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.
We have be lied to along with the rest of the world. Our government which is supposed to aid & protect us has foolishly abused its power. Vote tomorrow to get this monster out of office.
Oh you poor baby. I feel so bad for people forced to read Slashdot who don't like it and have nothing to contribute.
"Other bands play, but Manowar KILLS"
Nicely put. The other sad part is the "politics" section of Slashdot is 99% US politics. Yeah, thanks for largely ignoring the other 6 billion on the planet.
I don't even know why I visit this shithole some days.
Like we really care what the world thinks. Everybody should show America more appreciation. We've saved you're asses so many times its hard to keep count.
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
I have never heard bush say these were the three goals of his presidency.
I think bush has mostly succeeded in doing what he set out to do. (i.e. put the economy in the ditch, run up the deficit, cut taxes on the rich, speed up outsourcing overseas, throw lots of government contracts to his friends, eliminate environmental protections, etc.)
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Rule 1: Do not include any that involved a true coalition and broad international consensus. Rule 2: It must be a world-saving act, such as defeating Fascism.
An example of violating Rule 1 but not Rule 2 would be WWII.
Please list 3.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
We have to go back to the Vietnam for a bit here. We have to go back because it looks like John Kerry has been caught in yet another lie .. and this one may be quite serious.
... then the leftist media found out the truth about Kerry's trips, they failed to correct their own stories on the subject.
... saying that he informed the congress immediately of his visit. Later these newspapers found out that Kerry's visit was in 1970, not '71, and that he didn't tell the congress until almost a year later. That makes the meeting a secret indeed.
... to meet with the communists negotiating with the United States for a settlement to the Vietnam war.
.. the Times then found out that by "both sides" Kerry meant that he had visited with both communist delegations to the peace talks. In fact, "both delegations" was the phrase Kerry used in describing his visit. The next week the Times ran a small correction saying that it had "misidentified" the parties Kerry went to visit.
/. readers just fine. There's no hope for you. Intelligent when it comes to technical topics, but completely blind when it comes to politics in the real world. A year or two from now don't say that some us weren't trying our best to warn you.
Here's the story:
In 1970 John Kerry went to visit the communist delegation to the Vietnamese peace talks. Then he went to visit them again. The congress of the United States was not informed of these visits until almost a year later. By the way, Kerry was a Navy Reserve Officer at the time. Finally
You've probably heard some of this before, but it was presented to you in such a way as to make Kerry's visit and the motivations behind the visit seem entirely benign.
The charges that Kerry traveled to Paris to commiserate with the Communists first surfaced in the Swift Boat Veteran's television ad campaign. The Swiftees said that Kerry traveled to Paris to "secretly" meet with the enemy. The New York Times and the Washington Post quickly jumped to Kerry's defense
The media also reported that Kerry was actually on his vacation in Paris at the time, so the trip was not made for the explicit purpose of meeting with the communists. That turns out to be false also. His honeymoon was in the Caribbean. It seems that he did, indeed, travel to Paris just to meet with communists
Wait! There's more! There was another Kerry trip to meet with the communists, this one in 1971! And according to Joshua Muravchik in The Weekly Standard, a third trip was planned.
Perhaps you've heard somewhere along the way that when Kerry went to Paris he actually met with both sides, not just the communists. That would certainly put him in better light, wouldn't it? You probably got that from The New York Times.
The Times was quite upset that the Swiftees said that Kerry had gone to Paris to meet with the enemy. Not so, said the Times. Kerry actually testified that he met with "both sides." Well
America was at war. We were at war against the communist enemy in Vietnam. Tens of thousands of Americans soldiers were dying. John Kerry, while still a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy, makes several trips abroad to visit with the enemy. That's right, the enemy. He waits almost a year before he bothers to inform the congress of his visit. He then makes a second trip, and is planning a third that was cancelled. The media is giving him a pass. They're giving him a pass because they know that if Kerry's actions are highlighted for the voters it would cost him votes.
But I guess that suits most of you
Bush doesn't have a yes/no test but tries to pick Justices who interpret the Constitution strictly
Except for the parts that he needs amended.
Of course! Kerry wins, kisses Europes' keister by giving in on Israel, and in return europe gives a little on Iraq. Simple equation; Kerry keeps a campaign promise, europe gets 'friendler', and Israel (the only democracy in the middle east) gets screwed.
Oh for god's sake. Badnarik is a perfect example of why we won't ever get a 3rd party canidate. He is the poster child for 3rd Party = freaks and just reinforces all the stereotypes about 3rd party being the lunatic fringe (man that word just doesn't LOOK like a word).
Give me a 3rd party canidate who, you know, has actual job experience and a strong record, and I'll vote for them. If a canidate is serious they will get elected as a 3rd party rep to the local school board, or sherrif's office, then city legistature, state, national. If they go from being a used car salesman, (or failed oil barron/1 term senator) to trying for the highest position in the land then there is something wrong in their head.
Gotta pay your dues - I think the last 4 years have proved quite well that a MBA does not a president make.
Putting a baffoon in office - even a well meaning one is just as evil as voting "for evil." I can say that because a actually voted for Perot.
Or did he believe that we should help the poor by ... helping the poor?
Jesus did not himself tax anyone. Bush has limited ability to help people. The government can tax people and then spend the money... but taxing affects the economy, for the worse. The great Depression in the 20s was made WORSE by the massive government regulation of the economy, not better.
One way to help the poor is to give them things, but if Bush wants to do that he needs to spend tax dollars that are extracted from the economy.
Another way to help the poor is to create conditions that make things easier for them, or at least don't make conditions that are bad for them.
Kerry wants a higher minimum wage. A minimum wage hurts the very people who it purports to help. It won't hurt me -- I'm way past minimum wage and I'm affluent enough to survive the inevitable inflation -- but I'm opposed to it because I don't want the poor folks screwed over.
If the government enforces a minimum wage, businesses will hire fewer people. So if you are getting minimum wage, you will get a bit more money, but if you desperately need a job and there are fewer jobs you are screwed.
Plus, you can't get a raise until you have a job. People don't work their whole lives for minimum wage. Once they have a track record they can get raises and promotions. The higher the minimum wage is, the smaller the job pool gets, and the less likely a business is to take a chance on a job applicant. So middle-class kids will suck up all the minimum wage jobs and the poor are screwed. The minimum wage saws off the bottom rungs of the ladder of opportunity; if you are already in the middle class you can get a foot onto a rung, but if you are below that, well, too bad for you.
Ask yourself this: if minimum wage is a good idea, why don't we set it to $100 per hour? Think how much money all those poor people will take home! If you think $100 per hour minimum wage is a good idea, please stay home and don't vote tomorrow. If you don't think $100 per hour minimum wage is a good idea, then ask yourself why $8 per hour is a good idea.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
a right to guns, arms control goes back in America before the revolution and was an essential part of law enforcement for more than 2 hundred years.