Slashdot Mirror
Pre-Election Discussion
With the US Presidential Election getting started tomorrow, this story is your official chance to discuss the issues of the election with other Slashdot readers. And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow.
The tech areas are still covered extensively, including FreeBSD.
More to the topic, though, I'm blogging live on the current Center of the Free World - Milwaukee, where both the Leader and the Contender are right now - Good music, lots of rain, hot coffee and the regular blather.
Tomorrow night will be a long haul, with all the coffee needed.
If you like your civil liberties then vote for Kerry. It's a pretty simple equation. Bush has done more to roll back our constitutional rights than any president in history.
You could be on the next plane out to Guantanamo.
-MichiganDan
Hey, wait, where are you HEY YOU CANT I'm just typing its a free country what do you mean its not Stop ^F^F^F^F^F^F
NO CARRIER
Yeah, I'm sad to see the direction that /. has taken on many fronts.
/. again, because at least it hadn't gone as far as K5 had.
/. The only reason that politics is such a popular topic here is because the demographic changed. /. didn't change their ideals so much (any site that becomes a business is there to make money guys), the readership changed and obviously wants these stories.
/. gets to make their cash, and you get a nifty flag to supress this garbage.
I moved over to K5 a few years ago, and the same thing happened, only quicker.
Then I started reading
That said, the reason for all of this is the expanded readership of
By modifying your preferences, however, you can remove all of the politics stories from your front page. Think about it, by having a politics section,
Not many people are going to even comment except rabid liberals, rabid conservatives, and rabid liberterians. And they are going to argue and argue and argue to try to turn the other to their side (which is impossible).
Of course, there will be some jokes, but those will drown in a poll of foaming at the mouth arguments when this story hits about 2k comments.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
- if people knew how much Donald Rumsfeld was directly responsible for the limited number of troops on the ground in Iraq and the interrogation tactics used at Abu Ghraib. see it at PBS's Frontline.
- if people knew that Bush was thinking about Iraq before his election and before 9-11, solely for political gain.
these two thoroughly research points could turn the stomach of even hard line republicans. everyone should realize that this administration has been playing the worst kind of politics by capitalizing on tradgedy and fear beyond normal scaremongering.
- emilio
neurostyle dot net - it's all in your head
These days it seems that more and more people can't be bother to even contact their representative or mayor to voice an opinion on issues that really matter. (examples in DC include lack of voting representation, gun ban repeal, stadium taxes, bad schools, etc). Instead they rely on a vocal minority who *sometimes* do the talking for them. This is the sort of apathy that leads to the atrophying of our civil liberties. When you can't be bothered to protest the Patriot Act (or even pay attention to it) you are basically giving your right to complain without being hypocritical. In the best scenario somebody fights for you, in the worst somebody will suffer trying to regain those liberties later on.
With corporations spending millions of dollars to trump your opinion, a single vote is a powerful thing. Think of it as your way of spending millions in one afternoon. I hope that everyone who votes tomorrow will become more involved in the political process and write your representative about the issues that may matter to you.
I can't vote (not a US citizen) but basing your idea solely on the purported "fact" that Bin Laden supports Kerry you may shoot yourself in the foot.
I plan on trading my vote. I live in California (San Francisco) in which polls show Kerry as a definite winner. (Even with the governator, we're not going to vote Bush in.)
I know that my vote for Kerry in San Francisco won't make a real impact. On the other hand a swing state vote for Kerry would make a difference. That's why I'm trading my vote.
If you're in a solidly decided state (for your candidate) you can agree that you vote for a third party candidate, in exchange for a third party member voding for your candidate in a swing state.
The same works in reverse (you can still help the third party candidate get the federal campaign $ without helping Bush stay in office by having someone in CA or MA cast a Cobb ballot while you vote Kerry.)
Is it enforceable? No... you just have to trust other geeks to carry out your agreement. It's better than nothing though.
At least where I am I can demand a paper ballot even though my <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/<nobr>a<wbr></wbr></nobr> <nobr> <wbr></wbr></nobr>/2004/09/08/BAGN68L64F1.DTL">county uses Deibold</a>. I urge everyone to ask for a paper ballot when voting.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Not for Supreme Court Justices, we can't. They are appointed for life. 3 (or 4) appointements could mean 20-30 years worth of left or right leaning influence in the highest court, depending on the winner of this election.
TODO: Insert witty sig
Sure, unless you have Firefox. Gets rid of the sucky ads, and still generates traffic. It's my contribution to ensuring the eventual downfall of Slashdot.
The Southpark episode that aired this last week was right on target:
Giant Douche OR Turd Sandwich
Plea to all Americans: Do the world a favour, and vote Bush out. He might be great for you guys, but he's a nightmare for the world. America is part of the world, not all of it.
Get your own free personal location tracker
in Maryland demanding a paper ballot and saying "because I don't trust your damn voting machines" is NOT a valid reason. Yes, its on their FAQ.
I just tell 'em I'm allergic to computers.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Hey all,
My roommates here at Harvard spent hours and hours this weekend doing research and writing a letter to undecided voters (especially in swing states). Since they spent so much time on this letter, I thought I'd pass it along to slashdot and see what all of you thought of it (and of course, please do pass it along to anyone you think would benefit from reading it). Hope all of you have a good week, and go vote!
-Sheel
What follows is a letter to undecided voters, expressing our belief that there are certain important members of the Bush administration whose critiques need to be heard. These people have made important statements that cannot be missed by anyone that wants to get the whole picture about this election.
Please send this to any undecided voters you know. The election is approaching fast, and we appreciate any help you can provide.
We're writing this letter to any person who is still undecided about this election and anyone who is willing to reflect upon the issues that will decide their vote. There are all kinds of partisan voices out there that are trying to convince you to vote their way. We're just as sick of this stuff as you are, but in the course of reading about the major issues of this campaign we've come upon a number of voices that have convinced us precisely because their arguments have nothing to do with partisanship. Their statements present verifiable fact, grounded in expertise. These authorities have informed our decision to vote against George W. Bush. However, we're not here to convince you that our decision is the right one. We want to encourage you to be aware of what these people have said, whatever effect it has on your vote. We believe it is a great responsibility for every voter to be well-informed before casting his or her vote.
The experts we cite, like Richard Clarke, General Eric Shinseki, and Greg Thielmann, are authorities on national security. They all worked in the Bush administration, and many have since left government service. All have made statements that contradict Bush policies in a fundamental way. We haven't included just anyone who quit the administration and who dislikes Bush's policies - there are such people in any administration. The people we've included are the experts on their respective issues, and they all served successfully under other presidents. We encourage you not to take us at our word, but to go to Google News and type in their names for yourself.
Perhaps the most important decision of the Bush administration was to invade Iraq. We're not arguing as to whether or not we should be there - this is not the issue, and we respect whatever position you have on this. The issue is the fundamentally flawed way in which they justified and carried out the war, and not whether democratizing Iraq is worth the cost or whether deposing Saddam Hussein has made us safer.
In the time leading up to the decision to invade, Greg Thielmann was acting director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell and the State Department. Thielmann served for 25 years in the State Department's Foreign Service.
In a PBS interview, Thielmann said, "As reluctant as I am to try to understand the motives of people using the intelligence, my bottom line on this subject is that while the intelligence community did not do a good job, in my view, in being very careful to be precise for both decision makers and for the American public, the primary blame is in the way that senior officials of the administration made statements -- which I can only describe as dishonest statements -- about the nature of what the intelligence was saying." He also stated, "[A]ll things considered, it's very hard for me to think of any example of systematic, across-the-board exaggeration and misleading statements about an important war and peace subject. Nothing quite matches what I've seen in the Iraqi WMD area in the last coup
You might want to follow these tips outlined by electoral-vote:
Find out today where your polling place is by calling your county clerk or checking mypollingplace.com
Alternatively, call 1-866-MYVOTE1 to find your polling place.
Check the hours the polls are open with your city or county clerk.
Print the League of Women Voters' card in English or Spanish and put it in your wallet or purse.
Bring a government-issued picture ID like a driver's license or passport when you vote. Some states require it but if there are problems, you will certainly need it. If you have a cell phone, take it to call for help if need be.
As you enter the polls, note if there is an Election Protection person outside the polling place.
If you are not listed as a registered voter, try to register on the spot. Some states allow that. Otherwise, talk to the Election Protection person if there is one or call 1-866-OUR-VOTE for instructions. If neither of these helps, ask for a provisional ballot, but you will need a picture ID to get one.
According to Democracy Now, voting tricks abound in states like Florida and Ohio, so try to arm yourself (against both sides) if you live in one of these states.
Live free or die
So, yes we do care very much about who will be the next american president because it affects us more than we like it to.
www.votepair.org
(depending on who you think is less evil...)
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Bush has done more to roll back our constitutional rights than any president in history.
It might pay to know a little bit of history before you spout off your ignorant blather. Anything that Bush has supposedly done pales in comparison to what Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) actually did during WWII. Look up United States Executive Order 9066 and read about the over 112,000 American Citizens that were detained during the Japanese American Internment.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
However, it's also clear that you can't predict how judges will rule once they get on the bench. Some of the most liberal members of the court were appointed by Republicans and some of the conservative ones by Democrats. This could lead to an interesting voting strategy...
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
...you haven't read the news lately. Your nation currently goes to "war" against random countries for fictional reasons. We non-americans prefer a US leader who doesn't behave like a terrorist.
Never in US history has a president tried to limit the rights of people. But in came GW Bush. He tried to limit the rights of gay people to get married. First president ever to try to limit someone's rights.
I call BS.
First, I'd like you to prove that no other president has limited the rights of people. If you need some source material, consider the ban on polygamous marriages. The law was created as a federal law to prevent the Mormons from practising polygamy. Before that they had no limits to this paractice.
Second, I'd like you to prove that the president tried to take away a right that Gay people had. In both cases where Gay marraiges have occured it has been because some local leaders have gone against state law, or judges interpreted law to allow unions, but not marriage. Gay Marriage laws in 50 states
So - How can one take away a right that was never a right?
-Adam
I don't get Bush supporters. W has made a major blunder in Iraq. W has given two recent justifications, both which stink:
1. "It is better to fight the terrorist abroad than at home."
First of all, they are not any less likely to come to the US because they are currently in Iraq. Second, all the zealots were congrigating in Afghanistan before they shifted to Iraq. We already had a collection spot for the zealots. Thus, the magnet theory is weak.
2. "We will form a shining democracy that will spread to the middle east."
A highly risky dreamscape that may just fail. Further, that was not the original justification given for the invasion, and this has pissed off the world big-time. Bush never apologizes. He personally sees it as a sign of strength to not apologize, but the vast majority of the world sees it as arrogance. He exaggerated the case for WMD and Al Guida links: the vans, the aluminum tubes, the Al Quida "senior member" claims, the African nuke parts memo, etc. He was very loose and sloppy with the truth as presented to him by the CIA and military staffers.
W fucked up really big on this. This makes Monica Lawinski look like (and was) child's play in terms of fuck-up-ativity and national embarrasment.
Table-ized A.I.
hence nader is crazy and deserves a kick in the ass. I often vote green in New Mexico because in NM local polotics greens do win. they are a growing party. But people like Nader ruin it for the greens by creating a spoiler image.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
As others have already stated, it was a joke. If you cannot recognize that, it's because you've been spending too much time in your parent's basement. Step outside into the sunlight and grow a humour gland.
What would a Badnarik adminstration really do? They would get the US out of the UN, stop paying UN dues, and stop paying the UN's rent. After that, it's New York's problem...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Never in US history has a president tried to limit the rights of people.
You must have missed that whole "Prohibition" thing, huh? There are other examples, too, although people would probably write them off as "wartime necessities." Which, come to think of it, you can do with this, too!
Although I'm not sure if you were expecting that to be taken seriously or not or just as an "example" of how things could be. Also note that he's not "limiting the right of gay people to get married" because, arguably, they never had that right.
(If you want to get into personal views, I think he should just remove "marriage" from all our laws and replace it with "civil unions" or something. So you don't get a marriage license from the town clerk, you get a civil union license or something. Separate church and state, that kind of thing.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
"Have any friends/fam in the millitary?"
Yep, sure do. And they have already said that if Kerry is elected, that you'll probably see the same military exodus that you saw when Clinton was elected.
I have a personal friend who was a Captain in the USAF at the time, doing secure communications for newly-setup bases. Academy graduate. He was on the second plane dropped into Somalia when they were setting up the Mogadishu airport (air traffic lands first). He was starting the final process for his promotion to Major, but was so dissatisfied with Clinton, his cuts to the military, his lack of everything needed to be Commander in Chief, that he left the military. And he was one of lots of his peers that did the exact same thing.
We're just now really recovering from the loss of that group, since it takes a good few years just to get someone up to snuff and promoted a couple of times into the places you really need them - the places we're really hurting in.
Now you want to turn around and elect another guy who will if nothing else, instill the *fear* that he will do the exact same thing to the military (and intelligence - remember who tried to eliminate the CIA?) that Clinton did? Even if he never even does those things, just his election will result in the tearing up of lots of reinlistment papers.
Very very few in the military are upset with GWB about his policies with regard to the Middle East. I hope you're not one of those who watches CNN and CBS, sees those hour long documentaries about Military Mothers Against the War (or whatever) and the *throngs of people supporting them* and deduces that a lot of people in the military must be unhappy about the situation.
Quite the opposite. Track how the military votes - you'll find it's overwhelmingly Republican. If they didn't want him as the CIC again, they wouldn't vote for him.
Uh-huh. Right. I think you have that wrong. What you probably should have said was that never in the history of the USA has a president ever voted for a constitutional amendment to limit the rights of people. For what it's worth in support of your argument, however, then-president Woodrow Wilson vetoed the volstead act which provided for enforcement of prohibition...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Turning the Supreme Court is somewhat like turning an oil tanker, it takes longer than you think. Rarely has a 4 year term ever produced a radical shift, if ever. The Atlantic had an article about this in its current issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200411/wittes
Sadly, for the last 60 years, most of them.
2004 - Iraq
2000 -
1996 - Kuwait/Iraq/Bosnia
1992 - Desert Storm
1988 - Panama & Iran/Iraq
1984 - Grenada
1980 - Iran hostages
1976 -
1972 - Vietnam
1968 - Vietnam
1964 - Vietnam
1960 - Cuban takeover by Castro
1956 - Suez
1952 - Korea
1948 - Berlin airlift and WWII aftermath
1944 - WWII
Not all on the scale of the one we have now, but all significant military actions quite near the election.
Ok. I feel very strongly here and I wanted to point out a few things that affect all of us, not just the USA people. Granted, a lot of these things mostly affect Americans, but there are a LOT of things on this list which have ramifications worldwide. I'm adamantly opposed to Bush getting another term for US presidency.
* He cut health care programs for children and other child welfare programs.
* Bush's near unilateral invasion into other countries and the resulting devastation AND large death count to America's own military.
* Bush's unwillingness to either commit or retreat - Send enough people to END the "war", or drop it and go home.
* His GOP's tactics to play into question black voters, challenging their right to vote and thus delaying their appeal process beyond the voting deadline
* Lying about the progress of the war
* Falsifying documents and creating documents to support going to war
* Bush's mockery of a woman he chose to put to death in Texas (count: 152 put to death by his order)
* Under the leadership of George W. Bush, Texas continued to rank dead last in virtually every social service area, yet first in executions.
* Texas has some of the poorest funded programs to help the mentally ill (who account for a good number of the prison population).
* Bush has been steadfast in his refusal to recognize the significance of international treaty law, specifically the right of foreign nationals facing the death penalty to receive notification of their right to consular assistance.
* Texas has the second-largest death row population of foreign citizens in the USA (after California). None of these individuals were informed upon arrest of their right to consular assistance, as guaranteed under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Even a personal intervention by the US Secretary of State (in the Faulder case) was ignored by Bush, undermining the viability of international law, outraging nations allied to the USA and endangering the human rights of detained foreigners everywhere, including American citizens arrested abroad.
* In a 1998 report entitled "Lethal Injustice", Amnesty International stated that "at every step in the death penalty process in Texas, a litany of grossly inadequate legal procedures fail to meet recognized minimum international standards for the protection of human rights.
* Bush attacked and took over two countries
* He spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the Treasury.
* He shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* He set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 2-month period.
* He set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
* He is the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
* He is the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
* In his first year in office he set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, he presided over the worst security failure in US history.
* He set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.
* In his first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
* He cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
* He set the all-time record for the most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
* He appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
* He set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.
* He signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history.
* He presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
* He presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
* He cut health care benefits for war veter
BZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong!
Voting for the third party in the national elections does a lot of good: it helps them to get on the ballot next itme, and gives them a chance to force the Republican/Democratic party to adopt some of their issues.
Sure. Vote third party.
See what I've been reading.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa121 800a.htm
I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
My current one says: If Caeser were alive, you'd be chained to an oar!
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I'll be cancelling you out tomorrow. You may as well not even show up.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
We also had intelligence indicating that Saddam still had WMD.
Actually we did not. The CIA has said so time and time again.
Speaking of world respect, the Economist has no respect for Kerry either.
Yet, they decided that overall Kerry was the better choice. That should tell you something. There is no love lost between Kerry and the Economist, yet they still think he's better than Bush.
Now, let's get on to the economy. I realize that Bush's policies aren't the best, but I do have a couple of points to make. First, the president really doesn't have that much direct control over the economy.
Agreed. One of the few places where the president can have an impact is in tax policy. What did he do in that regard? he gave a tax break to the wealthy who are the least likely to reinvest the money on the economy.
However, in all those issues, I don't see Kerry doing a better job than Bush, and, in most, I see him doing a much worse job.
So you mean to say that Kerry will give bigger tax breaks to rich people thus making the deficit bigger? From Gerald Ford ownwards the democratic administrations have reduced the deficit, the republican administrations have increased it. At what point does this record becomes relevant?
And many people agree that IRV is a bad idea.
Reference: http://electionmethods.org/
live(free) || die;
I'd agree with most of your points, but this argument keeps annoying me - how do you prove that you don't have something? Also you say saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors; from what I heard, the weapons inspectors wanted more time, but they were pulled out by the government because they weren't getting the results that the govt wanted...
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Subscribe.
Join the Free Software Foundation
Or, better yet, Google for Dred Scott. Or just read this article.
...since you hold the exact same positions that a Bush supporter of 12 months ago would. But I might as well respond, so you don't feel lonely so far down the page :)
That being said, the most pertinant issue is Iraq. The war was totally justified. We knew Saddam had WMD's at one point in time. There's no question about it. We also knew that, when he kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998, they said that their work wasn't done. We also had intelligence indicating that Saddam still had WMD. What evidence did we have that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD? His word. Nothing more. UN Resolution 1441, passed in November (IIRC) of 2002 gave Saddam one last chance to document fully his weapons programs. He failed miserably. There was a ton of stuff that was just plain unaccounted for. Saddam had the burden of proof to prove that he had gotten rid of the WMD's, in the treaties ending the first Gulf War. He failed. He gave no proof whatsoever. It would be irresponsible to put the the security of the US in Saddam's hands.
You offer a revisionist view of the relevent events. Everyone, even george bush, agreed that new, thorough weapons inspections were the correct course of action to ensure that Iraq had actually complied with disarming requirements. Suddenly, before the inspections were even completed, Bush declaired that they weren't working and went ahead to war anyway. Why did he initially support the inspections if the war was so "justified" from the get-go? Why did he cut the inspections off if he initially supported them? These are questions that have never been answered.
Also, let's not forget that John Kerry looked at the very same intelligence as the Bush administration and came to the very same conclusions, namely that Saddam posed an iminent threat.
Entirely, 100%, completely, and shamefully false. Kerry NEVER said that Iraq posed an imminent threat. NEVER. Do I have to repeat it again?
Kerry also voted for the war.
This is an oversimplification of what the war authorization entailed. See here for basically the same argument that I'd make about this: http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/authforce.html
He also stated, a couple months ago, that, knowing what he knows now, he'd still vote for authorization to use the troops.
He believes that it's the right authority for the president to have in that situation. But he thinks the president used it wrongly. He's been consistent about this.
Well, that was a couple of months ago. I don't know if it's still true today.
It is still true. He hasn't flip-flopped. The flip-flop accusations have turned into this big whisper campaign. It's really disingenuous.
However, Kerry tried to attach a caveat to that, namely that he voted for the authorization so that Bush could back up his threats of military power, but Kerry didn't want Bush to actually use it. In a nutshell, he said that he wanted the threat of military force to be a bluff. What kind of respect will that get on the world stage, now that our enemies know that Kerry won't actually use the military?
No, you're still misrepresenting his viewpoint. Please read the speech he gave before voting on said resolution. The war powers were there as a LAST RESORT, in case diplomatic means to ensure Iraq's disarming didn't work. "Last Resort" and "Bluff" are entirely different concepts.
How can you be so sure that you dislike someone whose viewpoint you don't even understand accurately?
Speaking of world respect, the Economist has no respect for Kerry either. To use their word, they recognize that his vacillations lose a lot of respect.
The Economist has their own opinion. Besides, most of the accusations of his "vacillations" are fallacious.
Furthermore, his whole promise to bring American troops
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Wow... very inteligent. I am blinded by the insight. I am sure gald we went to Bosnia to grab all of the oil there (http://www.texaco.com/texaco/worldwide/europeeura sia/bosnia/en/default.htm). Wait, was that Clinton? Well, none the less. I am sure he has been to Texas. You can now move that one to the "Fact" side, or send to ABC. And Somalia... Vietnam.... etc, etc, etc. We are Team America. We want world dominance! Yeah, kill, kill! So, if the 400 tons of explosives in recent news were able to exist, but have dissapeared, why couldn't the WMD's have existed when we entered Iraq, but have had the same fate under Evil Bush's watch? Find me a conspiracy page on that... wait- give me 10 minutes and I'll create one- then you can give that out as factual links too! Hope you have a better day than you seemed to be for this post...
I bet Ballmer lives in the most expensive van by the river.
Now on related news, people should go out and vote, but not for a president, that part we are isolated by the electoral college, if you live in a prodimnantly republican state, your vote for a president does not matter.
However, you should vote on state and local issues, this is where your vote counts.
Also, remember that up to 4 supreme court justices are expected to retire in the next 4 years, which gives the next president a lot of clout over legal issues handled by the supreme court for the next 10-15 years (depending on justices that will be assigned by the president). At this point the supreme court is split with 1 judge leaning them towards more liberal views. With republicans you can expect conservative right wing nominations that will challange civil liberties and keep science down in favor of religion. Democrats will leans towards liberal judges that will allow stem cell research, medicinal marijuana, and such. The choice is yours as to which direction you want the country to go, but if we fall behind in scientific research, another country can take the lead and that tends to have a domino effect that affects our economy.
Think and vote.
If I wasn't voting for Badnarik I'd be voting for Bush, so be glad for 3rd party votes.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
If you thin Bush has done a good job protecting America's national security this is an eye-opening must read.
I'm not sure what the US trailers for it say, but the Canadian trailers say something like:
and
" The problem is, the Electoral College does not work with more than two parties.
All third parties are completely eliminated by the electoral college unless they have a huge following. I don't know of any electoral votes going to a 3rd party, although I suspect that it could've happened in the past."
Wrong. It has nothing to do with the Electoral College. It has to do with the fact that 48 states use winner take all systems. If a large state, such as California, gave one electoral vote to each congressional district (And then say 2 for the overall popular vote winner), then 3rd party candidates could rack up some electoral votes. If there is no majority for one candidate, as long as you get at least 1 electoral vote, you might be in the top 3 and have a shot at the Presidency when the election is thrown into the House.
It's not the Electoral College that keeps out third party candidates, it's that states simply give all electors to the winner of the statewide popular vote. Since 3rd party candidates have no shot of winning any state's popular vote, they have no chance as it stands of getting any electoral votes.
Don't blame the Electoral College, blame the states, who, per the US Constitution, can use ANY way they want to choose electors, but foolishly use a sh**ty system like giving all of your electors to the winner of your state's popular vote.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
The U.S. Supreme Court cast a cloud on the medical marijuana movement's biggest legal victory Monday when the justices agreed to hear the Bush administration's appeal of a ruling that protects marijuana patients in California from federal prosecution.
The court will hear the case in the term that starts in October, with a ruling due by the end of June 2005.
It's documented in many places that this administration & his Gang-o-thugs have wanted to go into Iraq for quite some time.
For example, just recently:
Info from Bush Ghost Writer (misleader.org)
Other articles to look at:
in 2000, Bush wanted to invade Iraq if elected
Neoconservative plan for global dominance
US Dollar vs the Euro: Another reason for the invasion of Iraq
US Rejected Peace offerings from Iraq and Afghanistan
Report Proves Bush Knew He Was Lying About Iraq
There are more, you just have to go look, and look beyond the distortion of facts that gets in the media and in the ads. (Neither party seems to care about real facts this election).
So...your comments are presented quite succinctly, but a myth-busted is not to say that it wasn't heading in the right direction. To your points:
1.) Yes! Certain trials were destined to affect this president with regards to the economy. Unless you _still_ believe trickle down is good for the masses then things like HIS tax cuts are hard to stomach. Also...his energy policy, invading energy critical areas of the war etc, lack of investment in renewable energy are all long-term bad decisions for the economy. Shipping jobs? Arguably bad for spending since the UNEMPLOYED DON'T BUY CHRISTMAS PRESENTS.
2.) Bush did deal with 0-11 and no-one could have stopped the drop. Thats so true! Hardly gives Bush any points though since anyone could have done it. Me for president!
3.) Yes! And Clinton bombed those camps. And..Clinton made it clear that terrorists were the single biggest threat to national security. Bush said...missile defense is where we should spend our money. Increased contracts with Lockheed and such...they don't stop rats in the streets, they stop COLD WAR STYLE SHIT. He (BUSHCO) lost focus on VERY CLEAR information that was handed to him. This is what happens when you import a bunch of cabinet members who haven't seen the light of government work since the heart of the cold war. Heck...even Condy is a cold-war specialist, but at least her brain is nimbe enough to do a semi-adjustment.
4.) Yup. Kerry is for some of the same shit that Bush is for. Is that an argument for or against Kerry? Are you patting him on the back?
5.) This is the worst interpretation of Kerry's policy I have EVER HEARD. Kerry makes clear that the ponderance of allies would warrant action. I think that (assuming we have any allies left) the invastion of France and England and half the western world would suffice under the proposed Kerry Doctrine. Arguably Desert Storm I would pass muster. Take another look.
6.) Liberals hiding from what? Wasn't it Clinton that created terrorism as the number one priority and BushCo that dropped it until after 9-11? The commission (even the commission which seems a bit hog-tied...waiting on some CIA docs that are magically held up currently) seems to think so? More than 1/2 the senate seems to think so.
7.) Ahhh...the global police AND our need to access global markets in the same sentence. Doesn't that just sum up the sickness of this administrations objectives. Scream freedom! and then push products. Sounds more like tyranny to me. I think a collection of countries providing policing services is at least marginally better than one country doing so. How exactly could it be bad? I like to consult with a friend before I bomb my neighbor...seems like a reasonable axiom for decision making that involves bombing the #@$# out of a bunch of people.
8.) Social Security = Handout. That is a very fascinating view of things. Have you EVER LOOKED AT YOUR PAY STUB?
9.) OOOPS...my numbering is off. I forgot to address the 100,000 deaths. While that statistic is clearly wrong (study states that there is a 95% chance that somewhere between 8,000 and 200,000 people have died as a result of the invastion and 100,000 is basically the average) conservative estimates DO STATE (other studies) that at least 15K have died from actual invastion (bombs, guns, falling buildings etc.). Thats a big enough number for me! At what point exactly does the number get small enough that I just shouldn't care? That I shouldn't make policy decisions to try to avoid that number? Hmmmm.
Your summary;
I'm not quite sure where you are going with your capitalism rant. Your use of jargon is all over the place, like a half-assed college education might provide. "Liberalism" and "capitalism" you seem to think are at odds. Check out the dictionary...liberalism's very definition includes the free market (and historically the gold standard, a bit wac...but whatever). What I think you have a problem with is the injection of certain adjustments in the form of social programs and those that are funded by taxation. I just plain ole disagree and would love to chat with you about assuming you can get your head out of your ass and vote for Kerry.
unlike lower court judges, Bush cannot arbitrarily appoint a supreme court judge in temporary stead of congressional approval. So...next conspiracy theory.
Oh no, the rest of the world HATES US? Well, we should change everything we do to make them happy, yessiree boy howdy. Can't have the French hating us, or the Germans, or anyone else who took bribes from Saddam. And dammitall, I can't believe the Russians and Chinese hate us!
Nobody will read this, because there are already over 1700 comments on this story. But there's now an - apparently - complete transcript of the full 16 minutes of bin Laden's recent video available on al-Jazeera's website.
:)
There's some interesting content that doesn't feature in the shorter transcripts. And (more interestingly for me) - this was released at 1pm GMT today. Why are the major media sites not covering it?
(NB: moderators, this is clearly relevant to the US election
(whether you are for gay marriage or not, this is a legislative battle and should not be imposed by judicial decree)
No it's not. It's a Constitutional issue. See #14, the Equal Protection clause.
As long as the State favors one arrangement of households, those arrangements should be available to all citizens.
Me? I think the State should not favor ANY arrangement of households. That cuts this Gordian knot quite neatly.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I guess paying a guy crack cocaine to register fictitious voters, registering illegal immigrants as potential voters, and registering dead people as voters aren't considered 'shenanigans'? Oh, wait. You're right. Those are felonies.
In reference to the 'Democrats vote on Nov. 3rd' issue: only Democrats would have to worry about being gullible enough to fall for it.
how do you prove that you don't have something
Well, its not so much a matter of proving that he doesn't have them. It was already proven during the Gulf war that he had them. He was then ordered to destroy them, and he should have evidence to prove that they were destroyed, but as far as I heard he hadn't presented that evidence.
Right now the federal government leeches ~19% of our Gross National Product (2.2 trillion dollars)
The sum of the monies collected by the IRS last year (2003) was $1.969 trillion, $987 Billion of which was from the income tax. So without the income tax we have $982 Billion dollars.
Welfare and Medicare cost us $802 billion.
If we did away with federal welface and medicare (and left it up to the states and local governments, or better yet charities/non-profits) we'd have to cut another $190 billion from the budget.
Do away with federal welfare and trim the fat from other programs and we can have a fully functional federal government (that is still getting ~10% of the GNP) AND leave ALL working Americans with at 15-35+% more money in our pockets.
Just food for thought.
Hi. Quoting Leviticus is stupid. Leviticus also includes such gems as "If you shave your beard you will be killed", "If you disobey your father you will be killed", and a whole host of dietary laws that are universally ignored by Christians of pretty much all denominations.
Catholics, who believe in the authority of the Pope, have a leg to stand on when they quote certain passages as being meaningful and discard others, because the Vicar of Christ has the authority in their Church to reinterpret the word of God. If you're protestant, you'll simply have to take it all or leave it all, or you're being hypocritical.
Anyway, didn't Jesus say that the new covenant replaces the old?
So, if you're going to use your faith -- a faith that preaches love, acceptance of others, and general tolerance (did Jesus shun the lepers?) -- to validate your own biggotry, at least quote the new testament. I'll even help you. Romans 1:26 has a passage which could be interpreted as anti-homosexual.
But as the parent said, WWJD? Did he shun the lepers or the whores? No, he didn't. He loved. You should do the same.
Why don't you actually read the bible sometime, instead of just parroting Jerry Falwell's talking points? There's holiness there, you know, but unless your mind is open you won't have the depth required to understand it.
So you want to give the government another tool it can use to maintain its grip? The idea really is an old one that has been used quite effectively in the past. There are about thirty-million Americans who would have no voice today if such discrimination weren't outlawed by the 1965 Voting Rights Act
"This act was signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon Johnson. It outlawed the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War, including literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting."
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
What a fucking baby. You are completely clueless if all you have to say about Bush is that you are irked about the Patriot Act.
How about making us less safe?
How about repealing environmental laws that protect all of us?
How about blurring the line between church and state?
What about lying about Iraq?
What about giving a huge tax break to the richest americans?
There are so many other things.
If all you can do is whine about being bothered by ads... fuck! You deserve the miserable piece of shit this country will become if we continue to have leaders like GWB.
Sometimes you need to vote against someone. Stop obsessing on Kerry and obsess on Bush.
I personally do not think that everyone should be voting. In fact I think a lot of people SHOULDN'T be voting!
Ignorance is rampant and I would rather have an intelligent informed nation choosing their leader based on facts, logic, and rationale rather than emotional responses, self-interest, and personality marketing/propoganda.
The Cato Institute published a report which is here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-525es.html [Cato.org] and it details its findings on the study of voter ignorance. Here is an excerpt:
"Overall, close to one-third of Americans can be categorized as 'know-nothings' almost completely ignorant of relevant political information," writes Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, in "When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy."
"Most of the time," Somin notes," only bare majorities know which party has control of the Senate, some 70 percent cannot name either of their state's senators and the vast majority cannot name any congressional candidate in their district at the height of a campaign."
Overall, voters tend to be "abysmally ignorant of even very basic political information... the sheer depth of most individual voters' ignorance is shocking to observers not familiar with the research."
A few examples from many in the report:
* The Patriot Act? What's that? Three-fourths of Americans say they know little or nothing about it. 58 percent say they've heard "nothing" or "not much" about it.
* Seventy percent don't know about the $500 billion new drug benefit added this year to Medicare, which Somin describes as "probably the most significant domestic legislation passed during the Bush administration."
* A majority cannot make even a rough estimate of how many Americans soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
* 61 percent believe that there has been a net loss of U.S. jobs in 2004.
* Over 60 per cent don't know that, during President Bush's term, there has been an explosion in domestic spending (about 25 percent above previous levels) that has enormously increased the national debt.
* Last year, 58 percent of Americans could not name a single federal Cabinet department.
And such voter ignorance is, alas, nothing new:
* In 1964, at the height of Cold War tensions, only 38 percent of the public knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO.
* In 1994, after Republicans took control of Congress under the highly-publicized leadership of Rep. Newt Gingrich, 57 percent of Americans said they'd never heard of Gingrich, despite the avalanche of press coverage.
* In 1996, 67 percent couldn't name their congressman, and only 26 percent knew that senators serve six-year terms.
* In the 2002 elections, only 32 percent of voters knew that the Republican Party controlled the House.
In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
And in conclusion I say that if you do not truly understand the issues, have a good concept of how the government and the world works, and grasp the ideals and principles of what this government was founded on and it's history - then stay the hell out of the voting booth!
Libertas in infinitum
The Supremes were correct when they ruled that the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in Bush v. Gore.
..."
The Supreme Court of Florida has authority over actions taken under Florida law and the Florida constitution. However, the regulation of the method of electing federal electors was granted solely to the state legislature directly from the federal constitution. Article II, Section 1:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors
The Florida courts have no authority to determine whether or not the regulations are proper: it is not a power granted by the people of Florida, and is not reviewable by the courts of Florida, no more than an act of Congress is.
Further, the Supreme Court is a court of review in nearly all cases. It is not their place to determine the facts of a case. The issues are the procedures used, not the underlying facts as determined in a court of original jurisdiction. In Bush v. Gore, the justices determined that the Florida legislature enacted rules within its legal grant of power, and that the Florida courts had no power to review that. Case over. Good decision.
A bad decision is one like Roe v. Wade. Rather than merely use, say, oh, the Ninth Amendment to rule that a woman has the right to abortion, and perhaps rule when life begins so far as the due process clause would seem to require (due process demands that human life not be forfeit without due process; when does life and therefore the obligation of government to protect it begin?), the Supremes devised a truly stupid and obtuse doctrine to justify their decision post factum. They then proceeded to legislate from the bench, laying down a complex set of rules on the topic. The proper action would have to been to strike the original law, give guidance, and tell the legislatures to try again. And the next time the law made it to them, they could approve of it, or give further guidance. That is the proper role of a court in a democratic society. That is how our legal system is supposed to work. Legislatures write laws. Courts approve of them, or strike them, not devise complex procedures to implement in lieu of the will of the elected legislature.
Note the similarity with the Florida Supremes in Bush v. Gore. Rather than rule that the legislature had erred, and direct the legislature to correct such error, the Florida Supremes took it into their own hands to devise a complex procedure to perform a recount. Even had the power to do such been granted by the Florida constitution, that is the role of an elected legislature. But even worse, that power wasn't granted by the Florida constitution, and the Florida Supremes *still* decided that they had somehow been provided the power to exercise that authority.
I'm sure the counter-argument will be about justice, right and wrong, fairness, partisanship, stealing elections and so on. But in Bush v. Gore, a rational mind, setting partisan emotion aside, which has examined the facts of the case will find that the Court acted properly and within its realm of power. The Florida court did not.
Larry