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.
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
The Southpark episode that aired this last week was right on target:
Giant Douche OR Turd Sandwich
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.
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
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)
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
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.
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.'"
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.
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!
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