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Mr. McCullough fails to note that Dmitri Sklyarov was successfully imprisoned by Ashcroft for months, in custody from Indiana to California, although ultimately released without charge. Appropriately, Elcomsoft was ultimately deemed the owner of the offending copyrights, sued by Ashcroft and exonerated in US Federal Court.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
polls.
As for the rest of the world, yeah, they were sympathetic until we actually did something, which is exaclty why we should never let the UN interfere with our national security. You know, the same UN which refuses to pass even a resolution condemning terrorism?
I'd rather be feared than loved, if that's what these Islamic nations stand for.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've been informed that NPR and BBC are both left-wing arms of the State, that Fox News is a more centrist and balanced source.
Minor correction, NPR and BBC are left-wing fronts of the gays attempting to seduce your sons and daughters.
BTW, I recently came across a right-wing website that praised Bush's judicial appointments as perfect ultra-conservative, and a few lines later praised Bush's appointments as balanced. I wish I kept the link, it was quite a hoot.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Interesting quotes. Of course, these are subjective... words from the mouths of mortal men. Just because they speak does not make it truth. But, I do see some validity to your selections. The only thing that makes it different is that we, as well as many others, were attacked... people did lose their lives. Your quotes (other Ben Franklins's) are from people who are justifiying their modus operandi.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
Civil Unions are a mechanism for the state to grant gays rights of inheritance, medical determination, etc, without tampering in the religious institution of marriage. Part of the problem here is that marriage is a blur between religious and civil institutions. Perhaps what the Justice of the Peace does, as opposed to a member of the clergy, should have been called a Civil Union all along.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Dave Mathews, Springsteen and all these other recording artists are coming out for him. It is because he is going to allow MP3 ripping? Will he knife them in the back? I doubt it. He will climb back into MPAA and RIAA's butt hole.
Yet, because it comes from George Jr's mouth you see it as truth? We are all mortal men, so what is the significance of that statement? Tell me, what do you mean by subjective, you've yet to define yourself. The quote from Goerhing is one of my favorites, it shows how the "sheep" are led. You yourself talked about the "sheep". We weren't attacked by Iraq or Saddam himself, the case for war was exagerated. We were attacked by Al Qaeda. We've destabalized Iraq so badly that terror attacks are now a common thing everyday there. You haven't made one argument that's made sense. Ever argument you've tried to use to brush aside any criticism applies equally as well to Bush. Tell me, Was the fledgling US attacked(Ben Franklin was a member of that country)? Did the Romans ever face invasion(Julius Caesar did face threats to the roman hegemony)? Was Germany involved in war? In each of those cases people were attacked and lost lives. Of course it is irrelevant, you just seem to be waving your arms as justification for actions.
I have already voted, against any candidate from any party which endorsed the DMCA except for those who explicitly renounce their party's endorsement of the DMCA.
Remarkably, few Democrats, and no Republicans pass that test. Republicans exhibit much less independence from their party leadership.
It doesn't help that the war on Iraq, the war on drugs, USA-PATRIOT and a few other issues I want repealed had and have bi-partisan leadership support.
My vote is based on issues that matter to me. Why should that not be?
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
Lying Mideastern tyrants don't form the basis of a linear foreign policy, where you can just do the opposite of their rhetoric. We consider them on a case-by-case basis. Arafat's words are crocodile tears, as demonstrated by the duality of his snake's forked tongue in the English/Arabic media. While Tehran's propaganda typically takes American power head-on, relying on their actual country's strength and international standing (through oil blackmail, but nevertheless real and tangible) to confront their enemies. And their stated pro-Bush policy makes sense, not only because he's allowed them to get into the nuclear game, but because his administration is built on the Iran resupply covert action of the 1980s, which served them so well. While Kerry kicked Iran/Contra ass in the 1980s. Regardless of their words, Kerry is a much more formidible opponent in our ongoing war with Iran than is the incompetent, oil-blind Bush. We don't need to pierce the veil to see the simple truth of that, and neither do they.
--
make install -not war
Um no, that's reflected in the price. As a commodity becomes more scarce, the price rises, encouraging conservation and exploration of alternatives. Although I suspect trying to explain basic economic principles to a self-described Marxist is going to be futile.
If that were true, then at the first warnings of oil running out it would have been $120/barrel- instead of being subsidized down. And nobody would be buying SUVs because they wouldn't be able to afford to drop $100 to fill the tank.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And those people rotted in hell for all eternity. The End.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Just about anything not based in the middle east are kind of localized deals - the Spain event and anything in Indonesia are really more from local orgs there, possibly backed.
But the rest of it is still around the region, and still supports a focusing of attacks around Iraq and the area. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say terrorists are focusing on the Middle East in general and not just Iraq, but where are attacks in (for instance) the US? Why have we not seen more of those?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When the parent's labeled "Insightful"- I was addressing the comment in question.
Moderation's on crack, as usual...
Just because you don't agree with the sentiments, doesn't mean you should moderate "offtopic"- it's a wrong thing to do.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Let's see the sources, and the facts. You repeat a bunch of republican fallacies, here, and also get things 100% wrong.
.He said he met with all the members of the security counsel...oh wait nevermind no he didn't.
.Need I go on (there's plenty more)?
He voted for the Iraq war
No, he voted to give the president the power to use force as a last resort to enforce inspections and disarming. Bush didn't even let the inspections complete. Now it's finally coming out that Saddam *had* disarmed. Too late, eh?
He then voted to do just that.
He voted for it until it was changed into a fiscally irresponsible bill that got the money out of nowhere. Bush even threatened to veto the version he voted for.
He then said it was an imminent threat that had to be dealt with
No he didn't. In fact he's said the opposite -- Iraq was NOT an imminent threat.
then went back to saying he would have done the same thing
No he didn't. He said he'd still vote for the authority to use force. He never said he'd start the iraq war.
He said that the President spent $200 billion that could have gone to education, health care, etc. He then said that the President underfunded the troops and didn't send them in with enough body armor etc.
Both of these are true. If the president hadn't been so quick to rush to war, and had planned more carefully (or even avoided it altogether!) it could have cost less *and* been better funded. It's called being "smarter" with your resources.
When did he say this?
He's voted to cut the military funding every chance he's gotten
False. And you haven't showed that his votes against military funding had anything to do with weakening our security. Try reading factcheck.org sometime and not basing everything you know on Bush Campaign Ads.
then criticizes Bush for having an unprepared intelligence and military system thanks to eight years of Clinton and Congressmen like him.
The clinton administration warned the Bush administration about the threat of al qaeda.
He's voted to weaken the second amendment every chance he's gotten, then his national election rolls around and he's suddenly an avid hunter.
He's always been an avid hunter, and he's never weakened the rights to use arms for hunting.
Oh, sure, go on as long as you like. It's not getting any better.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Standard Oil was actually a conglomerate of a number of smaller companies, many called Standard Oil of XYZ. Standard Oil of New Jersey became Esso, which is still the international brand of ExxonMobil. But Standard Oil of Indiana indeed became Amoco, now part of British Petroleum (BP).
See Wiklipedia.