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.
Ever notice the politically based "stories" get the most comments and a ton of clicks? Yes, that translates to ad money. No wonder Slashdot added a politic$ section. Maybe we can have mid-election and post-election discussions, too?
I remember when this was a good site for tech discussion rather than a huge flamefest. Yeah, I'll probabely be modded down for this comment, but if I expressed my political beliefs here I'd be modded down anyway.
I voted early (last Tuesday) here in GA. Even still, I had to wait in line for about an hour.
Please keep in mind that this is the most important election of our lifetime(s).
Please just tolerate the the wait, and make sure your voice is heard.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Vote early! Vote Often!
Pretty Pictures!
I want an honest option, I am really thinking about a 3rd party, the ____________ party, I like what _____________ has to say about the issues I care about. I disagree with him on a few issues, but they are not a matter that have been strong enough to destroy thinking about him. But on the other hand I live in a swing state. I am leaning towards the lesser of 2 evils, but then when I think of that, I get something inside my head saying "for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."* I would like some honest thoughts, and please no "if you vote third party you are throwing away your vote" or "a vote for a third party is really a vote for (insert one of the 2 major party candidates here)" because I just don't believe that. Also I am posting anonymously so you can not find out who I am think about or that so it can not influence your response.
*2 points for any one that can name who that quote is from.
Also moderators please save your mod points for the respondents of this question, instead of this question it self, besides there is no point in moding up or down an AC.
Discuss.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
I'll just be glad when this whole stupid thing is over. I'm so sick of all of the election coverage.
I look forward to seeing who won the election sometime in late December.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
I hope that everyone who can vote, bothers to. No matter what you decide to vote for, taking the time to vote is important.
Personally, I'd like to see Bush out of office, and I assume that if that happens, it'll be Kerry that does it.
Join the Free Software Foundation
I live in Massachusetts, where the outcome is more or less predetermined (we are sort of a wacky state that's solidly Democratic, and has a history of electing Republican governors. Don't let that fool you, though, Kerry will landslide here). So I've decided to vote Libertarian. While I don't agree with everything Badnarik stands for (free market can't solve everything), I am using my vote to try to put a spotlight on election reform. Anyone else in the same boat?
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
...let the flame wars begin!
Let's do some unscientific polling.
P e)routka
B )rowne di
Introducing 'Geek Code Election 2004'.
VOTE
(Bu)ush
(Ke)erry
(Bk)dnarik
(Na)der
(
PARTY AFFILIATION
(R)epublican
(D)emocrat
(G)reen
(
(C)onstitution
(L)ibertarian
(W)hig
(J)
You work it out, I don't know.
CONFIDENCE
++ Like candidate a lot
+ Like candidate
X Neutral about candidate
- Don't like candidate, but voting for them
-- Really don't like candidate, but voting for them
# Better than incumbent.
and state. Group multiple elements in parens.
I'm a Ke(X#)DVA.
REMEMBER TO YANNO, VOTE TOMORROW ALSO, SLASHDOT DOESN'T COUNT
I've heard discussion of the theory that Osama Bin Laden wants to keep Bush in power. Thoughts?
Heck, even the chance to kick out arch-conservative Rehnquist from the supreme court without a similar successor taking hold would be worth volunteering over... ;)
POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
Even while in France last week.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
If you do live in a swing state, I am so sorry that your TV has been taken over for the last while. Don't worry though, it will be over soon!
Lasers Controlled Games!
Will probably be the biggest one in our lifetimes. Remember to vote and remember to vote for the best candidate not the lesser of two evils.
Go Badnarik!!!!
He's going to get more than 300 electoral points. He's going to take Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
Plus, he's going to take Iowa. You heard it here first.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything.
------------------(Joseph Stalin)
MOST LIKELY, not all of the gibberish they sputter, which typically cannot be backed up.
Not voting is a perfectly reasonable stance. If you believe that no one man should have the authority to unleash death and destruction upon the world, why would you pick one guy over the other simply because he will cut your taxes or give you free health care?
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
If you have no clue of the issues, if you're basing your decision solely on superficial reasons, or if you're just voting because someone told you to, please don't vote.
Don't drown out the voices of actual concerned citizens who have invested a good amount of effort looking at all the issues and reviewing the histories and promises of the various candidates.
After hearing Arnold Schwarzenneger endorse Bush and in the same speech say we can't be "Girly Men" about the economy... I'm voting kerry.
Can I vote for the judges who will decide this election instead?
Kerry, Bush: Toody and muldoon!
Even though the daily show is "fake" news and is supposed to be comedy, I think the title of their election coverage tomorrow is all too revealing: "Prelude Recount" Let the lawsuits begin!
I'm sick of it. Nothing is going to change anyone's mind at this point. I'm going to vote tomorrow, and I hope to god I get hit by a bus as I walk out of the polling place so won't have to live through the next four years.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow.
/.? Do those that truely have no idea or opinion really need to get out and vote? Does having some (more) randomness thrown in really help? Or is it all just a ploy to boost the "voter turnout" numbers, so when countries like Chile get a 98% turnout, we don't look like doofuses?
The creators of that "Team America" movies (same guys behind South Park) got hammered because they said, basically, that if you're clueless don't bother to vote.
What say you
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
A simple question to voters of any preference: do you trust the voting machines to
A) count your vote correctly and
B) resist tampering until the end of day printout?
It just looks to me that with their documented flaws the machines simply cannot be counted on. I'm in the UK, so is the 'close up view' you've got making things look any better than I'm thinking?
I really want Kerry to win over Bush, but for once I think it's important not to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. I can't say I entirely agree with any of the 3rd party candidate. There are some things I like/dislike about each. But I really want to help show a 3rd party (or independant) is a viable option, so I'm going with Nader since I suspect he will get the most votes of the others. So instead of "lesser of evils" I'm voting "most viable of goods"
Saddam,
For the last time, you can't vote in our elections.
Go back to playing Rock, Paper Saddam.
Signed,
The US
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.
You heard it here first!
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
If you live in New York State, or any number of other states, it's STUPID to get out of vote. There are 6 million Democrats and 4 million Republicans. Unless 2 fucking million Democrats stay home (unlikely) the Democrats are going to win. Stay home and watch the whinging on TV, or go vote for Nader, Cobb, or (preferably) Badnarik so the Libertarians won't have to fight the ballot access fight for the next four years.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I am one vote for kerry.
Jeoin
This one's really interesting, honest.
-J
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,
With the new release of the Osama-Bin-Laden tape supporting John Kerry, I can 100% saying I am going for Bush. If terrorists start saying they are going to start attacking any state the Bush wins and leaves the states the Kerry wins alone, then I am for Bush. Because that shows to me that the teorrists are running scared at another Bush administration. Plus Bin-Laden was spouting everything the idiot Michel Moore was saying just adds to the theory that teorrists and dictators want to see Kerry in office because he will not hunt them down and give their people freedom.
Freedom is as an effective virus as AIDS, and Influenza. It is something that cannot be stopped once it is out in the wild, and it has infected the Middle East, and it is only time when every nation on Earth will be able to say we are Free, the way God (what ever you may call god) has made us.
Bush has my vote 100%. I think you all should give the canidate that has proven himself, instead of the one who hasn't given a single inkling of what his canidancy would be like. He only says his administration will "do a better job".
Well I say to you John, with that slogan, anybody in the United States can run for President. But I know I am not qualified, because I don't have the understanding of what needs to be done in the job and lay it out in an effective way for the American people to understand. But if all it takes is saying "I will do a better job".
Then I am announcing my canidacy for President of the United States. If you want to vote for my just write in "nberardi from slashdot.org".
I look forward to voting tomorrow. One thing I am thankful for is that I can demand a paper ballot instead of the standard electronic (Diebold) one. I urge everyone who votes tomorrow to ask for a paper ballot, even if they are not available just to make a statement.
Even if you live in a state that is clearly going to one candidate or another, your voice will help add to how strong your state's voice is.
Also don't forget all the local items, where your voice typically is much louder.
And finally, remember that you're not just voting for a candidate, but for all their support staff. For example, a vote for Bush is also a vote for Michael Powell, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove and all the other people that come along for the ride. Not to mention that the next president will likely select one or more supreme court justices.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Vote for Richard Nixon's Head in 2004!
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
NO WAY!!! Giant Douche is WAY cooler!
But Badnarik is a bloody nutcase.
Blowing up the UN within a week of taking office? How does that work with the strong property rights stance of the Libertarian party? "We're all for the government respecting your property, unless we don't like you, then we'll confiscate it and blow it up?" His plan isn't legal, let alone practical or within his authority as President
The Federal Income Tax is illegal? Strapping prisoners to their beds for a month so that their muscles atrophy? Has he read the constitution? Does he understand that the President doesn't wield this kind of power?
Based on his tendancy to advocate this kind of crap, my only conclusion is that Badnarik has even less respect for the whole of the constitution than the two major party's candidates.
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
...since I'm a Canadian and they won't let me :(
What I am doing is having an election party. Am I the only one who finds this stuff more exciting than a superbowl? Hell, with this election not only do you get a guaranteed suspensful nailbiter that goes into overtime and an event whose outcome has long-lasting implications but you still get a lot of funny advertisements too! This election's got it all!
So join me on Tuesday night as I crack open a few cans of that weak American beer and join my southern neighbours in celebrating the funnest holiday since October 31st.
-Pinkoir
Come on, think about it. He's got everything: A swank suit, the will to stand up to the big guy, and a /. constituency so fanatically devoted that they'd sell their own kidneys. Definitely a penguin who knows where his towel is.
Couple points for you:
1) The REPUBLICANS created the first lawsuit in election 2000, and they have done so again in 2004. As well, if you recall the lawsuit before the Supreme Court was BUSH v. Gore, not the other way around.
By voting for Bush because Osama says vote for Kerry (which he didn't btw if you watch the tape or read transcripts), is STILL letting Osama decide the election. Voting for whomever you were going to vote for REGARDLESS of what he says is the right course of action.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
I agree, I've never seen a fruitful discussion on the politics section either. I think most people don't ever read any comments either. I understand there's big issues this year and I understand a polictics section sounded like a good idea, but it hasn't seemed to translate as well as I, or others thought. Something needs to be done....maybe only white male landowners or something can comment....I'm only kidding so don't mod me down for that.
/. though.
I just hate to read the politics section because I learn nothing, and gain no insight. I love the rest of
http://www.commaecho.com
How many here is allowed to wote in this matter? I know I can't wote. and I suspect the majority here is unable to.
The problem I see is that alot of the news-writer argue that USA is the only country in the world, that everyone here is US-citizen. What about the rest of the world? Do you meen that we also should wote?
------- In the end there are no begining
You are either with Kang or you are with the terrorists!
Having followed only a couple of the major TV stations and some of the major newspapers, I might be wrong in this question. But from this side of the Atlantic, the debate (if you can even call it that) has been almost incomprehensible bitter and hateful - in that light, how can the next president move beyond the campaign and unite the people again? Is it even possible?
This is interesting, albeit not surprising.
Underholdning.info
Do you really think Laura Bush reads slashdot? Well, the campaigns reads blogs and Osama watches Fahrenheit 911, so.. ehm.
Hi Jenna! Wanna get it on in the weekend?
Since this is a bit of a free-for-all, I figured I'd bring up my story of a recent local election that serves to highlight just how stupid some voters can be and how you need a system to properly deal with them.
I went to vote for my mayor recently, and at the polling station was handed the voting sheet on which were listed the candidates for mayor along with an incomplete arrow beside each name (picture the middle third of an arrow missing). The way you vote is you simply complete the arrow that points to your choice. This was demonstrated to each person picking up the voting card. Even simpler than an 'X', right?
Well, the woman in front of me had her vote rejected by the scanning machine. For some reason she had drawn her own arrows on the form.
Thankfully, the scanning machine worked wonders to detect this spoiled ballot. She was given another ballot and another demonstration on how to vote. That's a pretty good voting system, imho. I just hope we don't have to hear about chads following tomorrow's election!
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
And it's message to get out the vote, I'd just like to pass along the reminder not to vote for the lesser of two evils. The false belief that you must do this is what keeps us bound in a single party system. Vote your heart, vote your conscience, help heal America. I'm voting for Nader tomorrow and so are most of my friends here in Ohio but you can do what you wish. Good luck!
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
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.
And I am proud that I always vote for who I want and never who I am against. I vote that way every election, for every candidate or issue - my choice or abstain. Lesser of two evils, vote trading, whatever - that's a a cop out.
When I think of the area in which Bush has made the most significant contribution (i.e., the area that would not have turned out the same if some other politician, Republican or Democrat, was in office), I think of environmental issues. Go to Google, or any other resource you know of, and research how George W. Bush has rolled back many of the environmental protections put in place by both the Democratic and Republican presidents before him. He clearly has no respect for the environment. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry, but I'm certain he will do better in the enviromental domain - and GWB has demonstrated how much influence a president can have in this domain.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Many people who voted for Nader in 2000 got a hard lesson in why choosing the lesser of two evils is important. Their conscience is telling them to vote for Kerry now. This election is about determining who will be President, not about making a statement. The mathematics of US voting is such that we cannot escape the two-party system. If you can't win over one party or the other, you can't win over the nation. Nader definitely should speak out, but he should do so as part of the Democratic primary process.
In the event of a decisive, relatively clean Kerry win, will there be discussion of "Kerry Republicans"? I'm aware of one who went home specifically to vote against Bush, despite normally leaning Republican, and from what I gather, the same goes for many small-c conservatives who generally vote Republican.
What other memes/phrases/future forbidden terms will come out of tomorrow's fiasco?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Psst. President Bush Is Hard at Work Expanding Government Secrecy
The government needs thousand of eyeballs watching what its doing.
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.
of bears to have a gay marriage when their underage kid has an abortion...
Oh, wait!
how long until
I heard that the Texas Hot Plate is a swing vote for sure.
get out the vote!
Cant vote cuz I just moved to another state and didnt get registered in time and didnt get the absentee balot in time. Anyone else?
I came into this election wanting to vote for Kerry but when I researched his plans, for the economy, or the war, or health care, I found that there is no way he can pull off anything that he is promising. That means that if he is elected he is going to have to go back on all of his promises and come up with a plan that is actually possible, and who knows what that will be. I can't vote for him without any idea of what he is going to actually do once in office. Whether you like his politic or not, at least you know where Bush stands.
if enjoying taxcuts and security makes me a horrible person, then so be it! viva bush!
Jon Davidson
It helps, but it need not be.
Politics falls under "Stuff that Matters". And Politics tends to invade every thread that refers to lawmaking. Politics is filthy, nasty, and tedius business that is of critical importance, and that people feel strongly about.
It is important to have a good forum where inteligent people can discuss and debate their views. But no one can promise that any discussion about any of the big 5 offensive topics (Politics, Religion, Abortion, Capitol Punishment, and Same Sex relationships) will remain inteligent. This thread is sort of like a designated area for otherwise inteligent slashdotters to act just as retarded as other people about everyday things (as opposed to acting retarded about Linux vs Microsoft, or whatever).
Besides, I am Canadian, and I find the whole thing to be quite entertaining in a scary sort of way.
END COMMUNICATION
"Well..." (lacing fingers ponderously together in preparation for saying something ESPECIALLY profound)
"Ever notice how when John Kerry grins, he resembles a rabid raccoon in heat?"
-30-
(Full disclosure: The NY Times editorial board, Dan Rather and the CBS 60 minutes production staff had no input into this public service message)
[Insert pretentious and semi-clever sig here: ______ ]
Ok... I'm going to use Bush because... well.. "THAT'S MY BUSH!!" and he's been the latest thing, so I feel justified in using him as a "bad" example.
In appealing to your voters, you may tell them you are going to try to do certain things. Bush did this in a little more.. uh... "promising" sort of the nature of things. He promised his base (the christian conservatives) that he was going to ban gay marriage and abortions.
Well.. thats fine, but HE KNEW long ahead of time it was never going to happen. Its not hard to ask the whips in congress what people are going to vote on such an issue, so he KNEW DAMN WELL that neither of these had a chance.
So, what did he do? Give false hope to the right wing'ed extremists who show very little tolerance outside anything of their norms. And what will he get for it? Quite a few of their votes.
Knowing that... along with countless other things bush has done... EXAMPLE
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 think when a president starts limiting rights you had better raise an eyebrow.
With no interesting techie news in the queue and one year old items the editors have succumbed to the worst form of pandering. I will bite. Personally I follow the money trail. This bunch of speculators know more about who will win than any star gazers could promise.
Recommend the link if you would like (or don't mind) votes transferred from Bush to Peroutka (Constitution Party).
It took me a while to get there, but I believe pretty strongly that Bush is the right choice for America.
Maybe it's the incumbancy thing, but to me, Bush just has a lot more credibility on issues surrounding defense and the economy. I don't buy into Kerry's "magic" ability to get foreign powers involved in Iraq, and his tax/budget policies seem even worse than Bush's.
Seriously, I'm going to write in "Turd Sandwich" for my vote for president here in California, and I encourage other people in "non-swing" states to do the same if they are fed up with Kerry + Bush!! It will be cool to see "Turd Sandwich - 554 votes" in the official election results.
I'm right. You're Wrong.
I know that some issues aren't liberal/conservative ... deomocrat/republican issues, but which party currently has the better track record. I suppose you could break it up by jobs and copyright (DMCA) issues.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
And more importantly, on the occasion that it heats up, it can be quite entertaining.
Up until today, I hadn't heard about this "election" thing.
Thanks to slashdot, I am now informed, and my heretofore malleable opinions are galvanized by the well-thought out discussion in this thread.
Thanks, slashdot for performing such a patriotic duty.
--
As a Canadian, I'd vote for Kerry if I could. Not because I like him that much, but because he's not Bush. That man is a danger to your country and the rest of the world.
But as a cynic, I'd like for Bush to win because it could be fun : civil unrest, wars, the first Western theocracy in a long time, etc.
Not that I *wish* for that but, as the Chinese curse goes, "May you live in interesting times!"
Ah, WTH : Go Bush!
Just say the magic phrase "I'll be modded down"...must be some kinda admin feature.
Please people, vote third party. I don't care if it's Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, Peroutka, or Brown. Nothing will change if we keep rewarding the two major parties for being totally unresponsive to the people.
People complain about "throwing their vote away" when voting for a third party. I argue that voting for a candiate you don't believe in is truely throwing your vote away.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow."
Methinks Mr. Taco stopped watching South Park before the last episode. By today's poll results "get out and vote" can be cynically read as "throw Kerry some votes" (not that I'm completely opposed to that per se - still undecided myself).
BTW, does anybody else find most of the "get out and vote" flunkies to be incredibly partisan? Something tells me the same clipboarded people pounding the pavements in NYC don't want the folks upstate to "get out and vote".
This is a CF waiting to happen...
"Knowing everything doesn't help..."
All Canadians are praying and crossing their fingers, hoping that Kerry wins the election. We all know that if Bush loses, we're going to have a massive influx of the smartest and brightest Americans up here. So, while Kerry's plans will utterly decimate the US's economy, us Canadian's will certainly benefit.
George W. Bush has a vision... you may not agree with all of it but it's there for all to see.
It includes:
Fight terrorism abroad by targeting nations who are sympathetic to terrorist groups agendas and seeking to establish terrorist hostile governments and preferably accountable governments wherein the people of those nations are empowered to choose how their nations and localities are governed.
Reform Social Security by giving the power back to the individual... promoting responsible retirement savings plans and retiring wasteful and easily subverted government programs.
Reform Health Care by giving the power back to the individual... promoting responsible health care savings plans and retiring wasteful and easily suibverted government programs...
I am seeing a trend here.
Kerry has a vision... you may not see it and it may be more of a mirage than a vision but it's not Bush's vision so it must be better right?
It includes:
Fighting terrorism by increasing the number of special forces substantially and providing more funding to intelligence agencies so they can together carry out targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders and foil plots of terrorism around the world... or at least here in America. Of course no one knows how or if this will work since it requires the complete cooperation of every nation in the world to find much less assassinate leaders of terrorism.. and hope that those leaders have absolutely no political sway or influence in at least one nation where he/she can hideout or use as a cover...
Reform Social Security by ???? stopping spending that is currently covered by loans taken out using SS funds as collateral... and raising taxes on the wealthy... though since we are the wealthiest nation in the world that could end up being a pretty big percentage of the population.
Reform Health Care by ??? spending more money and gauranteeing government health care for the poor and elderly while the middle class pays for it through higher premiums ??? plus more taxes.
I'm seeing a trend here...
more later.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
A lot of good men died defending their beliefs regarding the taste preference of cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup.
Now that's something to tell the grandkids about.
I'm voting DEM for Pres. Sorry. I normallu go with the Libs, but a couple of thing get me about Bush and I want to help the "not Bush" vote.
Basically I don't like killing. Maybe it's the silly commandment from God about it, or maybe it's just that I cannot see Jesus taking up and AK-47 and shooting things that move, or mayne because I value my fellow man. No matter the case I dislike killing.
I would like to see a USA that did as little killing as it could. We never only get the bad guys, and for all we know we get more civilians than bad guys.
Then there is the Bush familys rather close tries with the family of people who want to kill us all. Makes me think he does not value human life when it stand between him and a buck.
Truth be told, I would make more personal money from having Bush in office. I would, and I have. Some things are more important than money. I don't want innocencent blood on the flag. I want us to be the good guys.
I don't even have enough room to wrote about Bush's running mate, who is the envy of every bond villian.
Take care, and please vote.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
I'm not holding out much hope of a truly fair and secure election here.
-- Old Man Kensey
Get out there and vote on November 3rd!
For what it's worth.
No matter what you think in college, when you graduate in computer science you're going to have to pay $50,000 a year in taxes. You're going to be the overpaid, undertaxed rich that Jim Carey opposes. For every 1% Jim Carey raises social security tax, medicare tax, and income tax, you're going to pay $1000 more. As for being a member of the $200,000 plus bracket, if you're unmarried and you make over $100,000 which you will when you graduate, you'll have to pay about $4000 more every year.
You're going to be among the 90% of whom Jim Carey says would not switch to public healthcare but instead would continue to pay your high premiums. At the same time you would pay an additional $2000 a year in medicare tax due to your income level and the cost of his medicare expansion. In the end Bill Clinton's medicare tax hike didn't fix the problem and neither will Jim Carey's.
Everything else, lacking any clear opinions from Jim Carey, is equivalent. Just as many people would be dead in Iraq if Jim Carey was elected because he did defeat Howard Dean as the pro war ticket and he did say he would do exactly what George Bush did in the debates, only he would send "more soldiers".
Jim Carey wants to solve Iraq the LBJ way, escalating the conflict with massive troop deployments, raising taxes, and instituting a draft. Oh and yes, the latest draft bill was a democratic proposal.
I grew up in Massachusetts and lived there until my early 20's and I can attest to the fact that it is a wacky and corrupt state. They elect republican governers because democrats quickly run the state finances into the ground. I have one of the few Republican voter registeration cards ever issued there. The registrar wasn't sure how to handle it. Why the democrats have allowed their party to be hijacked repeatedly by the likes of Kennedy, Dukakis, and Kerry, I'll never know.
I live in flyover country now, and we hope Bush wins. Whoever comes out on top I hope they will maintain the policy of wasting radical Islamists.
an ill wind that blows no good
It seems like anyone who honestly says "Get out and Vote!" is pro-Kerry.
but you're right. The fallacy that "every vote counts" is ridiculous, and all we need to do is look at Florida 2000 to prove it.
Despite the fact that only 527 vote separated the candidates, the Supreme Court ultimately appointed the President. This demonstrates that in a razor-thin election, the decision will ultimately be wrested from the hands of the electorate and placed in the hands of the judiciary. So let's summarize:
1) In a blowout election, your vote is irrelevant.
2) In a tight election, your vote is irrelevant.
Hooray for democracy!!!
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
And me without my nomex underwear.
I'm for Kerry. Why? 'Cause he's a road cyclist. Anyone who would purposely wedge a bicycle seat up his ass for hours on end must like pain. And being a good leader does involve pain (even if it's mental anguish).
Chris Knight is my hero.
I don't feel the Kerry is sincere in his campain promices, and they have to many flaws in them.
I feel that bush is sincere in his campain promices and that scares me.
So I will vote for a 3rd party. Probably liberterian. Just because it is better then the rest of them. But I don't care compleaty for their party ideals much too.
But because I am in NY and Kerry will probably win the state electoral votes. I have the option to vote 3rd party without "Taking votes away from anyone". In a state like NY or MA, Voting for Bush is truly throwing your vote away. Voting for a 3rd party will at least give a change of a party getting 5% vote enough to get public funding. If I was in a state that was more evenly split then I may choose between the 2 ( Which would be Kerry, Becuase I think a kerry wont make any major waves )
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Idaho has 4 electoral votes. The latest poll suggests that Bush will get a 2-1 victory in Idaho, but that poll is from early September, because even the pollsters don't think it's worth worrying about.
It's funny, living in Massachusetts now, having grown up in Idaho. Massachusetts is almost as Democratic as Idaho is Republican, except that we have had a long string of Republican governors. Why would Massachusetts elect a conservative Mormon Republican governor? I don't know, but we did. Too bad he has no power with a veto-proof legislature.
On this I go with the economist The incompetent or the incoherent? and I'd say plump for the incoherent as well.
Can the 2008 election please feature two people who you'd LIKE to vote for rather than two people than you'd rather not.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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
Okay, I stole the joke (I think it was from the Daily Show, but I can't remember for sure).
Save Sam and Max!
Vietnam / national guard stuff here please.
Remember to change the subject line to what your post is about.
Mods: Please keep this post below Score: 2
Ah, the 527 non-tax-excempt public advocacy groups, 60 minutes, war veterans, drinking, Paris, flight physicals and BURNiNATING the countryside of Vietnam.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Remember to hack your local Diebold machine to make ALL the votes your way :)
Hack the vote!
Up in Minnesota, all voting is done on paper, with nice clear #2 pencil style forms.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
A sobering thought as the electoral process becomes more and more opaque.
Deleted
Take a look at this Article from the NY Post. It says how Bin Laden won't attack any states that go for John Kerry and will attack any states that go for George Bush. I guess that means the NY can pack up all the police officers and not screen bags at the air port any more.
Come on this is a load of horse crap. Bin Laden want's Kerry because he is perceived as ineffective, and Bush is perceived as Effectively dismantleing Bin Ladens organization fromt he bottom up. Bin Laden is running scared, so much that he is spilling the montra of Michel Moore.
and because of that.. I WILL NEVER EVER EVER vote for bush. i have reasons... although I cannot discuss them..
But remember, a vote for bush is a vote for rumsfield.. sorta.
I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it.
- Eugene V. Debs
I really don't like either major candidate as well as I have liked previous choices. I find myself to be a kind of liberal libertarian. Strange huh?
... ME! But, I can't. Besides being just a few years too young for the job according to the Constitution, I have way too many skeletons in the old closet. I have had a lot of fun in my days. I don't want to be reminded of that drunken night with what's her name!
Who I'd really like to vote for is
Unless I repent and become a born again Christian teetottler for a few years, run a few failed businesses and marry a librarian! Then all I have to do to get off the hook is look contrite when I say I did some regrettable things when I was young but I'm better now. The press would surely let me slide with that kind of answer, right? Then I could hit the stump around the country talking about my "values". Of course they'll buy it! 'Cause I'm from a ranch in Texas! Well, actually I was born in New England and went to Yale, but damn it I picked up an accent along the way! They have to go for it right?
Maybe not. Who would believe a load of crap like that? I guess I'll have to vote for Kerry since I can't run.
_damnit_
It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
I suspect that people will be a lot more attentive to the technology of counting votes than they were in the past. Sadly, few people seem to realize the value of an electoral college (which was state of the art vote counting technology in the 1780s.) Even today, I think recent events warrant this technology. The idea is that you determine population in an area every ten years and use this data to separate the population into buckets, you then count the vote in each bucket then determine the winner of the election by counting the buckets.
The bucket counting process does give small states a boost in the process. The main thing it does is that it evens out wierd fluctuations in the data. For example, there might be higher voter turn out in states with a hotly contested senate seat.
The Electoral College was state of the art too. IF something went wrong, you would have a body that could deliberate and select the leader. Sadly, the courts seem to have usurped this authority.
The biggest problem with the bucket counting system is that the US is not expanding the number of buckets with the population.
Of course, if you believe that the "will of the people" is real and that it is determined mathematically by the vote, then the vote counting technology is just plain wrong.
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
Everybody who is eligible should vote.
Separate from that, everybody who votes should be informed; but a lack of knowledge is not a barrier to voting. By accident of their birth, U.S. Citizens are eligible. No other test should be applied, as it will someday be abused.
I think the Team America guys had their hearts in the right place; but allowing uninformed or uneducated people to vote is the price we pay for ensuring that nobody does the "literacy test" kind of thing again.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
What matters me (and gived me that opinion) is that you can take several points of view to decide for a candidate or another. One could be a "future" one, if we knew how history will develop if the only change in the past was what president was elected, maybe we could have a hint of which finally would be the "best" one. But that is not possible (you know, knowing the future changes it, etc etc), so other criteria must be chosen, like discurses, political promises for what they worth, history, how you like one or another, etc.
But my point of view is about the past. If you vote Kerry, you vote for the unknown future, you don't know what will happen. And the same for Bush, but there is a difference. Bush is the actual president. If you vote for him, you also are approving all he did, and encourage him to follow the same way as till now. And that will say that the recent history of US, all the good and bad that comes from there, is not just choice of a bad government, but that the american people, all US citizens (at least, in average) agrees and supports all what Bush did, That is a dangerous message for the rest of the world that don't agreed with Bush external policy. Of course, that don't mean that Bush will or not be a better president than Kerry, nor one with less evil external policy (at least, if you think about it as "evil"), but is something that could have influence on how the rest of the world will think about US citizens, more than about their government, laws, policies, etc.
And last, that also don't mean a "you should not vote Bush", just forget about promises for future, think if you approve what US did in the last period, and have that in mind when voting.
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
Oh, hello? /sarcasm
Yes, I'd like to report a case of voter intimidation. Yes. Uhuh. This person on "Slashdot", the most respected news source on the internet. That's right.
What you're saying is what Trey Parker and Matt Stone said about the Vote or Die! initiative.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Check out this article NY Post, where Bin Laden says he will go afters states that go for Bush, and you tell me who is doing the more effective job.
...of both major candidates, trying to look on the bright side wherever possible.
Kerry
Pluses: Seems more intelligent than Bush, can use coherent sentences, his election would ensure a divided government which may slow down unnecessary spending.
Minuses: Changes opinion to appeal to others, never uses one word when he can use a dozen, his election would give the message to other countries that they have some say in American politics.
Bush
Pluses: His election would show other countries they can't simply wait out U.S. adminstrations hoping for someone they like better, and that asking newspaper readers to mail Americans telling them how to vote (for example) is stupid. Also, Bush may have learned something from his mistakes.
Minuses: I cringe whenever he speaks, a Congress and Presidency in Republican hands breaks down the checks and balances needed to restrain government power and spending, and there is a chance he hasn't learned from his mistakes.
/ I voted for Badnarik -- he won't win, but perhaps momentum will build for the future so a viable candidate I like can be elected.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
If your 3rd party vote total exceeds the difference between the two "evils," you're sending a message that the loser needs to look at pretty seriously. He might have won had he embraced some of your politics. Your return on this vote investment may be 4 years down the road (or never), but a vote for one of the "evils" will be interpreted as a mandate for his platform. I'd say it's even more important in a close race to vote for your 3rd party.
As of yet, I am still undecided, and am looking for some good relevant discussion as to what each candidate can most likely acomplish.
The authors of the U.S. Constitution tried to make it very hard for the Federal Government to actually do anything. They look smarter all the time. Since the House of Representatives will almost certainly be controlled by the Republicans, a vote for Kerry is a vote for healthy paralysis!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
While Bush has made mistakes (Iraq), there is no reason to suspect that he will repeat them.
I've heard similar statements to this several times. I simply don't understand it. There is every reason to think that he will repeat his mistakes. He is the same person elected four years ago, and I haven't seen any indication that he would do things any differently given the same situation.
* * * --they cant all be your best, that would be confusing
Liberals who live in red states that are not in contention should vote for the rightwing 3rd party candidate, i.e., either for Badnarik of Libertarian party, or for Peroutka of the Constitution party. This is the only way we can grow a progressive, leftwing 3rd party such as the Green Party--by strengthening the Rightwing 3rd parties. When the Constitution Party (or the Libertarian party) gets strong enough to take some serious votes away from the GOP, only then the Green Party can grow appreciably.
In order to get a better electoral system (e.g., proportional representation) we need some 3rd party legislators. And then once we have some 3rd party legislators, we can make some changes that will allow real 3rd party. But getting real changes all starts with growing rightwing parties.
The Constitution party is the one that can really cut into the GOP electorate. So, if you are a liberal in a solid red state, and Peroutka is on the ballot, vote for him, for the future. You can think tactically!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
You got yourself snagged by disinformation. Bush does not and never will agree with abortion-on-demand. Ever.
It looks like it is going to be a close one. I would have to say that I think Bush should get the ASS card but I fear that is not going to happen.
But it really does not matter who is in power the rich will get rich and the poor will be sent off to kill all in the name of Freedom. Flamebait - YOU DAMN RIGHT!!!
I think Oprah and Hillary Clinton should team up for the next one. That would kick ass. It is about time the woman had a go at running things. I think they would do a fucking great job.
Hillary Clinton and Oprah 2008!!! WOOOOOOHOOOO
"The most dangerous creation of any society is that man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin, American author
It's amazing how well it works.
But Badnarik is a bloody nutcase.
Sorry but I have to disagree.
Blowing up the UN within a week of taking office?
That was a facetious remark that was taken out of context, as he states in this interview, in which he responded "Blow up the U.N. building? C'mon, I'm a Libertarian. You know that I'd rather sell the U.N. than blow it up." His statement about blowing up the UN was more a jocular political point about how weak and ineffective that organization has become. (They even let themselves be blown up in Iraq by refusing military protection.)
The Federal Income Tax is illegal?
I wouldn't say the tax itself is illegal, but some of the methods the IRS has used in its collection definitely are.
Strapping prisoners to their beds for a month so that their muscles atrophy?
Would you prefer the current policy of strapping them to electrical wires?
Does he understand that the President doesn't wield this kind of power?
Are you kidding me? That's one of the primary themes of his campaign, the fact that politicians today (the President in particular) wield far more power than they should.
I think you might want to take a look at the deeper meaning of some of the things he is saying before labeling him a nutcase.
Such a great choice the major parties are giving us :
-- war criminal John "If It's Asian It Dies" Kerry, or
-- war criminal George "Kill Them All and Let God Sort Them Out" Bush.
Vote third party. ANY third party.
Cos he knows Bush couldn't catch a cold.
Or rather, Bush has an agenda which is served by not catching Osama Bin Laden.
Deleted
With this in mind it is obvious you want some change since you are undecided and would like to see more/better candidates. Your best bet to do this is to vote against the incumbent at every election. For each position on your ballot find the incumbent and vote against him/her. Failing to get re-elected sends a huge message to the party. If bush gets re-elected for instance his ideas become the parties main platform and ideas if he fails however they will seek to change themselves in order to correct Bush's mistake. This is the same for all local chapters of these parties as well.
So clearly and simply, vote against all incumbents no matter what. In local elections vote for 3rd party candidates at random if your too lazy to learn what they stand for. But for presidential elections your best bet is to just vote for Kerry and bitch about him when he fucks up.
Kerry, in regard to Americanized politics is left of center fiscally. Libetarians are right of center fiscally. If you are voting on a personal rights issue, the democratic party has been known for more govermnent encroachment. Wanting to socialize healthcare, raise taxes on people (this time around anyone making over $200,000) which includes small business owners. Where as things like health savings accounts and tax cuts for business owners puts more control back into the hands of citizens. Putting more money back into the hands of business ownwers allows them to expand the economy by hiring more people which creates more consumers which helps business expand. Badnarik wants to isolate the US by taking out of the world. FDR wanted to stay out of world issues until the the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor.
It frustrates me greatly when someone says "oh, we shouldn't talk about politics...". For those of us in the US, why the hell shouldn't we talk politics?
Our grandfathers didn't fight and die in the European and Pacific theaters so we could sit around together and avoid controversy by talking about the weather instead of who should be President.
Over 1,000 of our troops have died in the last three years in part to bring free and open elections to Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet we shouldn't talk about politics?
It's amazing to me, especially in light of our recent efforts in the Middle East, that some people look at politics merely as a source of personal conflict that should be avoided at all costs. Of course, the black-and-white conflict-driven political discussions portrayed in the popular media (talking heads yelling over each other on MSNBC, conservative talk radio, etc.) don't help things at all. But as a nation, we've grown relatively fat and happy over the last several decades and are only now starting to pay a price for that.
My hope is that this election brings out a larger share of the vote and people start taking things a little more seriously. A few huge upsets that discredit the predictive power of polling wouldn't hurt, either. I think many people don't bother voting simply because they don't believe their vote matters...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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
Why? If it takes CmdrTaco exhorting you to vote on this, the day before the election, then chances are you don't have any real thoughts or opinions on the issues, and you'll just be a coin toss.
Please, stay home if this is you.
And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow.
This is the advocation of signal dilution. In network security monitoring one doesn't always want every packet, they only want relevant packets. When polling a population one doesn't want every vote but rather only the votes from people who are making informed and intelligent decisions.
Why are we seeing a massive push for "just vote"? The popularly accepted reason is that more votes will give a fair assessment of the minds of the American public. Will more votes lead to better government? Absolutely not. Get Out the Vote initiatives, at the end of the day, do only one thing: they give the illusion of legitimacy to a government which has long since overstepped its legitimate bounds.
Imagine polling an entire nation with a question which the population has no real knowledge of or, at best, deliberately vague hearsay knowledge. With a completely random sampling of people who have little or no knowledge of a subject the outcome of the poll will be close to a 45% split with about 10% choosing an odd answer. In this sort of a system the population is not being educated nor is the decision of the poll going to positively influence their lives. The only real benefit is a guaranteed job for the group conducting the poll.
American politics is very similar to a random poll of useless trivia. There are no real issues which the president legitimately has Constitutional authority to decide on. Abortion? Not a Constitutional federal issue. Health care? Not a Constitutional federal issue. World security and peace? Not a Constitutional federal issue (any real military mind will laugh derisively at the prospect of declaring a war against a vaporous enemy or against a small handful of people). Terrorist attacks? Not even a real issue. Gay marriages? NOT EVEN CLOSE to a Constitutional federal issue. All of these issues, and more, and all the ones which the candidates have discussed, are DUMMY issues. They're illusory issues. They're distractions.
What, then, are the real issues? The real issues comprise these: What exactly is the legal, Constitutional role of the federal government? How much money are we paying the federal government and what exactly are we getting in return? Is the federal government a wise investment for what can sometimes be figured as close to 25% of the GDP? Do we really want to continue centralizing our government? What other nations have supported a supremely centralized government and survived more than a few hundred years before abuses and taxes led the population to revolt? Are we really comfortable placing our reputations, in the eyes of the world, in the hands of several dozen extraordinarily greedy, wealthy, and ruthless men? Is this a wise move if we truly want to establish world peace?
These real issues will never be discussed. They are not money making issues. They are not issues which involve contracts, business, Wall Street, investors, or headlines on the nightly news with featured public relations shots of high-profile government issues.
Please, America. If you are devoting your time and energy to methodically following the dummy issues, don't bother to vote. If you do vote, write in "Joe Nobody" to save yourself from demonstrating your clear misunderstanding of what true Freedom and Liberty are.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I just posted this to my web log
Nobody read it here either....
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Vote on it?
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
I cannot stress enough how important this election is to the safety and sanctity of our great nation. I *URGE* you to get out and vote this Wednesday, November 3rd. If not for your own wallet, think of your childrens' wallets!
Don't forget to get out and vote on Nov. 3!.
Tierce
Who sponsors your feelings?
- Mindless slogans: 93,451
- Ideological smog: 878,102
- Lies: 200,289
- Conspiracy theories: 1,623,933
- Trying to reduce the mind-numbing complexity of the modern world into a two step process for global utopia: 890,105
- Urban myths: 115,936
- Party line mantras: 278,102
- Thoughtful content: 3
- Snotty instance analysis: 1
Here's a better way to vote. Those of you supporting Kerry slit your wrists. Those of you supporting Bush shoot yourselves in the head. We'll count the classify the corpses accurately. Honestly. We will. Really.
Reason magazine had the best cover. It showed a picture of Bush and one of Kerry. The cover said, "Good news. One of these guys is going to lose. Bad news. One of these guys is going to win."
Keep drinking the Kool-aid, folks. Hopefully the ELE asteroid is coming soon to put an end to all this.
Go ahead. Mod me flamebait while marking the "BushKerry is a poopiehead who wants to eat my baby/kitten/grandma" posts as +99 Insightful.
--- Ban humanity.
I can't believe noone here has asked "This year, why vote of a lesser evil?" yet!
Does not have the canidate I like, even though he is on the ballet in 40some states.
Hopefully, this will get read, so far down.
That being said, I think that Bush is a better choice that Kerry. I don't especially like Bush; however, I dislike Kerry even more.
First, let's stop living in 1971, and start living in 2004. What happened in VietNam is long over, and people have changed since then. I thank Kerry for his service 30 years ago, but I think that there are other issues more relevant to today's election that VietNam.
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.
As we found out later, Saddam wanted us to believe that he still had WMD. He wanted everyone to think that he was strong. Well, he kind of fucked up there.
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. So, any critiques you might have about Bush's judgement also apply to Kerry. Kerry also voted for the war. He also stated, a couple months ago, that, knowing what he knows now, he'd still vote for authorization to use the troops. Well, that was a couple of months ago. I don't know if it's still true today.
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?
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. Furthermore, his whole promise to bring American troops home is based on a false premis, namely that France and Germany will send troops. However, that's fallacious, as France and Germany have flat-out stated that they won't send troops, no matter who wins in November.
Next, we have to look at the big picture in Iraq. The media is claiming that we're losing the peace. However, they said that about Afghanistain in 2002. They said that about France and Germany in 1946. The moral of the story: It may be a long and hard road, but we'll prevail. Iraq is slowly training Iraqis to enforce their on security. It'll take time, but eventually they'll be able to police themselves. Until that time, they need US troops there to prevent the situation from deteriorating even more.
Furthermore, the actual troops in Iraq support Bush's plan to Kerry's, by a fairly large margin. They don't see the same spin that we do; they actually see that there are positives, that we're actually accomplishing stuff over there now. A majority also believe that we're on the right track. If the people who have the best knowledge of what's going on over there support the current policy, don't you think that that means something?
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. Also, if you insist on assigning blame to the current recession, then Clinton des
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just curious, but does anyone know if there are any election-watching events scheduled for tomorrow night in London?
-Colin
I would love nothing better than if the electoral college and the method of voting could handle three parties. But the way it works, it simply does not. The electoral college system stops working as intended when three parties are in the running.
A nation where you can vote for the best man for the job, and expect the best man will get the job, would be wonderful. But that nation is not the USA.
To participate in American politics, you must play American politics. If you can't vote for Bush because of your conscience, you should certainly not vote for Nader. A vote for Nader does two things:
1) it literally has no effect on the outcome of this election. The electoral college will completely and utterly eliminate him from competition. It literally is "throwing away your vote" in terms of deciding the president.
2) keeps Nader on the ticket for the next election. This ultimately is a vote for republicans, no matter how you look at it. Nader was the "spoiler" for the last election, and keeping him on the ballot helps the republicans. The republicans fought tooth and nail, and donated tons of money to get Nader on the ballots.
as long as they're voting the same as me. :)
feh. stuff.
I think that local issues like the propositions in California will have much more of an effect on your daily life than the result of the presidential race. There may be differences between Bush and Kerry, but on the really important issues they both agree -- we shouldn't cut deficit spending too much, we should continue to stay in Iraq, we should continue to fight terrorism agressively, we shouldn't draft anyone, etc...
Anyway, here's how I feel on some of the California Propositions, I encourage everyone in CA to do your research and come to your own conclusions:
Proposition 61 -- More bonds, but "think of the children"... voting NO, CA needs to tear up its credit cards!!!
Proposition 62 -- this will make our "open primaries" even more open. In our system now, you can vote for any primary candidate you want regardless of party, but your vote won't count if you aren't a member of that party. Prop 60 would reverse that, and make the top 2 vote getters square off together in the final election, regardless of political affiliation. This is a tough issue -- it can lead to extremists getting on the ballot if several popular candidates run and split the vote. Both major parties are opposed to prop 60, but Arnold is for it -- props to Arnold for standing up to the Republicrats. I'll be voting for it.
Proposition 63 -- more taxes to pay for loony farms?? Not in my state. Voting NO.
Proposition 66 -- this proposition would change the "3 strikes" law so that the final "strike" would have to be a violent felony... no more throwing people away for life for stealing a pizza and such. There are too many people in prison, so I support this and am voting YES. Everyone who is anyone opposes this proposition, including Arnold, but I hope it passes somehow.
Proposition 67 -- Phone taxes to pay for 911 system. Voting NO, our 911 system is already fine as is, no need to tax us even more.
Proposition 68 / 70 -- Prop 68 would legalize pretty much any type of gaming in California anywhere, not just on Indian reservations. 68 is supported by race tracks and the like who hope to build Vegas-style casinos. Prop 70 would remove any restriction from Indian gaming only, and force them to pay only the state tax on their profits, something like 5%. I'm voting against 68 because I don't want to see casinos in my city, and I'm voting against 70 because it would rip off the state. Think about it, every business in the US pays like 30% of its profits to the feds, but prop 70 would allow the Indians to just pay 5% to the state with no federal tax. On top of that, gambling is usually taxed MORE than other things, look at the Nevada casinos for example. The Indian casinos SHOULD pay more than a tiny 5%, and they are willing to pay more -- Arnold has already negotiated with several tribes to pay around 25%!! Prop 70 would screw California over.
Proposition 71 -- Grants to pay for stem cell research. While I hate borrowing money, I think this may be a worthy cause. Look at Silicon Valley, all the tech companies in the US concentrated in one area in one state. What if we could do the same for Biotechnology?? Voting YES.
Proposition 72 -- Will require medium to large businesses to provide health insurance to workers. Voting NO, this will only lead to businesses leaving California and/or laying off workers!!!
I am an Dutch where can I vote for Nader.
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
Personally I think the politics section, or at least its implementation, was a mistake. It's become painfully obvious that the majority of slashdot readers are left leaning. That in itself would not be a problem, but what ends up happening in every discussion is that people mod based on their political beliefs and not on the logic they are supposed to mod by. Further, the original topics also lean very left. It's impossible to have a fair discussion on slashdot without sifting through many more messages than you would in most other sections of the site, due to the slanted moderation.
:(
And most importantly to me, this is "News for Nerds". Too many of the political news posts have nothing to do with technology, IT, or nerd culture. If the politics section just covered things like the DMCA and CANSPAM act, it'd be different (even if it was still totally leftist).
It just feels like more and more slashdot is moving away from "News for Nerds" in the more general sense, and I don't like it. If I wanted regular news I'd go to a regular news site, not slashdot. And especially not a section of slashdot where "BUSH IS DUMB !" gets +5 insightful.
AC because no one will read this anyway and they'll just mark it -1 Troll.
Many people have asked why they should vote, citing that their vote doesn't really count for various reasons. If you are American, it is not only your right and privilage to vote, but in a way, it is also your duty. Despite its drawbacks (including the electoral college and the media controlling it), it is still a pretty good system. If nothing else, it is one of the few true American things you can do! We pioneered this system of government (yes, I know we borrowed a lot from Parliment and the Roman Senate, but that is not the point as we put them together in a free-er form for the first time, and it is working), and it is ours. We have to keep it moving and working, and we do this by voting. It really doesn't take a lot of time out of your day, and it does get your view out there in the form of a statistic, no matter who you vote for. Even if your candidate gets less than one percent, you are still there, in the numbers. Also, who knows? You could be a determining vote!
Save Sam and Max!
*Backs-away-while-still-facing-so-he-doesn't-get-b it-and-get-rabies*
;)
I agree with your post, but make some point in it, like: no WMDs in Iraq...
feh. stuff.
Please give me a specific example of a right you've been denied since 2000 because of Bush.
When will Fox News declare Bush the winner, regardless of if he wins or not?
when serveyed, 10/10 geeks agreed that they just haven't seen enough bush.
n0PUc4Me said, "i wake up almost nightly with warm thoughts of bush and smile. i hope one day i'll get to meet bush personally and display my deep affection."
strangely enough, jocks seemed to agree with the geeks on the presidential election.
iHafBikFUTBalz said of bush, "even though bush leaves a funny taste in my mouth, i've always enjoyed the power of bush and the direction bush leads me.
women seem to be the least behind bush.
eyeLIghK2LikY was one of many anti-bush women. "if i had bush in front of me, i'd give that bush a tongue lashing that would never be forgotten," she exclaimed.
When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
FLAMEWAR!!!!!!!!
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
So what you are saying is "Please list examples, except the ones that illustrate your point. Those don't count."
Well, just because other nations agreed with us when we were right doesn't mean we are subject to world opinion. Just because other nations disagree with us, doesn't make us wrong.
"Majority rules" only count within states, not between. Besides, we have more "votes" than any other western nation anyway.
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
Regardless of how you try to justify your vote, a vote for a major candidate is a statement that you:
If these three items are not true, you can either abstain from voting, or vote for a third party candidate. Please note that it is not possible, in the US, to vote against a candidate. The most you can do is vote for one of the competetion
As for myself, I will be voting for Michael Badnarik for President. What's that? I hear cries of:
"But, he doesnt have a chance to win!"
"This election is too important to risk electing the wrong person!"
These are both true statements, however I refuse to "waste my vote", or "throw my vote away" by voting for a candidate that I disagree with.
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Sounds to me like you're saying that Kerry voters are more uneducated/uninformed. You're statement implies that without uneducated/uninformed voters Kerry won't be able to win. As a Kerry supporter does that bother you at all?
If you don't live in a swing state, then please, vote your conscience. The electoral college will vote republicrat on your behalf. Meanwhile, your favorite 3rd party might get more money, and ultimately one of the 2 major parties may absorb the most popular ideals. This is how the system works in theory.
If you DO live in a swing state, please, vote for Kerry (if you don't want Bush). Why?
Think of the Republican Party as the Catch-All Party. What happens when a school budget doesn't pass? They use last year's budget again, by default. This is considered safe and fair. Likewise, politcally, many people "default" to conservativism. Anything outside of that is considered new and unstable.
When you vote for a 3rd party in a swing state, you are generally taking a vote that would have otherwise been Democrat and chosing a special interest progressive party instead, as everyone else is defaulting to "let's keep things the same as they've been." A vote for a 3rd party in a swing state is thus a vote for Bush. Vote Kerry if you want !Bush.
Ok? Got it? Swing state, vote Kerry. Non swing state, vote your conscience. It'll all work out in the end.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Kerry appears to have made a very strong comeback in just the last few days according to the data from electoral-vote.com. It certainly does look like the Redskins Indicator, which has been accurate since 1936, just might prevail for yet another four years!
Question for Bush supporters:
What are the chances of 2 Texas oilmen (financially supported by many more oilmen) giving us a coherent national energy policy which frees us from dependency on oil and the Middle East?
Question for Kerry supporters:
What are the chances that 2 trial lawyers (who's biggest contributors are the trial lawyers associations) giving us the litigation reforms so crucial to getting escalating health care and pharm costs under control for the long term viability of our economy?
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
The only time you waste your vote is when you vote for a candidate you do not respect.
The Republicans and Democrats have all the media access they want, and are going to have a gajillion dollars to run campaigns no matter what. A vote for one of them would hardly be noticed. Voting for a third party has, proportionally, far greater impact on things than a vote for either Republican or Democrat. A vote for a third party candidate has a noticeable impact on the party's future funding and publicity. A Green/Libertarian/Constitution/Socialist vote in 2004 is an investment in 2008 and beyond. It is an investment in true change.
Besides, if you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you're going to keep getting--you guessed it--evil! Repeating an action and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanty. Therefore, if you're going to keep voting for Democrats and Repbulicans, you're crazy if you expect meaningful change.
It is clear there is only once choice to vote for:
Hypno Toad!
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.
After 2000, I realized that the GOP would do anything to win, and I beleive that they've spent four years refining their tactics. Where democrats have been accused of voter registration irregularities, they're all about registering people multiple times, or registering fictitious names/characters that will never show up at the polls. Where republicans have been accused of voter registration irregularities, they're all about tearing up or invalidating democratic registrations. Even if you're registered thirty-five times (as one guy in my state is), you can only vote once. If you're not registered at all, you can't vote at all. You decide which of the two parties is doing something that will actually affect the outcome of the election. You may not believe it now, with all the hype that's going on, but I'm predicting many court cases next year that involve voter suppression/disenfranchisement on the part of the GOP and their buddy-boy network. That's all I have to say on that topic.
On a lighter note, I seem to recall as a kid that the "red" states were democratic states, and the "blue" states were republican-held. It seems like the colors have been reversed this year. Has anyone else made a similar observation?
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
...don't rock the vote baby...
...don't tip the vote over...
Rock the vote...
one two three four five ?!! That's the combination on my luggage!
you can read "The Oil Age is Over: What to Expect as the World Runs Out of Cheap Oil, 2005-2050" available in PDF format for free, here
it's 184 pages, and may help you for your vote.
With regards to the two front men who will dominate the presidential vote, all hope of progress seems lost. It would appear that a large fraction of US voters trust one or the other, believe that the speeches will actually correlate with future performance, and generally trust their gut feelings about the candidates' "character" and "values." This is not merely a sad state of affairs, it is a tragedy in progress. Is it so hard to see that these people will say anything to get elected? Can you not see how much money is at stake? Do you believe that our presence in Iraq (essentially supported by both candidates) is something other than international piracy and a huge pork barrel for the defense and petrochemical industries?
Do you fail to see that ours has has become a corrupt, authoritarian, quasi-militarized Third World government? Any of you out there who are of Mexican origin (as I am) or have lived a significant part of your lives in Mexico (as I have) cannot fail to see the style and techniques of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, el PRI, in the US, especially in the Republican party. We Americans will gradually discover that we are the hapless slaves that the vast majority of Mexicans are in their own nation.
I will be voting for Not Bush, but only grudgingly. We are in for a very rough time in the near and medium term. At present, the long term is lost in the fog of the future.
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.'"
Please tell me -- what is his plan to end abortion-on-demand, and what has he done so far to stop it?
You're kidding, right? Talk about completely false rhetoric. Here's an example for you: how about the 1994 Assault Weapons ban signed by Bill Clinton? That CERTAINLY limited my rights with respect to gun ownership.
Don't use absolutes if you can't back them up with absolute certainty.
Could someone please point out to me where in the Constitution, exactly, is the "Right To Not Be Offended"?
No secret that I'm a supporter of Badnarik. I've been thinking, however, how I would vote if there were Instant Runoff Voting. Going off of who qualified for my state's ballot (Nader was not one of them). Forgive me if I forgot someone in my haste.
1. Badnarik. The LP has the best platform for reducing the size and scope of government. The LP is against the current brand of foreign policy* that lead to the conflict in Iraq and causes us to be the targets of terrorists.
2. Petrouka. Some of the Constitution Party ideas are a bit way out there, but in general they are for less government, are also against the current brand of foreign policy.
3. Cobb. I disagree strongly with the Green platform, but if I'm going to choose between socialism and facism (where things are headed now with the Republicrats), I'll choose socialism. At least Cobb is a real left wing candidate, and is also against the current brand of foreign policy.
4. Kerry. You can't call him an anti-war candidate. Kerry plans to pull us out of Iraq in INFINITY MINUS TWO years, as opposed to Bush's plan to pull us out in INFINITY MINUS ONE. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Kerry's party bows to the Entertainment Industry and his administration will likely take no steps to reform IP laws so that they cannot be abused by megacorps. Still, he's better than Bush.
5. Bush. I absolutely fear what Bush's administration might try to pull once the fear of not being re-elected is out of the way. Military Draft? Even more blatantly facist policy? Legislation worse than the Patriot Act? Probably all of the above. Anyone voting for Bush because he lowered taxes is living in a Dream World. Bush has increased the size and cost of the government. Sure, he gave us back a few hundred bucks so we'd be inclined vote for him again, but increasing Government size amounts to deferred taxation. We'll eventually all pay for his outing in Iraq in the form of taxes, even if that tax increase comes from Bush's successor.
*By this I mean the current foreign policy that dictates the US get involved in the business of other countries when it shouldn't.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
The upcoming election is very heated, and supporters from both sides have had to deal with a much higher incidence of political yard sign vandalism than usual. In my case, I lost a sign four times before rigging up a simple alarm and catching the culprits in the act. What other "nerd" solutions have folks tried?
I'm purposefully not naming the candidate I support, and would encourage everyone else to do the same to avoid cheap "Well the problem is that the people who support $party are a bunch of jerks" Both parties are reporting problems, and it' s the technicial aspects I'm interested in.
(Also of note, while we suspected some of our college-aged neighbors, the actual culprit turned out to be a 10 year old who is a bit... umm... loosely parented...)
One thing that's going to strike me as funny is if the very real chance the we have the same situation as the last presidential election with the parties reverse. Kerry could win the electoral without winning the popular. I'm waiting for the 'Re-Defeat Kerry 2008' Stickers. Watching the parties argue and complain the exact opposite position is going to be great.
issues of the election
have been assiduously avoided by the two major candidates because they don't want to alienate anyone.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Never in US history has a president tried to limit the rights of people. But in came GW Bush.
Did you miss class the day they talked about how Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus? What about the internment of people with Japanese ancestry by Roosevelt? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples as well.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
(yes, I really do believe that a sufficient number of people in this country are fanatical enough to do those things)
the point is this - no matter who wins (or appears to win, or is chosen), the country is still in a mess. our economy is a disaster with massive government deficits that drastically increase our effective tax rate (because so much of our taxes are spend on interest on the debt) and huge growing trade deficits. we're fighting an expensive, unwinnable war that has killed over a hundred thousand people so far, with no end in sight. by doing so we've turned most of the world against us, which will surely have repercussions in trade and other areas eventually. if we back out of this war the result could be a civil war in Iraq which might spread to other countries in the region.
during this election, a huge portion of our own citizens have demonstrated a startling inability to evaluate input and reason intelligently about it. we are a nation of addicts - to consumption of consumer goods, to petroleum, to carbohydrates, to meaningless stimulation of various kinds, to alcohol and drugs, to the idea that we're superior to other people. our mainstream press has become essentially useless at informing our choices as voters and citizens. our elected officials are almost universally corrupt - sacrificing our interests to those of wealthy benefactors, and our processes for electing them are highly vulnerable to manipulation through various means.
what, if anything, can we do about these problems?
If you want to be inclusive and widen your base of support, I'm not sure making the Secret Service your personal sidewalk clearing thugs is a winning strategy. To me you'd want to at least make an effort to listen to those who disagreed with you, not push them blocks away so the news cameras can't see them.
I guess we'll find out tomorrow if it's a winning strategy or if American has finally had enough of the Karl Rove Show.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
There are really more important things than terrorists. Such as education, jobs, the economy.
Really? The last attack greatly exaccerbated that last economic downturn. Lots of readers of this site are still unemployed as a result. Another attack would probably have an even worse effect. Success on issues you mention is dependent on there being a safe domestic environment. Terrorism really does matter. Go GDub!
an ill wind that blows no good
The whole thing swings on the correct translation of 'state" - anyone reading the full text of the speech would clearly interpret what he said as referring to nation-states, not to American "states".
In any case the **only** people pushing this nonsense (and the day before the election, surprise surprise) is MEMRI, which is an ultra-rightwing front group for the Israeli government, whose interests in seeing Bush reelected are clear.
Here's the link to a bit about MEMRI-
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/memri.php
This is just desperate last-minute spinning.
Notice that the KERRY LANDSLIDE was posted by an AC? Gee I wonder why? :)
Pax Vobiscum
Whether you support Badnarak (as so many meta-moderators), Nader, Cobb, or even Kerry, I think we can all agree that the wrong issues are being discussed in the media and that this election is a sham. As Ralph Nader said in Harlem a couple weeks ago, there are thirty times as many serious birdwatchers in America as Congress-watchers. Don't be a fool and let yourself be sucked into minor differences between the two candidates when both support unjust war and the continuing destruction of our democracy. Counterterrorism starts at home.
-Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
I'm a Canadian and up until yesterday I would have voted for John Kerry if I was an American. I love politics and have found this election race rather interesting. I recently downloaded a History Channel episode called "The Jesus Factor". It aired last week but I missed it. It's about how religion has influenced George Bush's political decisions.
The bittorent link is can be found here:? infohash=d07694cb106f7df5a17030f7a59402c61f67c119
http://www2.digitaldistractions.org:8080/info.php
After viewing the episode I had to rethink my opinion of George Bush. Now I'm not a George Bush lover by any means after watching the show, but John Kerry definetly doesn't have my full support anymore. The show does a good job of showing both sides (unlike Michael Moore documentaries, even though I love his films).
As a Canadian I think this elections will influence my country and ultimately me a lot. I think also that it will influence Americans even more and am surprised by those that choose not to vote. In the mind of many Canadians, according to a recent poll, George Bush lost a lot of respect after going to war in Iraq. I had no opinion of him until then and since then I had a very negative opinion of him. This documentary changed that a lot, but you can't change the past.
Does anybody that has watched this documentary have anything to say? I'd also be interested to see what other Canadians think of this whole election. There aren't that many that love politics as much as I do around me (my wife is glad she works tomorrow so she won't have to see any election coverage). Anyways hope to read more on others opinions.
So what you are saying is "Please list examples, except the ones that illustrate your point. Those don't count."
Exactly. Because Bush's little war is not about terrorism. The analogy would be that terrorism=Fascism. "They hate our freedom!" is one of my favortite quotes. Islamists don't care about our freedom. It is essentially a crude religous territorialism constrained to an area of the world that just happens to sit on top of the lifeblood of the American economy. The war on terror is not analogous to any other conflict in American history.
Second, WWII was fought by a fuckload of other countries whose people died by the millions. The US lost 292000 war dead in WWII combat. Yugoslavia lost 300000 combat dead in a population less than 20 percent of the US pop. And, here's a shock, they did it (Tito and the partisans) with almost no US help. None. As a matter of fact, the US was hated by the Partisans because we supplied the pro-Nazi fighters under Mihailovic with weapons. Yep. It happened.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
I'm very excited and proud to have my city the setting for the final showdown before the election. It's quite exciting to see all the people right in my backyard. (literally since i live downtown). Well party today and vote tomorrow I say.
Unfortunately, the whole set of insightful comments modded to 0 below this confirms the absurdity of the modding system. Was a time when people realised that offtopic is actually the whole point of slashdot.
This is not a signature.
And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow.
Please please please stop suggesting that people just get out and vote. I would implore citizens of any democratic nation that they become educated on the issues before they vote and not just go out and vote for voting's sake.
In my own city I am shocked at the number of people who don't know anything about their local ballot items... potentially these local issues will affect their lives more than federal issues will. Of course less than a day before the polls the wrong time for me to broadcast this message. It's kinda like my cousin who finally decided he wanted to vote the day before and asked how he could register. You have to think ahead!
Speak truth to power.
You're revealing your age. They don't teach that stuff in American public schools anymore.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This vote will be cast to generate interest in libertarianism. I don't like the Libertarian Party platform in general (for instance, I'd support geolibertarianism), and I think there are some unresolved issues in the libertarian model, but I also think that libertarianism is the right direction from the point we are right now.
The Bible teaches, I believe, that God the Father sent down to Earth his only son, Jesus Christ, to live as man among men. The Lord said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." God sent Jesus to be the example of how a man should live his life on Earth. Only by following the way, the truth, the life of Jesus, shall we come to know the Father. This is where the modern saying, "What would Jesus do?", comes from and makes it so much more than a simple statement of admiration. "What would Jesus do", in my understanding of the phrase, is the guideline of righteous living.
... helping the poor?
And so, in order to see what Christians should focus on when looking for leadership in their time on this Earth, they should look at what Jesus focused on while he was here, living the life of the righteous man.
How often did Jesus talk about homosexuality, abortion, or assisted suicide? Were these sins the focus of his ministry? Or did he focus on healing the sick and feeding the poor?
Did he beseech us to increase the wealth of the moneylenders, so that there would be more crumbs for the poor? Or did he believe that we should help the poor by
Did Jesus limit his healing to those that could afford the money to pay him? Or did he reach out and touch all in need?
Did he focus on destroying enemies or loving them? Did he advocate war or peace?
I understand and admire evangelicals' conviction to vote their conscience and follow the Word, not just in church, but everywhere, every day. But, despite the Republicans throwing those that have strength of faith some Old Testament bones, it is the God-fearing liberal Democrats like John Kerry that best exemplify the self-sacrifice and social compassion Jesus had.
Can you really look at how George Bush reacts to the world and see him asking "What would Jesus do?" I cannot. I certainly can see him consulting the Bible and finding passages to console him. I certainly see that he believes God approves of his actions. What believer doesn't? But, try as I might, I cannot see in him a man doing as Jesus would do. Read Matthew 5:38-48 and tell me if you can hear the voice of George Bush.
Agree or disagree with the policies of George Bush and other Republicans on the merits as you will, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that George W. Bush is following the way, the truth, the life.
Why vote for a lesser evil?
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
New one from the good people at JibJab - go on, vote! Or else the Supreme Court get's to decide, again!
http://www.jibjab.com/
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
i really don't understand why it is that people vote for /parties/ rather than /issues/. to be totally blunt, what the hell has the rnc / dnc ever done for anyone who isn't a candidate? why is party loyalty such a huge deal? i really don't understand it. i had a conversation with someone on campus the other day and he said something to the effect of, "my family are all proud republicans. we've been that way for three generations now." so i asked him why he was going to vote republican and his response was, "why wouldn't i? that's what we've always done." that's not democracy in action, that's a sheepocracy exercising its idiocy.
In Iraq, we shot first. We invaded on a pretext, not for a real, solid threat; that is the bottom line of all those many hearings, investigations, and reports. The sanctions were working, for the time being, and Saddaam and Iraq had nothing to do with al-Quaeda. Our invasion was an alarming departure from the requirement of an "act of war" before going to war. At best, it was a grave mistake, at worst it was the kind of action you see from dictators, not from solid democracies.
Lucas (and all of us) know that the good guys don't shoot first -- that's the characteristic of corrupt sheriffs and other baddies. Lucas edited Star Wars to clean up Han's character. Wish we could do that to us in real life! But the best we can do, as U.S. voters, is to repudiate Bush and his gang.
To Bush and his gang, the invasion was not a mistake, not in the least. They revel in having shot first, in being 'tough'. The U.S's reputation in the world is terrible, because of Bush's policies and -- more important -- his aggressive actions. We are rightly seen as a threat to other nations; we're like the sheriff who goes and shoots the guys he knows are bad, without trial, evidence, or due process. There's a reason for having a 'cause for war' - it's clear evidence. Something we did not have, and our leaders knew, should have known, or at least should know now.
Sophisticated people know that there's a difference between the U.S. people and the government, and make allowances for individual Americans. But how can they possibly do so if we re-elect Bush? We will have clearly embraced the black hat.
I didn't read any responses so this is probably a dup... but obviously you aren't very well versed in US history. Japanese Americans had their rights severly infringed upon after Pearl Harbor. This was done by.. oh wait a democratic president, and they suffered a whole lot more than the gays who have *NEVER* had the right to get married. Bush has simply continued what already was, not implimented something new.
As noted by the Economist's endorsement, and also as commented in my blog entries about the election, there's serious issues here, which are ignored by many Republicans.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I officially voyrs yesterday, after waiting in line for 6 hours (no joke). Once I got to the machine, I noticed it was electronic (touch screen). After I finished voting, it popped the card out, but the machine said it was still writing to the card. I wonder if the card they gave me actually contains my vote now .... :(
You can bet, that Tuesday night, all the major networks will be airing states as they "know" who has won in them. Here's a tip... read the fine print. I'm always amazed at how people watch this thinking they'll find something out, when if you read the fine print you see that the states where they declare a victor, they often have 1% reporting in at the time. A lot of people saw the networks flipflopping in the last election especially, because of this. Read your paper on Jan. 1 to see if there's an inauguration. That's the only time you'll know.
How awful. I offer you my sincerest sympathies. How'd you find out? Were you prosecuted? It's really a shame Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and put you in that position.
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
Bottom line is I think that Bush will keep Americans safer.
Sorry for all of you not in the US who don't like his approach, but much of the world hates us and many would like to kill us. Call me selfish, but I'm voting for the guy who I think will keep my loved ones and me safer.
Facts are stubborn things.
People will be arguing about the election over the next several days regardless of whether this story was posted or not. But hopefully, since this thread exists, it will decrease the amount of off-topic conversation in other threads.
Heve you lived for a year as an Iraqi? Or any other Third World country? It doesn't matter if you are a working-class Iraqi, Latin American, Chinese, African, South Asian, or what-have-you. You will still be fucked for life. I lived for many years in the Third World on a modest public employee salary. I don't need your simple-minded analysis to tell me what's going on.
I presume you used Iraqis as an example because you think we are there to help them somehow. You are a blind man.
Considering that most American Business are small (less then 10 people) lets think about our options...
Option A - Bush: give a tax cut for hiring a welfare person.
Option B - Kerry: Tax the evil owners and give more money to welfare people...
Hmmm.....
I'm not apathetic. I'm abstaining, because my vote can do nothing but ensure that one of the two preselected figureheads will win. People say "vote your conscience". Well, my conscience says I can't support the farce anymore.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Some of the liberal blogs (like this one) have stated that www.georgewbush.com is blocked for non-US visitors. They get a simple "Access Denied".
If this is true, why would they do this? While I can certainly think of real reasons (like not wanting non-US traffic to get in the way of US traffic, or avoiding DOS attacks from abroad), there are also ex-pats and travelers who are eligible to vote who might want to access the site from overseas. GWB.com could do like Google and refer you to a local site when you're overseas (when in the Netherlands, google.com automatically redirects to google.nl).
To me, this seems to simply reinforce the image that they couldn't care less about the rest of the world. This attitude will come back to bite us, sooner or later.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
NUH UH!
UH HUH!
NUH UH!
UH HUH!
Anyone seen this: Rock With Kerry I found it entertaining and there's some decent tracks on there. Cheers, TdC
More independent voters are better, on average, even if they're not very good decision makers. (By independent I mean not influencing each other.)
Consider a situation where a voter makes a choice, A or B. We'll assert that one choice is correct. Say each voter has a 60% chance of choosing right. Now consider three voters, x, y, z.
Sum up the probabilities of the correct choices. Notice that they add up to 0.648, which exceeds 0.6.
More independent voters will, on average, make better decisions.
Independence is necessary. If voters can influence each other (via ads or arguments on strange websites), this falls apart.
You are looking at it one way, but in another, marriage is not a right, it's a religious ceremony. Each religion should have the freedom to decide who can or cannot participate.
I'm not sure what the secret to success is, but the secret to failure lies in trying to please everyone -Bill Cosby
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa121 800a.htm
I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
root@USA ~ # date +%D /bin/johnkerry ...
11/02/04
root@USA ~ # update-alternatives --set president
Using `/bin/johnkery' to provide `president'.
root@USA ~ # dpkg-reconfigure forign-policy
Please make sure you make it to the polls this year.
OH Residents: Remember, if you have registered to vote in time for this year's election, then you have the right to vote, no matter what some asshole poll challenger says.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- ... ...shame on you ... ... Fool me ... can't get fooled again."
that says, fool me once, shame on
George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sep 17, 2002
1. You can still vote Petrouka. It's called write-in.
2. You're a troll or horribly uninformed. Petrouka is a nut who would completely limit our rights if he managed to get elected. He is more religious than Bush and has no qualms about applying his morals to others. I did not know this until a report on today's Morning Edition, from NPR. This guy is running for the party who tried to get Roy Moore as their candidate. Roy Moore is the former Alabama Chief Justice who refused an order from a Federal court to remove the 10 commandments from his courthouse.
I have been astounded by the mess that US Federal elections are for years. I see no reason why an election for the Presidency cannot be Federalized, and run with ONE set of universally applied rules. Here to the North, we have an amazingly simple, yet elegant system for casting our votes. We have a paper balllot in which the candidates for the riding (a riding being analagous to your districts) are listed, and beside each of which's name is placed a simple square. Mark an X with a pen beside the name of your preferred candidate and you are done. This could easily be put in place for the election of the US president. No dangling chads, or hanging dimples or offset butterflies. However, I can see the cries that would come forth from the myriad of organizers and beaureaucrats at the state and county level: Oh No, you can't trample on States' Rights. Well, I say screw em. Put in place a simple, low tech solution that will work for years to come.
Tomorrow night will be a long haul for sure, but I think I'm going to need lots of beer, not coffee. ;) I will certainly need lots of coffee to get through my day on Wednesday, though.
If I could mod posts, and my points hadn't expired overnight, I'd have modded this one -1 Flamebait.
That's all I'm saying about this particular thread.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
You're on the right track, but I have to disagree with your definition of what constitutes a right.
How is the freedom not to be killed a behavior? How is the freedom not to be enslaved a behavior? How is the desire to be left alone to pursue your own dreams (assuming they do not infringe on anyone else's) a behavior. These are not behaviors. They are expectations of the citizens of any civilized society in which liberty is of paramount importance.
Actually, it's pretty damn easy to determine when someone is trampling on the rights of others. Unfortunately, the citizens no longer have the power to check the inevitable abuse of governmental power. In the D of I, Jefferson explicitly recognizes the power of the people to tear down a government that abuses its power and replace it with a more freedom-friendly one. The last check on governmental tyranny is secession. Unfortunately, Lincoln killed that one in the War between the States. Now there is no recourse for those who desire to be free other than bloody revolution.
The idea the a government composed of fallible men will somehow be more wise and virtuous than the men they govern is absurd. Ultimately, there is no way to restrain a government that is out of control.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
Does anyone have a link to a quick and easy election betting site? I want to put $100 down on Kerry winning.
I tried google but could not come up with anything good.
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.
Electoral Tie
GWB campiagned 4 years ago arguing the same set of policies as you are proposing. However, all of that changed you know when.
I think the real unresolved issues today are all concerning what we should do when we encounter injustices in the world. Should we just stick our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist? Or try to use international organisations to resolve them? Or should we take care of them ourselves?
And then in what manner should we take care of them? Economic Sanctions, Negotiations, or Military Force? Under what circumstances are each one apporpriate?
How big does a crisis have to become before we get involved? How many people must suffer? Do we have different standards for different reigons of the world? Should we?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
... do us all a favor and save your (valid!) political statement for some election in the future when either of the major-party candidates are "pretty good".
If it is a religious ceremony, why do you need a license from the state to get married? Also, you can have a civil ceremony that is just as valid as one performed by a religious leader. A "marriage" as it exists today is a contract between two consenting adults. Same sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Bush's opposition of Gay Marriage is based entirely on his fundamentalist christian views and nothing more. I have not heard one single argument against Gay Marriage that did not boil down to "because god says it's bad".
I respond here in the hope that one or two readers who might be considering voting for Bush might be persuaded to vote instead for the world's obvious choice (anyone else!) - the election seems so close that just a few votes might change the result.
And I think it is justifiable to call this the "most important" election, not merely because of the looming appointment of a few supreme court judges, but because (like the rest of the world) I think it is obvious that the American voters made a huge mistake in letting Bush run the country (and hence greatly affect the rest of the world) the last four years. I would have thought that the huge loss of liberties inherent in the Patriot Act would make this mistake clear for most Slashdot readers - even those who support the war in Iraq. This election is important because America must rectify that mistake before it goes further down the slippery slope.
and on and on and on...
What contempt they have for the American people and the democratic process. It's sickening.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
If you want:
1. Leaders who are actually somewhat accountable to YOU,
2. Leaders who actually represent YOU, and
3. To not be so horribly frustrated with democracy, then...
Do your RESEARCH and vote for your local officials in an informed manner. Many people are disenfranchised by the democratic process precisely because they only watch the news (which is only interested in big elections). The fact is that only your LOCAL leaders will, as a general rule, affect you personally. The likelihood that Bush or Kerry will impact you personally is basically zero. The likelihood that your Mayor, State Representatives, or local districtpeople will have a direct impact on you, your children, your neighbors, etc.
If you don't check a box for president, big deal. If you pick your local folks at random, on party lines, or because you like the sound of their name, you deserve what you get.
Start your research with whatever your Secretary of State sent you, or go online to e.g. http://www.smartvoter.org/ (CA and OH, mostly, others linked).
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." --Groucho Marx
I realize that's a tired metaphor, but I'm tired.
a) what's the evidence that Bush turned the economy around? Recessions rarely last 4 years. I think this one fixed itself, in spite of Bush. He did do lots of Keynesian deficit spending, for a very sluggish result. The tax cuts did not increase the pool of investment capital much - money was cheap, it is still cheap. Supply side is pushing on a string. Now, if he had extended unemployment benefits or lowered payroll taxes, he would have put money in the hands of spenders. That would have heated up the economy. Anyone needed capital to make money off of those spenders would have found it. The deficit threatens to raise interest rates, so the tax cuts are pretty self-defeating.
b) he freed a tiny portion of Afghanistan, and allowed the rest to fall back into the hands of the warlords. The country is awash in opium and guns. Many of the guns are trained on Karzai. You will note that OBL was not apprehended in Afghanistan.
c) granted
d) In a characteristic move, he underfunded "NCLB" once the political advantage had been milked.
Let's look at a few more:
e) reducing the size of government. NOPE.
And did you see how he proposed more spending at his convention than Kerry did in Boston?
Incompetent at war, delusional in peace. What do you see in the guy? He's not resolute - the go/stop in Falluja this spring just wasted a lot of marines for nothing. Exactly the sort of civilian interference that drove the military nuts in Vietnam.
National security betrayal: one or more of his top officials leaked the name of a CIA operative to exact revenge on her husband, who told the truth about the Nigerian Yellowcake fiasco. No arrests. They burned an investigation by leaking the name of an identified al-quaeda operative, pissing off both British and Pakistani intelligence agencies. They needed some press, so national security be damned. No arrests for that, either. Compare and contrast with the "Travelgate" scandal.
80% of military professionals believe the President will keep them and us safer.
It's their butts. Who am I to argue?
Ed
Anyone who is undecided about who they will vote for I have exactly one question
/. is unforgiving to those who skew the facts, sure you'll have a couple likeminded backing you up but this isn't a campaign speech or some TV ad. This forum is brimming full of vultures who will leap on any inconsistency, false-dichotomy, or misleading statistic with so many counter arguments and links that it will make your head spin and make you (and your side) look like a fool. Play it clean and hold back the trolling if you want to actually convice someone.
Why?
It's pretty obvious that nothing useful is going to come out of Bush vs Kerry supporters going at it, I would be extremely surprised if a single hard-core Bush/Kerry supporter is swayed at all by what they read here. But there's some undecided who have questions they want answered and this is the perfect place to do so. Lets see what's keeping you few who are still undecided from making a decision and see if we can give them the final bits of the puzzle that allow them to make a decision that's right for them.
For the hard core supporters who try to win over these voters remember this though,
I stole this Sig
Here are some things to remember about voting:
1. Find out today where your polling place is by calling your county clerk or checking http://www.mypollingplace.com/
2. Alternatively, call 1-866-MYVOTE1 to find your polling place.
3. Check the hours the polls are open with your city or county clerk.
4. Print the League of Women Voters' card in English or Spanish and put it in your wallet or purse.
5. 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.
6. As you enter the polls, note if there is an Election Protection person outside the polling place.
7. 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.
Source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/
http://www.iv4k.com/
They actually have a show coming up in Montclair, NJ
All I can say is, stop taking so much tax money from taxpayers for "social programs" and let taxpayers donate to those "social programs" they want to support directly.
The government should not be in the business of "social progams", but should let "we the people" vote with our dollars, so to speak, what social programs they want funded.
I'm sure you've heard many arguments before, but try this one on for size: which of the two "figureheads" is more likely to draft you or young people you know?
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Actually it wasn't a federal law that banned polygamy, but state laws. Granted, the state laws were by in large a pre-condition for them to be admitted into the Union, so federal interference was definitely a factor, but a federal law (at least at the time) banning polygamous marriage didn't exist. Such matters were left to the states.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I'm an American living in Germany, which gives me a somewhat unique perspective I think. The German people generally has a, shall we say, critical view of our current administration. The cynical obsession with the Bush administration's dangerousness occasionally goes off the deep end, such as a common view that Fahrenheit 911 is unbiased and to be taken at face value, and occasionally even a belief that 9/11 was self-inflicted. Whether you consider it a more balanced view or not, the media here tends to show a more depressing view of the Iraq war than the US media does. Like anywhere else in the world, what the media shows is determined by what they perceive the population wants, and vice-versa. For what it's worth, the US soldiers serving in Iraq seem to have a more optimistic view of their progress in the general case.
Despite having a strong Christian heritage and traditions, Germans today are a rather secular sort that view organized religion with suspicion and occasional disdain. This also makes Bush suspicious in the eyes of Germans.
Thankfully, the German people are good at separating their hatred of the American administration from their views of American individuals. I've found the hospitality to be quite warm. I just wish that Americans were the same, but the shameful way that we Americans have treated the French has proven otherwise. However, I'm not confident that Germans will continue to be as forgiving if Bush is re-elected. That action would make it appear that we Americans actually prefer Bush's policies and approve of his decisions. I suspect that I might start to get nasty looks if that happens, but I hope otherwise.
Whether you are for Bush or not, Bush's poor respect in the world is an unconquerable distraction that prevents any potential progress. That reason alone was enough to prevent my voting for Bush. However, that doesn't help me to decide who to vote for.
I'm personally stuck, and no party or candidate represents me. While social welfare programs and strong regulation are attractive from a certain perspective, I look at the unemployment and stagnancy within Germany and just don't see that as effective. In other words, I'm fiscally conservative. In the past, that made the Republican party a more natural match for me. However, these neo-cons these days have completely alienated me. Usually complaints against the democrats, there's a heckuva lot of pork in our budget, our foreign policy is in shambles, our military is abused, our personal lives are overly interferred with.
The libertarian party is a bit too radical for me. There is plenty of truth to the statements that the UN is corrupt, populated with dictatorships, undemocractic, wasteful, and totally ineffectual. I couldn't possibly support the banishment of the UN that Badnarik proposes. While I don't like regulation or socialism in general, the nearly complete elimination of them isn't on the menu for me. So, Badnarik is out. The other parties and candidates are far too left-wing for me.
So, a few days ago I mailed in my ballot in, my decision more a process of elimination than anything else. Yes, I'm voting for the flake (Kerry) and his partner, the ambulance chaser (Edwards). I have every bit of faith that Kerry will be just as ineffectual in the White House as he has been these many years in the Senate, and that Edwards will usher in a new age of hyperlitigation. And believe me, I'll be voting them back out of office in 2008 with even more enthusiasm than I voted them in.
I'm based in the UK, and from here the entire thing seems a complete media based farce.
To the best of my knowledge, most people outside the US (and many within) think Bush is entirely incompetent. I've spoken to plenty of people from different areas of Europe and they all have the same opinion. With the coverage and analysis in the world media, America is quickly becoming a laughing stock. I'm not saying Kerry would improve matters, but keeping Bush certainly won't.
After the last election, I genuinely thought the US had voted in their first good candidate for assassination for many years. And how did they turn things around? By going to war. A sure fire way to improve a poor domestic economic situation, and a cause to get the masses behind. I know 9/11 was a sickening and devastating event (although a quick look at the history behind it puts things entirely in perspective) but the administration were just too keen to get a war started, it was after all just what they needed at the time.
Without wanting to be disrespectful, and I say this based entirely on conversations I've had with people in and from the US, only the uneducated, the blindly patriotic and the deeply religious are supporting Bush. He has been "marketed" specifically to these groups, and his people have done a very good job with someone who is, by almost all standards a poor man for the job.
All that said, Bush does look much more the part than Kerry. The scary things is, with the election being so media based, this may in itself win him additional votes.
"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."
Now, I hate Bush as much as your next free thinking mind. Though it is very true that Bush did try to limit rights of many people in many various ways, it is absolutely incorrect that he is the first one to do this. Think about black people, think about women, and other various minorities. They at one point in time were all disinfranchised in one way or another by our government when it came to voting and laws. This still happens today just like it happened then.
Of course this is due to the elitist principles that our government was founded on.
P.S. I voted for Nader. In Texas.
For example, you ask a person, "Hey, should our government give lots of money & unflinching support to a dictator who has proven ties to terrorists, territorial ambitions *and* working nuclear weapons?" J Random will say HELL NO.
What do the candidates say? "Pakistan is our parner in peace."
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
Do you want some kind of point spread?
Some Vegas sports books are taking bets on the election.
tradesports.com does it like a stock exchange.
So you can buy "shares" in the popular vote, or for a given state, the Senate races are up there, etc.
There's a lot more people buying "Bush to Win" than anything else, I'm afraid.
Good luck.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Actually, they do. What do you mean, "anymore"? They didn't teach it after WWII, AFAIK, and not until the last decade or so has it become really big in schools.
Technology today allows anyone to be mindblowingly lethal. We can't stop our foes from acquiring technology - so we have to stop *them* from becoming our foes. Diplomacy is the only solution to terrorism as it is proactive. Do not view diplomacy as giving in to terrorists, view it as an opportunity to acquire allies.
Abortion
As a man I feel my only method of preventing a death of this kind is to talk about the possibility and contingency plan beforehand with my partner - then decide if I will sleep with them. Sex is powerful candy and not thinking about it beforehand is something out of the stone age. I do not feel I have the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term because it is not my body, but I do have the right not to get involved with someone I don't feel is responsible for their actions. My heart goes out to all women who have been in that predicament and rest assured I believe the failures in this area are all of our responsibility, we just haven't learned yet as a species how to consistently do sex right.
Health Care
Health Care is ALWAYS in high damand and so the price will ALWAYS rise in a Darwinian, profit driven environment. Insurance is a unecessary layer of cost that a sizeable minority cannot even afford. You should only pay for what you need and you should only get what you can pay for. This would be far more cost effective and help a greater number of people if we were leveraging all of our resources together. Life is a tragedy - enjoy it IF you can.
Education
Our own president suggested in His state of the union speech that our goal ought to be having third-graders read at a third-grade level. This is not a goal, this is treading water. We need to educate people if we don't want our social problems to get worse and reduce the populace to slavery. Our goal should be to have third-graders reading and writing at least two languages at a third-grade level. This same progressive approach should be taken towards history, science, math, et. al..
Trade
We are a sovereign nation made up of sovereign states. We think it is in our best interests to have standards of measurement and conduct within our borders to preserve our unity, and hence be strong against the will of other nations who make wish to take unfair advantage of us. Amazingly we do not export and import on these same terms. Ameirca should stop milking the technology curve and the growth economy because neither will last forever. We need to do business in other countries using the same standards we require at home. It should not be cheaper to import items which can be manufactured domestically, and yet it is in many cases.
Proprietorship/Labor
Why do both price and wages rise? Over the last thirty years the price of a new low-end car has gone from $3000 to $12000 (my approximation) - a 4:1 ratio. The minimum wage has gone from $3.00 to $5.15. Do the math. Other products have similar slopes. Has the quality of the of the product caused the price to increase more than innovation has caused the cost to market to become lower? Regardless, the manufacturing jobs are lost to innovation WHILE wages can't keep pace - so the candle is burning at both ends. We need to apply a certain amount of socialism to our economic model. Even the most strident capitalist will admit to the wisdom of diversifying a portfoilio due to risk, why not diversify our economy so that there is an upper limit on wages, so that there will be a lower limit as well. People will still buy things, but only if they can afford it.
Election Reform
Where to start? It's so badly rigged in favor of the wealthy . . .
Allow write-in spaces in all precincts nationwide.
Disallow all political advertising on public airwaves WHILE requiring those media to provide EQUAL debate time amongst all candidates polling at .5% and above.
Hold elections over a two-day weekend.
Require M
Stuff that matters.
We need to change that attitude about how prolific we can be with the people's money.
-- President Dubya, Mar. 16, 2001
It's hard to be successful if you don't make something somebody doesn't want to buy.
-- Make things nobody wants, and you, too, will be successful, Arlington, Virginia, Mar. 9, 2004
We've tripled the amount of money -- I believe it's from $50 million up to $195 million available.
-- Fuzzy math of the Dubya variety, Lima, Peru, Mar. 23, 2002
I need to be able to move the right people to the right place at the right time to protect you, and I'm not going to accept a lousy bill out of the United Nations Senate.
-- South Bend, Indiana, Oct. 31, 2002
History has called the United States into action, and we will not let history down.
-- Apparently we owe history a war, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Jan. 29, 2003
Part of having a secure homeland is to have a good airport system, that's safe for people to travel, an airport system that is inspecting bags by inspectors who are qualified to inspect bags.
-- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Feb. 5, 2002
We live in a culture of moral indifference, where movies and videos glamorize violence and tolerance is touted as a great virtue.
-- Texas A&M University, Apr. 6, 1998
I want to thank the astronauts who are with us, the courageous spacial entrepreneurs who set such a wonderful example for the young of our country.
-- Dubya making a strong case for sticking to the script, Washington, D.C., Jan. 14, 2004
If we get rid of the double taxation of dividends, it means that one of the good investment vehicles for a child who is young today will be a dividend paying stock.
-- As opposed to a child who is old today? Alexandria, Virginia, Feb. 12, 2003
This is a new kind of, a new kind of evil... And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while. And American people must be patient.
-- Simultaneously placating American anxieties, and stoking those of Muslims worldwide, who don't exactly associate good things with the word 'crusade', Washington, D.C., Sept. 16, 2001
God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear.
-- Reverend Dubya is confusing and spooky all at the same time, Los Angeles, California, Mar. 3, 2004
And, most importantly, Alma Powell, Secretary of Colin Powell, is with us.
-- In case you were wondering, Alma Powell is not the "Secretary of Colin Powell", but rather Secretary of State Colin Powell's wife, Washington, D.C., Jan. 30, 2003
Can't living with the bill means it won't become law.
-- Referring to the McCain-Kennedy patients' bill of rights, Brussels, Belgium, June 13, 2001
Anyway, I'm so thankful, and so gracious -- I'm gracious that my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well.
-- Miami, Florida, June 4, 2001
I appreciate [Florida Governor] Jeb [Bush] -- talk about swamping somebody, he knows the definition of 'swamp' when it comes to political campaigns.
-- I'll bet he does, Tampa, Florida, Jun. 30, 2003
We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, and we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease.
-- Warsaw, Poland, June 15, 2001
The more money they have in their more pockets -- in their pockets, the more likely it is that somebody will find work.
-- Economic wisdom from good ol' Dubya, at the Greenbriar Resort, White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, Feb. 9, 2003
Uhh -- we are working -- hard to bring a diplomatic solution. And uhh -- we've made some progress. After all, the IEAE asked that the Security Council take up the North Korean issue.
-- The White House and every major news outlet completely whitewashed the fact that Dubya called the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the "IEAE", and he even made a pointed effort to clearly enunciate it, prime time press conference, White House
zosxavius photography
This is why we need ranked voting. That way people could vote for 3rd party candidate, then lesser of two evils, then greater of two evils, without feeling like a) they are throwing their vote away and b) they make it abundantly clear who they DON'T want to be president.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Every election I keep hearing the same mantra from a lot of people who are disillusioned with the choices available. They say, time and time again, "I'll stay home and protest the choices by not voting for any of them. The reason I don't vote isn't apathy - it's boycott." Well, if you are one of these people, please take this advice to heart: Election day is your chance to get your displeasure tallied. If you don't like the big two parties, then voting for a write-in or a third-party is NOT a waste of your vote, at least not as much of a waste as staying home and being lumped in with the apathetic people. Let's take the hypothetical scenario where a lot of people, in a disorganized fashion, vote for write-ins and third-parties, such that it ends up with as much as 20% of the vote going to people other than the "big two". Even though none of those other candidates will win *this time*, the fact that those numbers showed up, and will appear quite priominently in news reports, will be exactly the sort of wake-up call you are looking for. It sends a clear signal that a large portion of the voters are unhappy with the choices, and they aren't apathetic about it. That means you'll get more attention next time around. It means a third-party might stand a better chance next time. It means changes down the road even if one of the big two stays in charge, because those 20% or so that went with other choices make for an enticing group for them to try to woo.
Basically, if you don't like the choices available, at the very least you should make the effort to show up and write somethign like "Protest Vote" in the write-in blank. That gets tallied. If you don't make the effort, then you look just like an apathetic non-voter, and you become the part of the citizenry that the politicians feel it is safe to ignore.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If you don't want to vote for either of the two major party candidates, instead of not voting why don't you cast your vote for somone else? Then you'll have a right to complain, if you don't vote, then you haven't got any right to complain about the current situation because you're part of the problem.
If you decide not to vote, then you deserve whatever you get as a result.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Kerry will moth-ball the military!!! Vote Bush!!! Support your Troops!!! and we love those raises we get every year.
President Bush Supporter
If you don't care and are uneducated, don't vote. Yes, I'm swimming against the tide. Don't vote. I would rather have 25% turnout of educated voters than 75% of people making random votes based on what their moron college roommate told them.
If you don't care, then don't vote. Please.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Ok, I will finaly gain some enemies on /. Oh well, so be it.
- Iraq attacked Kuweit because of the enourmous amounds of ___ they were removing from under Iraq.
- The Texas ___ companies were quickly running out of ___ and needed to replenish that elsewhere.
- The only way to regain some of the billions lost due to the war in Iraq is by getting cheap ___.
- The only govenment building protected by US troops directly after the war was the ministry of ___.
- The Bin Laden family is friends with the Bush family because of ___.
- There are countless countries with terrible regimes, but they don't have any ___.
- The dictatorial regime in Kuweit was put back in office in return for ___.
And, to be fair:
- One (the?) reason that Europe was against the war was that the Sadam regime was asking for Euro's in return for its ___.
Now could some journalist find out where the ___ is going, for what price, and who is cashing in on it? I've not seen any reports on that either in Europe or on US television channels. I do know that you can make loads of money working for American oil companies in Iraq, so maybe that's a hint...
As European citizen I don't mind if you go vote for Bush, as long as you don't buy the load of bull that has been spread before, during and after the war.
#1 - My Grandmother was on the DNC for years. She came to me the other day and told me we would be better off going to a ONE VOTE ONE PERSON and removing the Electoral College. I did some research into this issue, and found that doing so would guarantee that 9 states would control every presidential election. 9 out of 50. Sure, there are 13 "swing states", where if one person managed to get the majority of the 9 and 13, they would still get elected. So at most, every election would be decided by the majority of 21 states. 21 out of 50. More than HALF of the states "wouldn't matter" because their populations aren't great enough to help support a president. The Democrats support this model, because the majority of those states vote Democrat (California, New York, Illinois...) Hmmm. Sounds like a great system, doesn't it? #2 - John Kerry has been in congress for how many years? Something on the order of 20 years? Look at his voting record in regards to every major political issue that has been raised in this election... Then tell me, will he really do anything different for the next 4 years that he DIDN'T do in the past 20 years? At least Bush, imperfections and all, have actually DONE many of the things he set out to do, and he has only been in this political arena for the past 4 years... i.e. Bush has accomplished more of the things on his "why we elected him" list in 4 years, than Kerry has done in the past 20. Kerry does NOT have a good track record. If for nothing else, these 2 reasons have polarized me against the Democrats in this election.
--E--
Well, that is not entirely true. There was significant intelligence within US agencies that completly disagreed with the notion that there was a threat from Iraq. What seems to have happened is that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. were only interested in intelligence that supported their view. Views that supported going to war were trumped up and view that did not support the war were simply not listened to.
The best known example to date is the assertion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. The White House was warned months before Bush used the story to help justify the invasion of Iraq that the story was dubious. So the question becomes, did GWB get that information and ignore it, did he not get not get the information or did he understand that the story was dubious and say it anyway? In other words, did he simply ignore information he didn't like, were his staff keeping vital information from him or did he lie? Take your pick, no one solution is worse than another IMO.
If he ignored the info because it did not jive with his world view then he is an imcompetent president because he can't process vital information in a reasonable manner.
If his staff were keeping vital information from him and telling him to say things they knew weren't true then you have to wonder who is really running things. Why wouldn't Bush take the heads of those people? Woudn't you expect a president who was so completly misled on a vital matter to publicly humiliate those advisors and distance himself from them?
If he understood and lied then there isn't anything else to say, is there?
Whether he lied or not will probably be debated forever, much like the question of Reagan selling arms to Iran. What is clear though is that the Bush administration has been embroiled in a collosal mess of group think that supported evidence that supported their views and quashed evidence that they did not support their views. To me it does not matter if he lied or he simply believed what he wanted to believe and discarded any evidence that did not support his POV. Either is equally egregious and frightening. Do you want a president who lies to you or who ignores important evidence because he does not want to agree with it?
Check out David Cobb, he grew up poor (and still is), and he's not a nutjob. He is running to help PEOPLE, not big business, not some wacko religious constituency. He is left-wing and belongs to the Green Party, that turns a lot of people off. But he's the only candidate running that matches the criteria you list.
I like him, cause he wants to give us FULL health care, get us out of Iraq, and generally make life easier for the average person. Yes, he would raise taxes on the rich. I have no problem with that.
Of course Bush will repeat his mistakes if he is re-elected, because he doesn't even think he made any in his first term.
During WWII, people of Japanese decent were rounded up and herded into concentration camps by the hundreds of thousands. Mind you, when the Germans did it we considered it a war crime.
That said, at least in the past people had the decency to pass a law restricting freedoms. Bush's administration seems to think Terrorism trumps federa law, common law, international law, and the Constitution.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I really, truly believe that anyone will do a better job than Bush.
I'm still fairly young (30), and for better or worse, I've not voted before.
This is the first time that I've actually sat down and watched the debates, and I have to say that Bush just comes off as a complete idiot.
When he responded to questions as to why health care costs have increased so much with, "I sure hope it wasn't the administration *laughter*", I almost felt sick.
This is the guy we selected to run our country? Does he act the same way when he's speaking with foreign leaders? Did he think that the debates were unimportant? Did he think that that particular question was unimportant?
Either way, I lost any respect I might have had for him right there. I may not know all there is to know about the man, but I know we can do better than that.
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
If I may, I'd like to phrase this in game theory terms. You get to make a move in this game tomorrow that will ultimately affect your utility (happiness). Let's say, for example, if your candidate wins, you have a utility of 0 (it's all relative). And, let's say you can distinguish between the other two candidate with utilities of, for example, -10 and -10^100.
.5 without your vote. If you vote for one or the other, you shift the chances to .50000000001 and .4999999999 or whatever.
.5*(-10 + -10^100) + 0*0
.50000000001*(-10) + .4999999999*(-10^100) + 0
Now, the expected utility you'll get from the outcome is based on your expectation of who will win given whom you vote for. I think it's pretty safe to assume that the chances of the 3rd party candidate winning is negligibly close to 0, regardless of how you vote. This is based on a pre-election compromise where most people decide they are going to vote for one of two candidates. In the US, it's always a democrat or a republican. Lets say because the election is close, the chances of each of the major candidates winning is
Without voting for a major party candidate, you're expected utility is:
Voting for the lesser evil, you're expected utility is:
Which is slightly greater than the top value. All the numbers were completely arbitrary. In the case where you truely cannot distinguish between the two major candidates, then I suppose that voting for a major party candidate does not have any payoff.
I suspect that the Prob(3rd party candidate winning) = 0 assumption is frustrating, but can you really say it's unrealistic? This analysis is based off of our plurality voting system. Basically, under such a system, voting for a third party candidate is never an optimal strategy. If we had a better system, this wouldn't be an issue and I believe a 3rd party candidate would have a nonzero chance of winning.
I see these arguments that one should vote for Kerry or Bush otherwise their vote is wasted. If you truly believe this then you've already given up your ONLY government guaranteed right as a member of this republic.
Regardless of your opinion about the two monopoly party candidates - the fact is that if either one had their way YOU would have no choice at all. They have used their monopoly of government force and tax dollars to suppress the knowledge of the very existence of altervative parties much less their viewpoints. They pass laws giving them the right to steal your money to use to pay for their propaganda and influence the outcome of the election. They contrieve new requirements making it impossible for other parties to participate in "debates" or even get on the ballot so that those of us who want someone else can't even legally express that opinion.
So... if you propose voting for one of the major parties rather than who you'd really want then you are part of the problem. If you want to protect your influence on the election then push forward laws like instant runoff or "none of the above" voting and requirements that the winner actually get 50% + 1 votes to take office. Don't cry that people may not elect the person they'd prefer when the fact is that, as things stand now, they are guaranteed to get the person they don't want - and that person already knows it and has no reason to change his current monopolistic bahaviour.
Voting your conscience and informed opinion is the ONLY moral vote possible. In fact, even if you do prefer one of the two monopoly party candidates, I find it hard to morally justify voting for them if only because of their oppression of this most important right. The US has already lost the courts' support of the Constitution. Once enough people figure out that their votes have been stolen too then there will be no saving this country. There isn't any "free" country left to run to folks... let's try to make this one free once more.
There is no politics in technology these days eh?
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
The real division is not the war in Iraq IMO. Either winner will have little choice but to mop up in a very similar manner. Differences only likely to be subtleties.
The real decision factor is wether you want an increasing influence of the church in government, or not.
4 more years of Bush. is 4 more years of "Faith based initiatives". More anti-gay, anti-choice rhetoric, more creationism, less evolution.
This election definitely marks a turning point between secular democracy and theocratic democracy.
Just my opinion but America seems to moving further away from being a secular democracy.
I agree. Please dont throw your presidential vote to 3rd party. Make them your mayor or something.
Already looks like this is will be so close to call.
Team America: World Police, was the most important documentary of the year.
It was highly informative and on point.
More than a few of the Jay Leno on the street surveys have shown that a large part of the voter base are clueless.
I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, but just in case, here's my case for Why I'm Voting for Kerry. In the interests of keeping it brief and easy to skim it's mostly a bullet list of points.
If you want something longer, I think "100 Facts and 1 Opinion: The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration" by Judd Legum at The Nation is quite a good summary. Again, it's an easy to skim list.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I would have said Saudi Arabia is Osama's primary target. I don't think he gives a crap about Islam. I think he wants control of the Saudi Oil Fields. The whole America/Israel/Great Satan thing is a red herring. That may be what he says to manipulate his gullable supporters, but I don't buy it. I think he just wants the power and wealth of the Saudi Oil Fields all to himself.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I often hear the whiny left-wing media complain that the "message" of the left isn't getting out... ALl I can say is Thank GOD! The real pity of the US political scene is that it has been sterilized of true right-wing issues. ALL US politicians are left-of-center liberals, it's only a question of how far left. When was the last time you heard a candidate call for replacing welfare with the criminalization of indigence and sloth. What about replacing "no child left behind" with sterilizing the retarded so they stop polluting the gene pool. And how would those trembling in their lace underwear at the prospect of a "draft" feel about universal military service for all persons ages 18-20? And why are US soldiers dying in the Middle East when nukes could do the job cheaper and better? That's why I'm writing in Seth Tyrssen ( http://hometown.aol.com/americanfascist/afphome.ht ml ) for President!
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
If Kerry gets the victory, I want to go to Kerry's celebration party. I want his autograph.... ...on a copy of "Unfit for Command". :D
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
Bill*, is that you? Back from the dead?
;-)
cLive
* Hicks, not "the cat", for those of you who should know better...
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Health care is not up because of just tort lawyers. The average tort claims in the past 4 years have not gone up. Then why has health care almost doubled or tripled in so many cases.
:(
While I was an independent consultant, I would pay $100-$125 for health care each month. Now its around $300
Can you guess who's pockets are lined by HMOs ?
Your attack on Kerry's position on Iraq basically comes down to the assertion that Kerry's policy would have been to use the military option only as a bluff.
This is simply false. Kerry has said that Bush rushed into war, but Kerry has not ruled out that he might have eventually taken the nation into war himself.
The difference is this: Kerry would have continued the diplomatic and economic pressure and given the inspectors the time to finish their job. Yes, it was a long arduous process (18 resolutions, blah blah blah), but so is this war that we're not stuck in.
The rest of your comments about the war are basically moot. Yes, we all know Saddam was a threat, and we all thought he had WMD. Points conceded. But Bush rushed us to war without properly verifying our suspicions, rallying a real coalition, or preparing for the aftermath.
I'm not sure what your source is when you say most troops in Iraq support Bush. I knows many people over in Iraq right now. To a man they were all gung-ho to get over there. And they are now, to a man, all gung-ho to get back. They suppport their fellow troops and will stay there to finish the job as long as their brothers are in harms way, but that's because of loyalty. Not because they agree with Bush's policies. But these are just the people I know... I have no idea what the overall feeling of most troops over there is.
As far as economics go, I suppose one would expect me to support Bush. I make over $200K, and my family also has a trust. One would think I'd be smiling all the way to the bank with the tax cuts.
But I'm not. I see the shrinking middle class as a threat, because in the long run it destabilizes the country. If the middle class disappears we end up in a situation where revolution is not only possible, but likely. And I don't see that as benefitting my long term prospects at all.
The cost of living has also gone up in ways that have made the tax cut almost meaningless, as well. Yes, tax cuts can help the economy, but if they are mostly offset by cost of living increases then the net affect is nil. Thost $300 checks that everyone received evaporated in the face of higher insurance premiums.
Further, antagonizing the rest of the world has hurt local business. Boeing now finds it difficult to compete worldwide. Given largely similar offerings between Airbus and Boeing, most foreign buyers would now prefer to buy from Airbus instead of from an American company. American brand names are taking a beating overseas. And the dollar has dropped about 30%, meaning that even if I am a bit wealthier in the U.S., I'm poorer overall when the whole world is considered.
Getting the rest of the world pissed off at us is something that could have been avoided. I'll concede that no president might have been able to keep the dollar strong, though Bush certainly didn't help.
Now for a point you didn't mention:
I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for some born-again refry who will more than likely try to appoint radically conservative judges to the supreme court. He claims there will be no litmus test, but his reference to Dred Scott is well known code that says exactly the opposite: he will do his utmost to appoint judges who will overturn Roe V Wade.
I also feel strongly about the constant attacks on civil liberties by this administration. Bush would make Jefferson spin in his grave, I am sure. In fact, this election has interesting parallels to the election of 1800 as far as setting the tone for the future of liberty.
And to follow the rule of three I should throw something else in here... but I've typed enough already and probably no one will read this anyway so I'll just stop here. But that video that strongly suggests Bush may be going senile is pretty damn frightening (and believable).
I'm a Republican in Arizona. All the Republicans in my office, my family, and immediate friends are voting against Bush. I don't anticipate Arizona going Blue this election, but I am very curious to see how the numbers come out.
For the record, I work in financial software, and most of our employees are software engineers or have advanced degrees in Economics. The office was universally for Bush in 2000 and against in 2004.
It's the economy. There is no issue more pressing.
As someone commented earlier around the watercooler, we'll have plenty of time to discuss gay-marriage and stem-cell research when we're a third-world nation.
-Hope
A local well respected talk show host in my area says he is voting liberatrian.
... shouldn't you vote who you most agree with?
... not who will will lead this country with you in mind first and foremost ... don't be selfish .. there are 300 million others that don't have the same beautiful face you do in the mirror.
He claims this is the only person that is fit for the job.
The thing is, the Libertarian candidate has 0% chance vof being elected. So, with that in mind
A vote as a protest is a wasted vote.
You vote for who will lead this country the best
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
I hope that blogging will be as lively as today. That it will not die out.
The folks who think "Turd Sandwich" and "Giant Douche" are off-topic clearly weren't watching SouthPark this week.
Yes, they're both very on-topic.
Or, better yet, Google for Dred Scott. Or just read this article.
Peter is the author of "Paradigms of Artificial Intellignece Programming", a cornerstone of LISP programming and A.I. He dissects the political issues for this debate with great reason and skill: http://www.norvig.com/hiring-president.html Please vote tomorrow! It's important! -Conrad Barski
I would note that by demanding a perfect libertarian (or whatever) candidate, you are making it less likely that mainstream candidates will embrace your positions.
Let me explain:
Example: say, the libs want less police powers, despite the spectre of international terrorism. (They may have very good reasons for their opinions, but whether or not we agree with them isn't important here.) Meeting these demands has political (not to mention real) costs. Accepting less intrusive policing opens a candidate to the charge of being "soft on terror" or whatever. So meeting these demands only makes sense if the benefit (lib voters) outway the costs (lost "authoritarian" voters).
If the libs consistently throw their votes to the candidate who has no chance of winning, but reflects their beliefs 100%, they present the mainstream candidate with all costs and no benefits. There is no incentive to make those people happy, because they won't vote for a mainstream candidate anyway. So paridoxically, always voting a third party inhibits the agenda of that party. Better to build a bloc, then threaten to walk out unless concessions are achieved. A bit of brinkmanship is called for, but that kind of thing is routine in most parliamentary systems.
In 2000 if Nader had more sense and less ego, he would have done exactly this: Callled Gore up two days before the election and cut a deal. Instead, he put a President in office who is inimical to his interests, and at the same time, got the Democrats to abandon his agenda. Double failure!
His supporters demonstrated that there is nothing to be gained by courting their votes.
Welcome to Diebold Secure e-voting for the 21st century User: Pass: x = 0 while x 100000 x = x + 1 Dubwa = 1 BigLib = 0
I'm 14, but I have taken an interest in politics. I am a democrat/libertarian/green/socialist hybrid, so naturally I just stick with the democtaric party. Personally, I would have preferred a Wesley Clark ticket, but Kerry won, so I support him. I think we should all vote for Kerry so our country can be safe in everyway (including wartime, economicly, health care, environmentally, and every other way). Bush has not made us safe at all. He has allowed terrorist attacks, botched needless wars, ruined health care, underfunded schools, appointed anti-enviromentalists to the EPA, and has not improved us economically. He also has lied a few more times than I would like to admit to the rest of the world. He's also embarresed us in the eyes of the rest of the world. Restore honor, integrity, and strength to the White House! Vote Kerry!
I'm also not sure why Bush (or Kerry) are opposed to Gay Marriage exactly, but they both define marriage as an act between one man and one woman.
Any subsequent rights afforded to a married couple (i.e. hospital visitation, estates, adoption, etc) should be afforded to any couple and if a church does not want to marry a same-sex couple, there should be other avenues available (civil unions, etc). But where I draw the line is having the state or country tell my church they have to marry someone, contrary to its own belief system.
It's a slippery slope, for sure .. I'd be interested to hear your response on other marriage arrangements, too (i.e. polygamy, adult/child, adult/animal).
I'm not sure what the secret to success is, but the secret to failure lies in trying to please everyone -Bill Cosby
mostly used as "demonstrable truths" or "demonstrable lies". So it should be "demonstrable idiot"?
Not really true. Many Presidents have tried to limit people's rights. Not necessarily by amending the constitution, but through the Alien and Sedition Acts, suspension of civil rights during wartime (War of 1812, Civil War, WW1 and WW2 mostly), internment of Japanese in WW2 in particular, operations against leftist groups by the FBI and CIA (illegally, in their case) throughout the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and still going on.
The purpose of government is to restrict the rights of individuals to some degree or another in the interest of the greater good. I'm no Bush fan, and he's certainly been more actively hostile towards liberty, freedom, and individual rights than any president in recent memory, but saying he's the only one to try to limit rights is overly simplistic.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Whoever said that democracy was about getting the best government?
It's about getting the fairest representation of the people. Which is exactly what it does, even if, perhaps especially if, people who don't care about politics vote.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
...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.
Did Sen. Kerry and the other congressional folks have access to the same information? Or did the maniacal monster that is Dubya maliciously hide it from them? As far as I know everyone had access to the same data from the various sources.
As for the "other" intelligence reports that discredited things I wasn't aware of a conspiracy to cover them up. I'm sure if there was such a scenario the liberal press would've feasted on it as would have Sen. Kerry.
It was Bush's duty as president to critically examine evidence that could draw this country into war. It is pretty obvious that evidence could have been taken into account that wasn't given to the people. Nobody could argue about tangible reasons against the war in early 2003, because the government suppressed every last bit of it. All opponents could really say is, 'Well now we don't know for sure...', a rather weak argument against 'we were under imminant threat of attack'. Only after the fact do we find strong evidence from multiple sources saying that the U.N. inspectors were probably right and Iraq was no immediate threat at any length. But no, Bush had to damn Iraq as an immediate threat, when no threats had been made against the U.S. by Iraq. Since we really can't learn about any underhanded scheming, and all we have to go off of is Bush's word, then Bush failed at his duty as president.
I feel he is a monster for wanting to invade a country, causing so many deaths, creating nearly global disdain for the United States, putting fear and doubt into the minds and hearts of americans, suppressing the voices and evidence of people having opposing viewpoints, thinking all the while that we are foolish enough to accept this.
Actually it wasn't a federal law that banned polygamy, but state laws.
According to the wikipedia entry on polygamy, "the United States Congress made the practice illegal in U.S. Territories in 1862"
Then they would not grant statehood (under which polygamy could have been made legal) unless the church stopped practising it. The prophet at that time received revelation that they should stop the practise..
-Adam
From what I have seen, this site is about 80/20 in favor of removing Bush and maybe 60/40 in favor of Kerry, at best. OK, so let's assume Bush wins, or at least is declared winner in time for January 20th. What are you going to do?
The usual post-60's liberal "progressive" answer is ... well, nothing. Is that what you are planning? Come on now, at least 40% of the country is actively against Bush. What would happen if 5 million people showed up on the Mall for the inaguration ceremony? To protest, to stop it, to prevent Bush from taking office? Are there no liberal progressives out there with any stomach for what they believe in? Or, is this all a fantasy Internet game where everyone goes home after the election with "well, we tried." and forgets about it until Hillary runs in 2008?
Come on, this country has gotten entirely too boring. If Kerry wins I am sure we are going to see some excitement - because Kerry will take a poll before deciding which side of the bed to get out of in the morning and will "defend" against terrorism by saying we would put them on trial if only we could catch them. Absolute prescription for some interesting times.
On the other hand, if Bush wins I will be truely saddened to see all the liberal progressive whiners crawling back into their holes to wait for the next election where "they can make a difference."
See: Alien & Sedition Act. See also: Japanese internment camps. Seriously, open a history book (for example, the one you're using in your 8th grade world studies class).
Who the hell modded this up?
Utah is not a swing state. Massachusetts is not a swing state. Sorry.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Very, very possibly, but what caused that bubble? He had his problems, but overall...
Nothing, but incompetency, can account for everything surrounding the current government.
As for "Government Healthcare".... well, we havn't gone metric yet, either... and women still don't get equal pay for equal work. Many of my friends who visited the States were shocked at how much and how quickly you can get screwed by the System here. Maybe that sounds like a good thing to you -- it does not to me.
As for this "priceless freedom" we're bestowing in Iraq... if our Great Leaders actually gave a shit about Iraqis, they wouldn't have supported and armed Sadaam in the first place. They wouldn't have put on sanctions that killed 1 million of them, bookended by invasions that killed another 250,000. The Iran-Iraq war, all 8 years, poison gas, mass graves and all, was explicitly funded and encouraged not just by the US government, but by the *same people* who are now talking about how evil Sadaam is: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, & Sen Kerry.
Fuck Jefferson. You should be shocked that such a transparent fraud has been sold to you.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
My thesis is this: if we're going to play world policeman, then we have to abide by the rule of law. Might does not make Right. Hussein did not have the burden of proof on him to prove that he did not have WMDs; to justify an invasion, we had to prove that he did. He did not.
Consider what this means. Richard Jewell was accused, on air, of a setting off a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics. As we found out later, Jewell did not. He then turned around and sued the pants off the networks. Who can blame him?
Hussein committed crimes against his people, several years ago. H.W. Bush certainly had an opprtunity to invade and redress the wrongs, or (as I believe a sovereign nation should) at least appeal to other nations to take action as a global majority. However, we invaded Iraq the first time to redress Kuwait, and in 2003-2004 to secure the weapons of mass destruction. That, and only that, was the legal justification for the second invasion.
And this is why Bush's black-and-white views are so wrong. Whining that we knew he had weapons of mass destruction is a flawed argument, not in the least because he didn't. He put the cart before the horse. Put in another context, Bush had enough for a search warrant. Weapons inspectors went in, and found nothing. And that should have been that. Instead, he's forced to retroactively justify an invasion that he should have had incontrovertible proof of before he committed troops. He did not.
If this was a cop show, and Bush had been in charge of an investigative team that went into a suspected terrorist's home and apprehended him on the same incorrect intelligence, and found nothing, you know what would have happened--Bush would have reprimanded, demoted, posibly arrested, and almost certainly sued. Instead, we're actively considering him for another term. Amazing.
On to Kerry's "approval" of the war. Given that Kerry thinks (and should think) of an action of this magnitude in the legal sense, I think he did the right thing in approving the use of force. I want the police to have the right to enter a criminal's house, and to forcibly subdue him in the case he resists. They do not have the right to beat up an innocent person, a la Rodney King. That's what authorizing the use of force means.
Finally, let's dismiss the "capability" and "intention" arguments, shall we? They sort of fall down without the WMDs to prop them up.
My point is this: operating under the rule of law is not consistent with the image of the Western gunslinger that Bush poses as. Men do not wear black hats to identify themselves as the bad guy. But it is consistent with one of the defining statements of Americanism, as President John F. Kennedy put it: "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
Dammit slashdot!! You killed everyone's favorite election predictor site! Oh well, http://www.slate.com/ has a good map, similar to http://www.electoral-vote.com/. Let's see if MSN's servers are any better.
Salon's.com election news column, War Room reports that early voters in New Mexico and Texas have already reported serious problems with electronic voting machines. Many computer scientists (aka Slashdot readers) have been very vocal about the potential pitfalls of electronic voting. A group of e-voting experts including Barbara Simons, perhaps the medium's biggest critic, has started a blog to interpret what potential problems might mean as the vote -- and mis-votes -- keep coming in. Are there any Slashdoters who may be interested in this virtual bug hunting/.interpretations?
Just because I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't understand. Homer J. Simpson
This is the one of the few things I agree with Badnarik on: the lesser of two evils is still evil, and None Of The Above should be on every ballot, with defaced ballots counting as a vote for NOTA.
All's true that is mistrusted
why does everyone always pretend like they care if everyone votes? they should only care if their candidate wins. i hope everyone who supports the candidate i oppose does not vote. saying "regardless of who you support, get out and vote" seems pointless. isnt it most important to elect the better candidate than to just have better turnout? what good is turnout if they elect the guy who enacts bad policy? unless of course you believe more turnout is good for your candidate, which i suspect many of these people who are saying this believe. if you relly care about electing a better candidate, shouldnt you dissuade people from voting, if they support the wrong guy?
I think what most people are missing that if a Justice really expected to retire in the near future, that Justice could retire now and be guaranteed of getting replaced by Bush. By not doing so, the Justices are either hoping to be replaced by Kerry (if liberal or moderate) or saying that they don't really want to retire within the next four years (conservatives).
If Kerry is elected, he will probably replace a couple of the liberals and moderates with left-leaning moderates (the Republican Senate can block liberals). He will only replace a conservative if one dies.
K, rant noted.
But how is the President responsible for you losing your job? What exactly did he do? Did he call your boss and order that you be fired or the President would make things very unpleasnt for your boss?
Please, please explain exactly how George Bush being President directly affected you losing your job.
Well we know what Bush has done. You on the other hand don't know what kerry is going to do.
Acutally I see this as a series of really simple questions.
1) If you think the vietnam was was a good idea vote for Bush, if not Kerry.
2) If you think a war president ought to have combat experience vote kerry, if not bush.
3) If you think the economy has been managed well for the last four years Bush otherwise kerry.
4) If you think pre-emtive war is a good thing bush otherwise kerry. Be careful with this one though it may mean another war with syria or iran.
5) If you think the war is being managed well then bush otherwise kerry.
6) If you think homosexuals should have the same civil rights as heterosexuals then kerry otherwise bush.
I was going to list more but what the hell just read my signature.
evil is as evil does
I agree with your point about the primaries.
As for pulling voters (gullible or otherwise) let's look at two scenarios. Both scenarios contain the same candidates, but show two different voters' views of them (Note: the Nolan chart isn't necessary to make this point):
Scenario 1:
Candiate A = 90% liberal
Candiate B = 60% liberal
Candiate C = 60% conservative
Candiate D = 90% conservative
Scenario 2:
Candiate A = 90% liberal
Candiate B = 10% liberal
Candiate C = 10% conservative
Candiate D = 90% conservative
If you see things as described in scenario #1, then voting for the "lesser of two evils" probably makes sense since the difference between your 3rd party candidate and the major party candidate is less than the difference between the two major candidates.
But if you see things as described in scenario #2, that there's not much difference between the major party candidates, then there isn't much risk in the 3rd party vote. You get a chance to vote your conscience and end up with something either a smidge to the left or right, but almost indistinguishable from your point of view.
Anyway, if you see things like scenario #2 and think that voting for the "lesser of two evils" is a good use of your vote, all power to you.
article about Kerry's "other than honorable" discharge in the NY Sun.
While Bush has made mistakes (Iraq), there is no reason to suspect that he will repeat them
While science has failed to produce an AIDS vaccine, there is no reason to say it won't.
Ah, positivism....
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
its e e cummings
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
I really hope that all you who are reading this post do know your candidates. However, I will publish my points of view for those ones who are undecided. Here is why I vote for Kerry:
Kerry does not want to increase the power of the federal goverment. As he stated, he would like the states to decided on several particular policies. This is as "American" as it gets. Bush, on the other hand, wants to increase the amount of control that fed. gov't has over the states.
Kerry does not want to embed discrimination into our Constitution. I am not gay, but I believe in equality and justice for all. How can one expect a fair treatment while the others are being denied civil liberties? Think about it, would straight men beat their wives if the concept of heterosexual marriage was perfect? If you want to protect marriage, do me a favor: push for women's rights and stand against family violence.
Kerry does not shove the Bible up my ass. Whether you are religious or not, you should remember that religion and state are separate in this country. Just because you believe in god, it does not mean that your beliefs should become a part of my life. I have nothing about personal religious traditions, but I think that citing the Bible when it comes to creating laws is pushing it. When is the next round of witch trials, Mr. Bush?
Kerry is for cooperation with international entities and other countries. Remember, we did not win WWII without help from numerous states. Despite personal feelings we cannot spit at the French and tell the Germans to shut the fuck up and eat that kraut. A world is a big pile of shit and all of us are in it equally.
I support women's right to choose.
During the debates Mr. Bush did not have enough guts to admit three things that he screwed. Let me help him out: "No Child Left Behind," Iraq, tax cuts for the rich.
If you think that Kerry is a "flip-flopper," think how many times YOU changed your mind and why you did it; did it make you a bad person? Although this may not be a populate saying in the United States -- it's French -- but "only idiots do not change their minds." Would you rather vote for a person who can adjust his/her decisions based on feedback (just like the spiral model of software engineering) or you would you prefer a blind follower of some sort of ideology?
Kerry is intelligent, Bush is not. Do me a favor, compare Kerry and Bush rallies, speeches, etc. You will see a difference. Our current president speaks like a fucking second grader with "internets," "budget men" and "group of folks."
48 Nobel prize winners support Kerry.
Kerry promises pro-environmental policies.
This is a strech, but compare the economies and educational systems of "blue" vs. "red" states. It will give you a rough idea who is voting for Mr. Bush. Also, take a look at rallies and the supporters of both candidates. I have nothing against Republicans because I tend to vote for the principals, not the party. However, it is not the case during these elections...
Well, I believe this is enough for starters. Ideally, I would like to see a president who is conservative when it comes to spending and liberal with social policies. However, this is never going to happen. There is too much bigotry in this world.
Always believe your politicians. If Bush says Kerry is a scuzbag.
Believe him.
If Kerry says Bush is a dirt ball.
Believe him.
But who should you vote for? Ah, but don't you see the smoke and mirrors. Debate and Counterpoint. Left or Right, dust or ashes. Flashes and Bangs. Why is it all there? Why is it _so_ noisy and fussy?
It is all sleight of hand. It is all there to stop you from actually GETTING OFF YOUR FAT BUTT AND DOING SOMETHING MEANINGFUL!
For this whole election cycle we've been subjected to endless punditry to the effect that the US is split almost 50/50 between two diametrically opposed viewpoints. The classic Liberal/Left and the Conservative/Right.
But is it really so? I think not.
A more useful analogy is what I have dubbed the "4-Corner" model. Basically it boils down to spliting the social and fiscal elements into separate axis so you have:
Social Liberal Social Conservative
Fiscal Liberal Fiscal Liberal
Social Liberal Social Conservative
Fiscal Conservative Fiscal Conservative
From all the political discussion, one would think that everyone falls either into the upper left or lower right corners with a mass in the middle called "Moderates".
This is not so.
Most of the so called "Moderates" are strongly in either the lower left or upper right corners. Most Slashdotters would likely be in the lower left corner. There are very few people who are "in the middle".
The problem is that there are no political parties that represent two of the corners, so those individuals must choose "the lesser of two evils" in seemingly every political contest. The great irony here are the Democrat and Republican who are currently at each others throats when they in fact may have almost identical politics, but one leaned slightly to fiscal issues this time and the other leaned slightly to the social. They see each other under the bipolar system as being opposed when they are probably each further away from other members of their own party than each other!
Why should things stay this way? If a party emerged to take the lower left corner, it would likely spark the emergence of a party representing the upper right corner. I fear there would be a greater number of people in the upper right making all policy go against my own personal choice (lower left). Therefore my best strategy is to play the two current bipolar parties against each other, getting whichever party is in power to concentrate on advancing the half of their agenda with which I agree, and to make their inevitable compromises on the other half.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... "
Put the koolaid down, put your hands in the air and back away slowly....
If you live in Idaho, why should "the strength" of your vote be cast in a state you don't live in (Ohio/Florida/Pennsylvania)? Regardless of the current "legality", vote trading is clearly wrong and manipulates elections in ways they were never meant to be manipluated, and it could threaten the spirit of the Electoral College process if this gains any mainstream traction and attention. IMO, it amounts to nothing more than "vote selling" that needs to be addressed by the legislatures as soon as possible.
You are obviously not a dedicated
neo-con Bush supporter. You don't
really expect all those illegal
aliens voting to pick up the slack
for you, do you?
Slacker!
I already voted, via absentee ballot.
I took John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge
and George Tenet and George W. Bush
at their word when they said "It isn't
a matter of IF terrorists will strike
in the USA again, it's only a matter
of WHEN." Isn't that supposed to be
the "October surprise" that W. promised
us? Isn't that why the FEC floated a
trial balloon in the press about postponing
the November elections? You mean to tell
me that that WASN'T a covert campaign
promise to the neo-con GOP grassroots?
Oh my God! W has fooled me again!
learn.
I believe the third parties are useless. You can get a lot of your issues done if you choose the right party and form a coalition within that party. (There is a time and a place for a third party - this election is not one of them. Take a look at how the republican party got started if you want a good example.)
I agree with a lot of the libertarian platform. Yet I am a republican. What am I doing actively working in the republican party trying to get Bush elected when I know that Badnarik would better represent me?
Quite simply, I am working with others who feel like I do. We've already caused a divide among our party in my local town. Next year, we may have the power needed to put our choices for local politics on the ballot. If they win, we will hold the power in our district. Our party platform in our area will have so many similarities to the libertarian one that perhaps we can convince the 500 libertarians to team up with us. The republicans agree with a lot of what the libertarians agree with. We are getting - for free - a couple thousand votes from people who are "blind" republicans. That's something a third party could never get.
Eventually, I hope to cause a shift in the republican party like the shift that Jerry Falwell and others have instituted. I think it is far more possible if I work from within than without. When we get our people in the state house and senate, we can get our ideas out. Eventually, one of our guys will get the governorship and become the de facto party boss.
So if you want to get your issues out, choose the party closest to yours and start working for them. Over time, you will gain the power you need to tell them what they are going to stand for. And you'll have far more power than Badnarik does now.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
...Contrary to your request that people only vote if they feel they are doing the right thing, I am actually 90% sure I'm going to go out and vote for the first time in my 30 years tomorrow....When I vote tomorrow, I will vote independent
Think of it this way. Think of how many people are like you, that haven't voted in thirty years (or perhaps ever).
Now imagine what would happen if everyone that was like you did get up, did go vote, and voted independant. If that happened the third party candidate mgiht get almost as many votes as the major candidates! Only about half the country votes as it is, so as you can see a huge swelling of support for a good third party candidate could happen.
So go vote, and don't feel bad about it. Feel like you are at the base of a movement slow to rise. It can't happen unless one by one, people like you get up and go vote for the candidate they really like the best.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It is what you make it, I guess.
I think that if you are just voting for any old random party, that is not the best way to move the cause of a real third party forward - the Libertarians seem to me to have the best (if remote) chance of getting a candidate elected in my lifetime.
Even for local offices if you get more libertarians worked up through the system, then you will see larger libertarian victories later.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I suppose I will have to be more specific for my 'big 5'.
1) Politics: in the sense of social programs, citizens rights, freedom of speech.
2) Religion: in the sense of "My god is right and your going to hell you loony Hindu Twit"
3) Abortion: "Its murder" vs "A fetus is not alive, and its a choice". A Muslim and a Christion will probably agree on this, and disagree on other aspects.
4) Capital Punishment: Some christians support it, others dont, so its not specifically religion, though opinions tend to derive from ones faith.
5) Same Sex Relationships: As with capitol punishments, this tends to break down along lines of religious fundamentalists, but I am sure there are christians out there who are also homosexual.
Anyway, opinions on the last 3 often derive from ones personal beleifs, but because there is room for disagreements among those who share the same basic faith or political affiliation, I separate them.
END COMMUNICATION
I think OBL probably sees this as a win/win for him. He probably does hope that another Bush term would lead to continued overreach in foreign affairs that may help him in the long run. On the other hand he probably would spin a Bush defeat as a "victory". He probably also sees a Kerry victory as leading to a premature retreat from Iraq that leaves it a failed state which at worst (for him) is a breeding ground for Islamist radicals and at best may become another "Islamic Republic"
Personally i think Kerry is the better bet for OSL. Despite the insurgency in Iraq I think it is still too early to consider the Neocon strategy of liberalization & democratization a failure. I don't think it was a wise strategy (far too ambitious) but now that we have started down that road I think the worst possible move is to abandon it. Our best hope is to see it through and do everything we can to make it a success. I think Bush will try to do this with at least some small chance of success... I think Kerry will "declare victory" and pull out as quickly as he can leaving the place pretty much as it is now: a mess.
The thing I think is good about the "Just Vote" message is that it will get so many people voting on very local issues and bills. I think for this election the noise distribution will look like an inverse bell curve, with people knowing the most about the presidential candidates and also local bills (which you hear a lot about on the news or at least can understand when you are sitting there in the poll). For the intermediate candidates like senitors and such there will be much more noise.
But at least it gets people used to voting, and hopefully after this election they'll feel like they should have been more prepared as they were checking off things so next time they might read that voters information book a little more closely before they go.
I think it's important to get people just voting, even if it is noise now, because it will be clearer later and helps put the "Representitive" back into our Democracy.
If nothing else it would REALLY help things in local communities to have everyone voting.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And considering the number of people that are voting for Bush, it doesn't turn the stomach of moderate republicans/non-affiliateds, either.
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
Without the dampening effect of a reelection campaign, i'd expect his second four years to be even worse than the first. (I can only imagine how bad it will get after he declares martial law and appoints himself President for Life. Kidding. Sort of. I hope.)
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
If anyone here reads the webcomic S.S.D.D., you'll already recognize the rant. If you haven't, go check it out: http://www.poisonedminds.com/d/20041025.html
It sums it all up perfectly.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
and John Edwards took cases that showed EGREGIOUS fault on the defendants, e.g. knowingly installing bad screws, etc. that caused injuries to CHILDREN.
He is not an ambulance chaser or slips and falls guy. Do some G-damn research before posting.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Thank you,
This is right on, If I am in Europe, I hear old men in a cafe debating and yelling at each other about politics, who's in office, who should be etc.
In the states, all that I hear about is what happened on Survivor, and what happened on Friends last night.
The new jobs created each month barely keep up with the expanding size of the population. Bush has a 1.6 million net job loss during his presidency. The first president with that dubious honor since Herbert Hoover.
.Com meltdown? I think if Gore had taken office people would be lobbing the same complaint against him, equally unfairly.
So can you honestly say, with full conviction, that any other president would have been able to halt the
When you use arguments like these it just weakens your whole case.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What say you /.? Do those that truely have no idea or opinion really need to get out and vote?
... as long as they vote for My Guy(tm).
Sure
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I picked P&F as the third-party choice back when Peace and Freedom was pretty much the only third party, and just never found a good reason to change it. I almost registered Green last time around, but decided against it... I mean, their candidate for president has been Leonard Peltier for several elections!! Nader doesn't trump that.
If I'm going to back a wacky third party with no chance in hell, their candidate might as well be serving life as a political prisoner, I figure...
But I am voting Kerry this year, even with my state locked down for the Demos. I hate G.W. that much.
Voting for a political prisoner serving a life sentance in the U.S. does have it's charms. I mean, if you want to signal that there's a problem with the system...
And no, I've already voted for Kerry.
Freedom is as an effective virus as AIDS, and Influenza. It is something that cannot be stopped once it is out in the wild, and it has infected the Middle East, and it is only time when every nation on Earth will be able to say we are Free, the way God (what ever you may call god) has made us.
The Athenians might disagree with you on that point. As would those of the Roman republic. Freedom is something that must be actively defended, because there are always people who are trying to destroy it. Furthurmore, most people are willing to trade their freedom for food in times of need.
I hope you are right that freedom and peace will be spread throughout the world, but as long as men are greedy and nations selfish it's a far off dream.
Qxe4
That was a Bush Administration decision; hard to claim that Kerry is better for Osama there.
Kerry has already said he wants to pull US troops out of Iraq based on a timeline rather than milestones.
The longer US troops stay in Iraq, the better for bin Laden. We're talking thousands of new al Qaeda (and affiliate) recruits for every additional month we stay there. The invasion of Iraq itself was a gift to bin Laden, wasting US lives, resources, and energy focused on the wrong enemy (who was in fact an enemy of al Qaeda!) Apart from the new recruits the Iraq war has brought, it has also taken out one of bin Laden's biggest enemies in the middle east (Saddam) and has created a power vacuum and instability in Iraq, where al Qaeda can now roam free (which never happened under Saddam). Not to mention the tons of unguarded munitions that have been made available to terrorists. Again, your argument suggests that bin Laden would much prefer four more years of Bush.
Bush has made it clear that the mission in Iraq is not just to oust a repressive dictatorship but to act as a lever for taking control of other countries from royal families or clerics and giving it to the people's directly elected representatives.
Actually that is Osama's declared goal, at least with respect to Saudi Arabia. And you're crazy if you think either Bush or Kerry would ever permit it to happen (assuming they get any say in it at all). Bush's friends run Saudi Arabia and the other Arab emirates. The last thing Bush wants is them replaced with truly representative governments, and I think Kerry is on the same boat here.
Kerry does not want the US to lead the world; he wants some "global test" on policies
Are you saying that bin Laden supports the UN? Again, that's just idiotic. Kerry wants a US policy that doesn't make us the laughing stock of the rest of the world. One that recognizes the need to lead with credibility, not just force. Bush opposes that. I think bin Laden would prefer the leader who constantly embarrasses the US and runs our international legitimacy into the ground.
Finally, a Kerry victory will -- as has been covered by quite a few Western and Middle Eastern bloggers -- be seen as a retreat by the US, and a victory for forces of terror.
Seen by whom? In what way? If Kerry is elected and focuses our energy on getting bin Laden and destroying al Qaeda, that will not be seen as a victory for terrorism.
All in all, I think it is clear that Osama bin Laden has more to gain from a Kerry victory than a Bush victory. If you listen to other translations of his recent tapes, there is a fairly strong suggestion that states that vote Kerry will be spared from bin Laden's wrath.
You're obviously talking about the MEMRI translation, which mentions this sentence. The majority of MEMRI's analysis is not from the bin Laden tape but from an anonymous Islamist website. (Arabic speaker) As'ad Abu Khalil had the following to say about the MEMRI selection:
Finally, if you want to give credence to what terrorist leaders say, look back to earlier this year when the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades (an al Qaeda affiliate organization) officially endorsed
Economy started crashing six months before "Dubya" ever got in office. He gave Bush an economy in shambles
Bush delt with 9-11, and no president could have stopped the subsequent economic drop
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton, not Bush. Bush pioneered Homeland security, don't think it would have been pioneered any better by Kerry
The 100,000 Iraqi Civilian death number is wildly inaccurate
Let's all remember, Kerry is for: No Child Left Behind, The Patriot Act, Faith Based Initatives, and DMCA
Kerry's proposed policy on security would not qualify Germany for invasion during WWII, because they did not attack us
Liberals have been historically hiding their faces against threats, their ignorance creates their bliss, how blissfull were the victims of 9-11 after that ignorance
We are the global police, anyone remeber the Blukin Powder Keg, let's prevent another eh ? Remeber, we need markets to sell our products ;)
Social Security has created a generation of Americans that are in a rut, and don't know how to get out. Handouts do not work.
Raising the minimum wage to 7.00 is bad. Have we forgotten about the effects of a higher minimum wage on inflation ? Costs would go through the roof
Those are just a few thougts. Liberalsim, and consequently Kerry, just does not work ! Deaths in war are very sad, and we are the United States, we should do better. However, we can not stick our faces in the sand. We WILL have another 9-11 if we allow places to exist that breed terrorism. Also, if everyone has forgot, we support Israel because they are the only Democracy. We have a policy of supporting Deomcracy, remember ? Also, that great missle shield everyone finds unneeded ? One word, PUTIN ! He is a leftist communist hardliner who will lead Russia back to it's old ways. We must be prepared ! Remember, we have to be right 100% of the time, the enemy only once ! Also, not to say I am old by any means (I am actually very young), but Liberals who feel we should help everyone seem to weed themselves out with age. The ideals are great, but they don't work. We do not live in a society that will work without incentive. We do not live in a society that will not take advantage of handouts. We are in a society where capitalsim, therfore conservatism thrive. Liberalism is inherently incompatible and creates Buracrats that purpetuate a slowdown in Capitalism
Frankly I don't completely agree with any of the candidates on all their positions.. so that leaves me with either a write in, not voting, or voting for one of the 4 "Evils" on my ballot.
In order to vote for one of the "evils" on the ballot, I'm still stuck trying to figure out which is the "Lesser of the 4 Evils".
I sometimes vote for third-party candidates, but that's because I generally don't think there's much of a difference between the two parties in how they actually act. But I don't really think that's the case with these two candidates.
I will vote for Bush because Kerry is stupid for authorizing "use of force" to somebody like Bush.....oh, wait
Table-ized A.I.
You may not directly affect the national outcome, but you will cause your vote to have direct and immediate effect.
The U.S. government took seven years to catch Eric Rudolph, the Atlanta Olympic Park bomber and anti-abortion bomber.
The link below adds more details. The headline is a bit deceptive in that it referrs to his being wanted five years for the abortion clinic bombings.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/31/rudolph.arrest/
This was a guy living in North Carolina. (The only reason they did find him is some cop found him dumpster diving in back of some supermarket. It was pure luck)
The U.S. is currently looking for Bin Laden in Afghanistan, a country the size of Texas, which has a large population of people sympathetic to Bin Laden's cause.
It took the U.S. seven years to find Eric Rudolph. I believe it may take just as long to find Bin Laden. It doesn't matter which guy wins this election. Finding, capturing and or killing him is going to take a lot of time and a lot of luck.
That said, I wish there were two other options in this race.
- dj
Until 3 years ago, I was a lifelong resident of Massachusetts. Kerry was my senator for 16 years. I cannot remember a single thing he did for the residents of Massachusetts. In fact, my memories of Kerry are exclusively linked to one or another of his political campaigns.
I cannot tell you what Kerry stands for or what he is against. I cannot tell you if he has any sincerely-held beliefs at all. I do believe he feels very strongly about being elected and reelected to political positions.
I voted for Bush in the last election. Now I have the misfortune of living in swing-state Ohio where I am inundated with political ads. It is SO BAD that I could not even have a family party this past weekend without having it interrupted by someone out politicking door-to-door. I could not believe my ears when I took a recent business trip to New York City and heard a commercial by the Ohio Democratic Party soliciting contributions so it could run more ads in Ohio, specifically Cleveland! That is simply outrageous.
I hate a lot of things that have happened in this country since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. Although I hate the attacks themselves, it annoys me that anyone who sufered or died in that attack is proclaimed as a "hero." The people who were killed were VICTIMS of MURDERERS. Heros (like the firefighters and police that day) are people who make a choice to act. Most of the victims never had an opportunity to choose. If the mis-labeling were the extent of things, I would be silent now. However, many have changed the label from victim to hero and then used the memory of "heroes" for their own ends. THAT IRKS THE HELL OUT OF ME.
What are those ends? Mostly monetary gain. Also, there is a fair share of power-brokering. How many pieces of legislation (especially pork-barrel appropriations bills) now are promoted as necessary for national security? In the meantime, federal spending is up, costs are up, unemployment is up, freedoms are down.
When Bush signs legislation that erodes fundamental Constitutional Rights like the PATRIOT Act, I get irked as well. Irked to the point of even calling my Congressional Representatives and letting my opinions be known. Sometimes I even wish there was someone else running things who would stop this erosion. Unfortunately, the John Kerry I am used to is not that person.
I think Kerry would make things even worse by increasing federal spending more and raising taxes. Any amount of dislike I have for an incumbent is usually not enough for me to vote for an opponent. Kerry simply has never shown me any reason to be FOR him. At least I know what Bush is likely to do and when it comes to those things I care about, I feel like there is a better alternative in expressing my sentiments about those issues rather than replacing Bush with someone I consider to be a wild card.
Kerry had almost 20 years to show me something. I doubt I would find that something if he had 4 more years in Washington.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
I, quite honestly, believe that there is a real conspiracy between the Big 2 to make sure that there are only 2 "real" parties. I see them like Coke and Pepsi. Sure, they "compete" with each other, but in reality, both are in such massive positions of power, and a monopoly in either case (sodas or politics) is impossible, so the best possible position is to be completely entrenched with one rival that, like you, won't make any crazy sudden moves and will ensure that you have roughly half of the market (or voting populace). There's no substantial difference between the parties at all. It makes total and complete sense that would do anything and everything to prevent REAL change.
It's the polls that keep the 2 parties in power. It's the polls that the media spits out every 30 seconds that, if anything, tell voters with EACH AND EVERY POLL that voting 3rd party is a wasted vote. The only way to get the rich, old white men out of office and their perpetual seat of power is to make polls illegal. Period. Outlaw them. They completely and totally obstruct the voting ideal. Let people vote for who they think is the best candidate. That's what democracy is all about, not trying to avoid "throwing away" one's vote on a 3rd party. Unfortunately, short of a revolution, I honestly don't think that anything will ever change.
I vote Libertarian.
I don't respond to AC's.
Who are you backing in the Melbourne Cup?
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
(This is a intended as a serious question by an uninformed but curious European (me))
I spoke with an American friend of a friend a little while ago and we talked about the upcoming election amongst other things. I brought up the usually low participation numbers in American elections and he have me a suprising (for me at least) answer.
He beleived that first of all, a lot of those that stay home are educated, well of people. And secondly that a large reson for them to stay home is to avoid registration which in turn avoids the risk of being drafted to jury duty.
So my question to you is, do you beleive that registration and jury duty is a factor that makes people stay home on Election day? And if so, should not that system be reformed so more people voted?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240 Don't Vote It makes more sense to play the lottery. By Steven E. Landsburg We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in 2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start mattering now. Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in American history, your vote did not change the outcome. Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.) What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided--meaning that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of voting for either Bush or Kerry--the statistical equivalent of a coin toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up heads. That's about 1 in 3,100--roughly the same as the probability you'll be murdered by your mother. And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power--approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row. For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote. The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes--and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Lots of chips at the election, with electronic voting, so who's bringing the dips? Oh, that's right, the major binary party structure.
The difference between
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240
... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions.
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in 2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start mattering now.
Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in American history, your vote did not change the outcome.
Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.) What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided--meaning that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of voting for either Bush or Kerry--the statistical equivalent of a coin toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up heads. That's about 1 in 3,100--roughly the same as the probability you'll be murdered by your mother.
And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power--approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row.
For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought like that
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes--and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
PS. Log in you cowardly fuck.
XML causes global warming.
...my own guess is he's more worried about al Zarqawi's inroads among Iraqis and Jordanians and wants to nip that rival in the bud, if possible.
All's true that is mistrusted
I'm not sure where you friend lives but in most states in the Union you are registered for jury duty when you obtain a driver's license.
--- I do not moderate.
Nightmare scenario:
If the election goes into a 2000-style knock down courtroom fight later this month, and it winds up in the Supreme Court, at the moment it is a 4-4 tie with Renquist out of the picture.
I've read that a tied vote cannot overturn a lower court's ruling. Soooo they would be out of the picture.
UNLESS:
Renquist announces his retirement immediately. Bush then chooses the new justice of the Supreme Court, since he is still President.
Bush gets to CHOOSE THE MAN WHO CASTS THE DECIDING VOTE!
Funny... people don't like the truth, so they call it "Trolling".
/. reader mentality.
Now when people said 2 years ago "Mozilla is bloated", they need to make a slim browser... that was trolling.
Now 2 years later, Firefox is god, slim, fast, and extendable.
Just shows the
"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,... "
Bush: Lets invade Iraq because he is part of Al Qaeda.
CIA: Well actually that's not true, they don't like him he doesn't like them.
Bush: Let's invade Iraq because they are making Nuclear WMDs, just look at this memo to buy Uranium.
UN: That memo is sooo fake. Look it's signed in crayon.
Bush: OK, well lets invade Iraq because he kicked out the inspectors so he must have something to hide.
UN: He kicks them out every few years, we give you PERMISSION to threaten him, you drop a few bombs, he lets them back in, we've done this before.
Bush: Thank you for the PERMISSION to invade, now whose with me? Anyone? Tony? Pretty please Tony? Remember special relationship?
Tony Blair: Oh, alright, but only because we feel bad about 9/11.
So $120 Billion so far, going on 225 billion, no WMDs found, all to topple Sadam Hussein, a man in his late 60's who would have died soon enough anyway.
Bush failed to catch Osama Bin laden, failed to run the economy, failed to create jobs, failed to plan for the future pensions crunch, has considerably increased terrorism worldwide and reduced his own peoples freedom in the process.
What are the chances of 2 Texas oilmen (financially supported by many more oilmen) giving us a coherent national energy policy which frees us from dependency on oil and the Middle East?
I'll ask you a question first: What are the chances of two doctors financially supported by doctors and their doctoring of creating a plan to lower health care costs while increasing the level of health care for everyone in the country?
See, you can't treat the oil companies like they are the enemy any more than doctors, farmers, or any other profession is your enemy. Oil companies do two things: (1) find oil for cheap (2) deliver it to the US for cheap. The ones who can find more oil cheaply and get it into the marketplace for cheap make more money.
They know why oil prices are going up. (Hint: If there is a scarce resource, and the supply goes down, all things being equal, the price will go up.)
They know how to fix the oil problem. (Hint: If there is a scarce resource, and the supply goes up, all things being equal, the price will drop.)
They worked hard to get the problem fixed. Unfortunately, the American people value a few acres of uninhabited tundra than the fuel in their cars.
Now there is another crisis. The supply of oil in the middle east can potentially (if not already) fall into the hands of our enemies. They can squeeze the supply of oil to our country shutting off all industry and sending us into economic ruin that is unprecedented in our country. Without oil, there won't be the plastic bags at the checkout stand. Without oil, people won't have warm apartments in the middle of New York winter. Without oil, our economy will crumble.
So they send in troops to introduce a new concept to the Middle East: stability and democracy. Well, it's not new, it's just that the current example (Israel) is a pariah.
If we didn't have the insight into the oil industry that these people had, we would have far more severe problems than we do now. Right now, the middle east is producing record levels of oil. They have opened the spiggot all the way and there still isn't quite enough. With someone else in power who won't put an emphasis on oil supply, we would be in serious trouble.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Go fuck yourself, elitist prick.
Wow. You really brought the level of discourse to new heights! [/sarcasm]
O to be a metamoderator, now the Election's near. I don't think maximilln's being elitist. I happen to agree with a number of the things he said, and disagree with others. But that's me, and I guess rational discussion is something not everyone can handle.
I just wish I knew who modded the venerable poot_rootbeer "insightful." I wager they're probably the same people who see nothing wrong with the current political systems (federal, state, and local) as long as they, personally, have a job and their own personal levels of comfort are met - i.e. they can buy GTA San Andreas without signing a release, or they don't get caught downloading pr0n and fined, or they aren't required to pay $400 for a lousy OS that's a POS - or a hunded other things. As long as they're happy, to hell with the rest of the world!
But take a step or two over those boundaries, and look at how quickly half of the sound-bite digestin', fast-quippin' hardcocks on Slashdot (Nightline / Meet The Press / Drudge Report / Air America / the floor of Congress) turn into gung-ho red blooded patriots! It's an amazing transformation, and it lasts just as long as it takes for those silly little needs to be met.
Just as soon as they're happy again, the poot_rootbeers of the world heave back down onto their collective asses and crack wise at the just and the unjust alike. As long as they get their way, who gives a damn? This's a free country, right?
Hey, mods - I don't blame you. You can't help being sheep. You can't help being unable to think for yourself. It's human nature to only be able to respond to those brighter than yourself by flinging excrement from a distance. I'm just making an observation here. Take it for what it's worth!
I started to avoid this whole discussion because I knew I'd have to wade through mountains of excrement to find one or two pearls of wisdom - but I'm glad I did. These two posts gave me the perfect example to use to bring my one and only salient point to this thousand-plus member flame orgy, AND to the sick tidal wave of soundbites and non-messages coming in via phone, TV, and the 'Net since last year. I'm nothing if not happy to make an observation on the nature of humanity! As for my karma: [Ron White] "Take 'er down, I don' give a shit." [/Ron White]
Go to Micheal Moore .com and see why people who can read and write don't think Bush is qualified to lead a dog on a leash.
Come on people. Both sides have propaganda - we all know the "swift boats" crap is as one sided as "F9/11".
And what, exactly, made Jimmy Carter such a terrible president?
Why bother with something so boring and of such low impact. Go with the high impacting rifle ammunition and make politics a game of high stakes. It is a good American tradition to shoot unfavorable political leaders, why shouldn't you be doing that in your own country?
I really hope there is a freightship underway right now with a cargo of shortrange nuclear missles to pop off when babyBush steals the elections again. I really hope too, that they will turn around the day after tommorrow...
Please get rid of your current president, any way is good enough for me.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Everyone should vote for Bush because he respects the seperation of church and state?
There is a question as to whether or not wages
fall under the LEGAL definition of income.
There is also a question whether or not the 16th amd give the power for DIRECT taxation.
I am not saying I agree but I have read some of the arguments. They are fairly interesting.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Interesting thing I read, course I'd have to look it up about it all being true...
... as I went the other day ... to a veteran's hospital and look those men -- with their mangled bodies -- in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee ... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and
Things that make you think a little........
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
That's just one American City, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following.
FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Kerry supporters are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
Wait, there's more.......................
JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn:
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn:
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by antiaircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line.
It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.
I ask you to go with me
One issue that nobody seems to have brought up yet and that could turn out to become very, very important is that William Rehnquist is currently unable to work. He was recently diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and underwent a tracheotomy. If we require a supreme court decision before he can come back, the court may very well be split 4-4 along party lines.
There is no way to resolve a tie within the supreme court. So, if this election comes down to a Supreme Court decision, we could be waiting for a long time to get that decision.
Any comments?
Love the Third Amendment?
I believe very firmly that this election is already decided. It was rigged months ago.
In 1988, I (would have) voted for Michael Dukakis. Instead, of course, George Bush Sr. won that election. But we were all pretty much willing to get on with life and live with Bush as our president, agree or not, because we believed in the fundamental fairness of the election that put Bush in power.
In 2000, a significant portion of the electorate though that the election was "stolen." It has resulted in four years of bitter political division, the likes of which haven't been seen since Vietnam.
I could accept the winner this year -- Bush or Kerry -- if I thought that the electoral process that selects the winner exhibits fundamental principles of fairness. Even if my candidate loses, it wouldn't be nearly so big a deal for me as some, if I thought that, within the framework of the fucked-up rules we have for this in the States, the winner had won fairly.
I don't think that will be the case. I believe I know who the winner will be; I believe it was decided months ago; I believe that we will see massive complaints of voter (read minority) indimidation and fraud; I believe that the courts will be used to enforce this rigging; and I believe that the next election won't be any better, no matter who inherits the Bush political machine.
I'm also reasonably confident that the next president will be Dennis Hastert, because both the Republicans and Democrats will keep the process so tied up in litigation that January 20 will come and go without a clear victor declared; Bush's and Cheney's terms will expire, and with no qualified person to take over, we'll be left with the constitutional stand-in -- the Speaker of the House. (In the unlikely event the House flips to the Democrats, the next president will be Nancy Pelosi, but the chances of that are something akin to George Bush saying going to Iraq was a mistake.)
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
and that's also why I'm also going to do what I can to help change in the electoral system, hopefully to get us a system where two parties are not mathematically precluded. Instant runoff, I think they call it. And thanks for the links.
it only encourages them
unlike lower court judges, Bush cannot arbitrarily appoint a supreme court judge in temporary stead of congressional approval. So...next conspiracy theory.
There would still be ethical delimnas, though.
And, that is the problem. I have decided in a sense to punt on abortion.
1) The government should not make abortion illegal.
2) I think most reasonable people agree abortions are a bad thing. So, reducing abortions is a good thing. But, it is not the governments job to change it by making abortion illegal.
3) Therefore, I support cheap, reliable birth control!! If there is no unwanted baby in the first place there is no abortion. That would only leave rape and save the mother abortions.
As a mathematician, I find the logic of Landsburg to be totally flawed. First of all in a lottery there is only one winner. In an election, approximately half the population gets their choice for president. So in fact you have a 50% chance, more or less, of winning. Just because your vote didn't determine the winner, doesn't mean your vote didn't count.
In baseball, statistics are kept on the "winning run", meaning the run which put the winning team ahead to stay. Likewise, the losing pitcher is the pitcher who gave up the winning run. In fact it's nonsense. The winning run had no more effect on the score than the first run scored, and the first run allowed by a pitcher is just as much a part of the loss as the last one.
Its just as silly to try to pick out single vote that "counts" and then claim that all the others don't count. All the votes count equally and anyone who voted for the winner is as entitled as any other to claim their vote as the "winning vote"
On another level the piece is equally flawed. I live in a town of about 20,000 population. According to this piece, about 7 people in our town will be killed by their mothers. We've had only 2 murders in the last 25 or so years none of them by a mother. So unless we are highly unusual that's a overstated statistic.
Now, I live in Kansas and unless hell freezes over Bush will win our 6 electoral votes tomorrow. So my vote won't count, but thats because the electoral votes are winner take all, not because of any probalistic comparison to lotteries. Over 50% of the votes cast tomorrow in Kansas will count.
He lives in California. Thanks for your reply, having it tied to the drivers licence makes much more sense. It is not something you easily opt out from.
Furthermore, the actual troops in Iraq support Bush's plan to Kerry's, by a fairly large margin.
Well of course. It is job security for them (assuming they live, which they have about a 95% chance of based on current trends.)
Most people who sign up for the military more or less like war and wish to move up in rank. Being a good soldier in actual battle is the best way to do this.
Another point I forgot to give is that Bush could have waited longer for the weapons inspectors to look around. If they could not find anything after a few years of poking around, then we have less to worry about. If the UN cannot find them and the CIA cannot find them, then obviously we don't have enough evidence against Saddam. It is only fair to not shoot somebody unless you have more than suspicions. If Saddam later flakes, then start blowing up his expensive palaces one by one. Blowing up his prize palaces may have had a better affect than blowing up radar stations, which is what they mostly did in the past. There were many "in-between" approaches that were NOT explored. We need cunning, not Rambo, except as a last resort. W did not try many of these options first. He went from point G to point Z in one day.
As far as Kerry being weak on Saddam, that is only speculation on your part. I believe we would have been better off with him managing Iraq WMD issues. Saddam was not an immediate, clear threat to the US. If by chance Kerry left him alone, then so what? There are plenty of other bubbling dictators to worry about. We couldn't get them all even if we wanted to.
(Sorry, I forgot to respond to these points in an earlier, parallel reply, and so made another one.)
Table-ized A.I.
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!
While science has failed to produce an AIDS vaccine, there is no reason to say it won't.
The difference between your statement and the comment that you were responding too requires the reader to believe that the Bush administration did not achieve the results they were seeking. The scientists searching for an AIDS vaccine have not achieved their goal, and they'll continue searching until they do so (or until their funding runs out). However, much of the policy enacted over the past 4 years (with a Republican controlled House, Senate, and Executive branch) that people are upset about appears to benefit big business rather than aiding the public. This, and Bush's inability to identify a single mistake that he's made in the past 4 years, leads a lot of people to conclude that the past policies will not be retooled in the up coming years, but extended or expanded.
If you're an American, and you haven't seen this website, I strongly encourage you check it out.
... And since I want to see less of it in policymaking, I'm voting against the Bush administration. Egads. See, I'm feeling forced to vote for an issue I don't think is truly important. This is why voting blows.
Project for the New American Century
Look at the "Statement of Principles", and then look at the names at the bottom of the page. This site has several major members of the Bush administration.
My opinion:
What bugs me about PNAC is the focus on "moral clarity". This group is out to divide the world into "team players" and "enemies". While it can be effective at rallying support against a presence, it does nothing for our world image.
"Moral clarity" is culturally defined. This administration is very clearly out to change the world based on it's own world view. It is an extremely dangerous and agressive stance to take, and can create as many enemies as it neutralizes them.
It's this kind of language which indicates the definition of our two party system along religious lines. Morality and religion are such polarizing issues. They push people into voting for someone based on issues that will effect public policy indirectly, at best.
Anyhow, back to PNAC, and it's effects. If the Bush administration frees up significant resources and stablizes Iraq, mark my words, the millitary effort is far from over. This is going to cost the world dearly over the long term.
...and I say this as an ardent jingoistic American chauvanist. We have Bin Ladin nailed down to an area the size of Tennessee, so its not all that hard, but Osama is effectively neutered as Al Qaeda leadership. What will eventually happen is that his own people will sell him out as new leadership takes over, and Bin Laden is deemed a liability to Al Qaedas global operation.
It seems so many American's are sick and tired of the 2 party system. I am one of them. I voted Nader in 2000 simply as a rejection of the false dem/gop dichotomy. And the unlikely and unfortunate happened: Bush won the electoral votes, but not the popular votes. American democracy failed. And what did we do about it? We egged Bush's limo during the inauguration (Boondocks nails this one).
Would the response be any different if it happened again? I think people are more ready for it, prepared to act, and certainly dissatisfied with the results of letting it slip out of control last time.
So here is the plan to push america to the point of dissatisfaction (insert Fight Club quote here): If you live in a state that will go to Kerry (the current/likely electoral winner) by a significant margin, vote Bush. That will help his popular rating, without hurting the electoral breakdown. If you live in a swing state, vote Kerry, so he can be sure to get the electoral win. If you live in a pro-bush state, vote Bush, even if you don't like him.
I'm really hoping new and useful changes will come to the electoral and representative system.
For now, all i know is: Bush Sucks
I don't recall the government spending $20 billion and sending 15,000 troops into North Carolina to find Rudolph though...
:P
So, while I appreciate your attempt at adding some perspective to the above post, it's not even closely analagous to the situation at hand.
Just because it's some guy 'hiding out' that takes the government eons to catch doesn't dismiss the argument that Bush is an inept moron who couldn't catch a blind man handcuffed to a park bench.
But that's just my opinion...
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
. . . I'd like to see Anthony Björne on the ballot, he'd probably make a better President than anyone else up there.
However, he's not, so the next best thing for me is John Kerry.
Now I don't want to turn this particular thread into a flamefest, but yeah, I'm a proud member of KULT Black Milk and I'm supporting Kerry - mainly because he's a human being, willing to admit his mistakes (such as his support for the war in Iraq, which he believes to be a colossal balls-up).
Bush, however, seems to be more along the lines of a machine or an amoeba (but I don't want to insult the amoeba) - stimulus, response, stimulus, response, "I am the President, I am infallible, I can do no wrong" (yeah, right!).
I never liked Bush when he first ran for office in 2000, and I like him even less now - hell, I have more respect for Saddam Hussein than I do for Bush!
Patrolling ftw
By modifying your preferences, however, you can remove all of the politics stories from your front page.
I checked the "No Politcs" box in preferences and I still get this crap on the front page. (And still look at despite my better judgement.)
Fortunatly the "michael" storys are gone though.
and, how long does it take an extremely motivated Republican congress to confirm that appointment?
how is it a conspiracy theory? i do so hate that term.
no "conspiracy" is necessary. Renquist just happened to be knocked out of the game by cancer this week. What Bush would do if it comes down to survival is limitless; the 2000 election showed us a sample.
The possibility that Renquist will step down sometime in the remainder of Bush's term has already been rumored. He may step down to let Bush appoint a conservative justice, firstly, and secondly because he may, sadly, have no choice left in the matter.
Congress will have no problem railroading the appointment process with blinding speed. What's to stop them? Democrats? I don't know the procedures. I'd imagine they'll fight. But not win.
And, yes, de facto Bush gets to choose the man/woman who breaks the 4-4 tie in some sort of epic showdown like the very one that happened last election, the one that ended with his appointment to the office of the President of the United States through the services of four Republican justices (+ one schmuck).
New Georgia Encyclopedia (emphasis mine)
Carter was a better president than he gets credit for in conversation statistics. Not one of the best, for sure. But not terrible by any standards. It is probably his mediocrity that make it so hard to pinpoint many serious good OR bad things about Carter's presidency.....
Many states consider any database of citizens fair game for jury duty selection and other civil responsibilities. Most popular are voter registration and drivers licences (or related state identification).
The ironic thing is the trend to unify these databases.
Not sure if this helps, but it is information...
If you have the opportunity to vote, you should vote.
Whatever each of you American people do, from the heart, will seem insignificant.
But it is extremely important that you do it.
--------
* Sigh *
Last time around, you could get free cigarettes in Milwaukee (at least, for voting for Algore).
Any good deals like that this time?
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Al-Jazerra released the real full transcript now two days later.
Not that I like him, but he made some points. And escpecially you should know the other side. Or are you already living in some kind of unfree Russia/China.
---
You can mod me down, you may not be able to stand the truth, but be sure most probably truth will come on you.
I doubt any of the founding fathers would be at all surprised by today's politics. They were themselves experienced politicians, and 18th-century politics (especially in a frontier country) could get pretty rough.
Then, as now, politicians of all parties would try to be appealing to the voters as possible, even it it meant vague and broken promises.
The founding fathers were surprisingly cynical at times because they knew the nature of man and politics.
Of course, if you have ad-block installed... :P
Yes, yes.. John Kerry has magic fingers and will first get a map of Afghanistan and then close his eyes, get spun around three times and then summarily point to bin Laden's precise location. American troops will certainly capture him within weeks of Kerry's inauguration..
Dumbass.. seriously.
What is your penile percentile?
The Dumbold Voting Machine for The Sims enables the simulated people in your virtual dollhouse to vote! It's an interactive "get out the vote" public service message, in the form of a free downloadable Sims object. This Sims object is an electronic voting machine that lets your Sims vote between four candidates: Kerry, Bush, Nader and Badnarik.
I've included informative text in this Sims object, which it displays in illustrated dialogs to educate players about electronic voting machines.
A major side-show is the "Monkey" item on the pie menu, which activates all kinds of cool easter eggs, and displays lots of in-game information and news about electronic voting machines.
Please give this Dumbold Voting Machine a good pounding on, and tell me if you have any problems (besides the usual problems endemic to electronic voting machines, which I've programmed into this Sims object on purpose).
At first look, it appears to be a fully functional voting machine. But it actually has a lot of fatal bugs and hidden features, just like real electronic voting machines!
The Dumbold Voting Machineweb page describes and illustrates some of the easter eggs, including:
Baxter the Chimpanzee Erases the Voting Log.
Vote or Die!
You punched out the screen!
Osama Bin Laden Scares the Piss Out of You!!!
Accidentally Voting for Pat Buchanan.
News about Black Box Voting.
News about CalTech-MIT/Voting Technology Project.
News about Diebold
News about EFF.
News about Verified Voting.
Dumbold Voting Machine Operating Instructions
Instructions
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
..Soylent Green
..will be sure to appoint a couple of bananas:-
Not funny.
I don't remember where I picked up the phrase (maybe from a political quiz somewhere), but I want abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare."
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
An aside.. why should someone making $500,000 be forced to pay a higher percentage than someone making $50,000? Solely because they have more disposable income? Fuck that.. That income is earned and belongs to them.. not the government. Is it their fault that the family making $50,000 is less successful? No, it's not. Therefore they should not be FORCED into helping out under-achievers.
On top of that, why must someone only making $50,000 always try to live like they have $500,000? That's the problem more than anything. People always feel the need to spend more than they make.. especially the so-called "poor." If you don't make the amount of money necessary to have a new H2, DON'T BUY ONE!
What is needed is a flat-tax system and a responsible government that spends LESS (::gasp::) than it brings in. But that's for another thread.
What is your penile percentile?
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.
I don't agree, but you are the first person I've seen who opposes abortion yet holds a consistent opinion on it.
For my part, I believe that the woman's right to her body outweighs any of the child's rights.
Otherwise, we would be legally demanding women be wombs first and foremost. Women still die (although it is uncommon now) during delivery.
Compromise.
First Bushery (or Kush?) invades one country on false evidence, then flip flops and invades another, ignoring the first.
Table-ized A.I.
Israel != The USofA
Sorry to the be one to break that to you.
To show our solidarity as Americans, let's all get together and show each other our support for the candidate of our choice. It's time that we all came together, Democrats and Republicans alike.
If you support the policies and character of John Kerry, please drive with your headlights 'ON' during the day.
If you support George W. Bush, please drive with your headlights 'OFF' at night.
I must have completely mis-read that report. How silly of me.
Times change, and the stuff that the Education Establishment decides to censor out of the curriculum changes with the times.
There's plenty that the current folks in charge cover up.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
No, I did not read the f***ing article!
Just so those who still don't understand why the bills were introduced: it was to protest the "back-door draft." Also, there are plans in place for a draft.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
They're just hitting the easiest places. We've lost more US citizens to terrorist attacks in the last year than in all of Clinton's 8 years combined (or in Bush I's 4 years, or in Ronnie's 8 years, etc).
Actually, the money portion is getting easier because Afghanistan (remember where Osama was hiding in the first place) has started cranking out poppies like never before. Chunks of the drug money are going straight to terrorists.
I'm voting tomorrow, but unfortunately, I still can't decide between putting my vote with David Cobb and the Green Party, or with Ralph Nader.
Somebody help me.
I am leaning Green, mostly because my vote may help an actually established party get closer to that 5% minimum...
My heavily Democrap district in my heavily Democrat state is already going to Kerry, so it's not like I'm "spoiling" the election for a candidate I don't really like very much at all, anyway...
Hey, stromthurman is correct!
(Post #10690800 below)
It works now. The UI is different and everything.
Thanks stromthurman.
And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them"
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone
And you want to travel with him
And you want to travel blind
And you think maybe you'll trust him
For he's touched your perfect body with his mind.
--Leonard Cohen, Suzanne
I'm with him right up until the 'travel blind' part. NEVER follow. Not following is a key. Walk beside, not behind. --And part ways on a moment's notice, on your own intuition. Every path must be walked alone in the end, and Christ knew this, taught this, but who listened?
Bush and half of America call themselves Christian. Anybody who calls themselves, 'Christian' is a follower, and followers are both mindless and dangerous, as we have seen time and again.
The Good Guys haven't lost. The war is fought through each one of us, and it is never over. Tomorrow will be what it will be. How you interact with it, what choices you make, -and I'm not talking about the vote- is what will determine your reality, whether you climb higher or sink lower. What you choose to see and do and think and believe.
Good luck.
-FL
The sheer volume of European holiday travelers is now pushing the Euro as second national currency in all popular tourist destinations, pushing US$ to third rank.
Mixing this reality with the US foreign politics as seen from abroad, it's no wonder that some countries switch away from US currency: Cuba switches to Euro on 8 Nov 2004.
A European born and living in the Netherlands.
to early vote for Badnarik. (Houston, TX)
-metric
This isn't about whether she chose to get pregnant. This is about the child. If it is about her choice, then rape would be a factor, and the life of the child would not be one.
IMHO, i'm glad that slashdot has started offering this section. I've been able to introduce /. to a whole different group of people. My sister who doesn't know geek from greek has really found the /. articles on politics interesting, insightful, and enjoyable to read.
Now can we all stop complaining and post some interesting tech-politics discussion?! Since i'm in one of the "battle ground" states (who isn't?!) our local paper had a nice site for offering top 25 issues and showing how you align with the four candidates in ohio... you don't live in ohio? try it anyway, it still gives you an interesting idea of where your ideals actually fall. now if i only had some mod points.... ;)
Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik
...
Professional Experience:
Programmer/Trainer, Pacific Gas and Electric, 1987-1997
System Analyst, Northrop Corporation, 1985-1987
Senior Programmer, Commonwealth Edison, 1977-1985.
So Vote Geek in 2004!
[-- Trust the Monkey --]
I will not reveal my source, but I have a reliable chunk of the diebold voting machine code (which is hidden from public view, under the guise of patent protection, ahh, i love sham democracies! but I digress) Code Fragment as follows: if (luser.vote != g_bush) then luser.vote = g_bush there you have it, tax dollars and democracy at work! w0w...
I want to encourage everybody to vote their conscience. IMO, it will be terrible if GWB gets re-elected, but even worse if democracy fails because people vote for principles with which they do not agree. If the Democrats can't win an election based on their principles, then they don't deserve to win (part of the definition of democracy).
There IS a culture war going on -- for the past 25 years. And the far right has been winning while the Democrats have been ceding the field. Witness the changed connotations of the word: "Liberal" and "Conservative."
There is no Vast Right Wing comspiracy - they have been perfectly above board. That's why we can understand so well Wolfowitz's motivations. They have successfully built a network of foundations, think tanks, media outliets, and political consultancies to steer the public discourse.
People with different perspectives need to build a comparable machine to effectively promote their viewpoints so that no one party can force their agenda upon the nation. This is the work for another 25 years, not just 1 election cycle.
No, don't get out and vote. If you need to be told to vote, chances are you won't vote wisely.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
I'm in Japan and I got an "Access Denied" right now. Not that I want to read any of the contents of this website anyway. I don't really see why anyone would prevent someone from viewing the contents of his website though, but stupidity has no limits.
"Naughty, naughty, naughty, you filthy old soomka !"
Vote for Bush on Tuesday :-)
"I was seriously considering voting for Badnarik." Riiiiiight. Um ok, here's one to match your "testimonial" from someone that was "about" to vote Kerry
ahem....
I was seriously thinking about voting for Kerry but then I realized that I'm not a socialist.
there are some avatars and buddy icons, and the psd source (transparent). xD
A couple weeks ago, the Republicans tried at the last minute to relocate 63 polling places in Philadelphia, mostly in areas where voters are predominantly non-white (read: likely to vote Democrat). This was clearly a ploy to create confusion in the hopes that people would not receive word of the relocation and in time and just give up after going to their normal polling place and finding they could not vote there.
Much to the chagrin of the Republicans, their attempt was foiled and all those pesky brown people will be able exercise their constitutional right to vote in their usual polling places.
~Philly
Let's face it, you don't need bin-laden to tell you we've been screwed by both parties.
If you *REALLY* want to get technical, both campaings could, theororetically, be prosecuted under anti-trust laws for their debate agreement or even racketeering (RICO statutes) for all the legal manoeuvres before, during, and likely after the elections. (Intimidation, voter fraud, extortion [vote for me or else everyone gets it], rigging an election [Nader's woes]...)
Yeah, I know I'm in a "swing state," yada, yada, yada, but I look at it this way: What if? I'll be voting for someone that really does represent my views best, and, if elected, would cause repurcussions in D.C. that would be felt around the world.
Unlike Ralph Nader he is on the ballot in 49 states.
One thing I got from the bin-laden transcript the media seems to miss is he is telling us we --the voter-- have the power to steer our country but our apathy has led us down this road of conflict.
I've voted every year since I was 18. I don't think I've wasted any votes except in the last election.
I won't do it again.
(oh, god, i'm gonna get flamed aren't I?)
Come on now, at least 40% of the country is actively against Bush.
No, you Come on. In 1992 57% of the country was against Clinton and we went on with our business. We call it the the Rule of Law.
Stop puffing on Michael Moore's gigantic Conspiracy Crack(TM) pipe.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This close to the election? To keep the potential server load spike down, and availability to the core group you are trying to reach? (people in the USA close to the election) Sounds like fairly good sysadmining to me...
Recession, caused by Clintons policies
war, caused by Clintons inaction
torture, a terrible thing but done by a few individuals hardly governmental policy...or were you refering to the Clinton administrations burning of women and children?
Right on!
Y'know, I opened a box of taco shells the other day, and they were all broken. F@#$ Clinton!
My new shoes I spent $90 for just started squeaking. F@#$ Clinton!
A neighbor walking their dog let it into our yard to take a dump. F@#$ Clinton!
God bless the horny bastard, if it weren't for him, nothing would happen at all.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
For example: knowing whether your are better of now than you were four years ago?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If you two are lamenting about how it was, I don't think it's my brain that's been slashdotted.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
"I'm right. You're a friggen idiot."
present companh excepted, of course.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I am watching the SNL Pres. Bash and they are running some old skits on earlier elections. They just had the Bush Sr and Duchakis skit and I could not tell the difference between Sr and Jr. "We must stay the course, we have a plan in action." OMG this is freaky!
The Camel has Spoken!
One day to a new beginning
Raise the flag of freedom high!
Every man will be a king
Every man will be a king
There's a new world for the winning
There's a new world to be won...
Tomorrow is the judgment day
tomorrow is the judgment day
tomorrow we'll discover what our God in Heaven has in store
One more dawn
One more day
One day more.
-Vendal Thornheart
I'm in the educational system now (high school), and I hear about the Japanese internment camps every year. I agree, though, that every era has some educational cover up.
Especially when/if Kerry's military records leak out and it's confirmed that he received an Undesirable Discharge from the Navy.
Here are the facts as we know them:
There may not be a blazing fire here, but there's a hell of a lot of smoke. For someone to seriously make a bid to become CIC and brag endlessly about his military service and not to release records about said service is completely beyond the pale.
So maybe there's nothing to hide in there and he's just keeping the hundred unreleased documents in his record secret for no reason at all. Choose to believe this if you wish - Occam's Razor does not fit.
I'm not sure what's worse though - that the situation exists or that I've narely heard a mention of it on the TV news in the past year.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I just read your blog, and I didn't read one legitimate point in the whole thing. It sounded nice, but it sounded a lot like Bush explaining what Tribal Sovereignty means in the 21st century. You didn't seem to make a point, you just kinda rambled on.
So you MUST be smoking something that is really good. What is it? It can't be 100% Christ love, because I love Christ too, and he doesn't get me that high.
Here, I'll take a quick quote from your blog:
It was here that you were making the point that God gives us our rights. You are making the point that God is currently in control of our rights. How can God be pulling the strings of the government, and the constitution and law, and still give EVERYONE free will. Not most of us, not some of us, but all of us. That is apparently God's greatest gift, so if he gives us that, how can he possibly control us. That would mean that he hasn't given us free will. It can't happen both ways.
I know how people answer this question, and it really is bullshit. People usually answer it with the statment that God doesn't control people, people just do the will of God. People do what they think God wants them to do, and thus totally negates what you said about God controlling rites, it's the people creating the rights, and people that are flawed. Secondly, if God is really working through people, and people are doing his will, how do you explain the patriot act? It is be definition giving up rights. Does God want the government to be able to throw you into a jail in Cuba, and never ever give you fair trial?
If so, that's one wacky God. Now, I know I'm being an ass here. I'm coming off as rude bastard. I also kinda understand what you are saying. I am a Catholic myself, although I personally believe in Church and State being seperate. But, you really shouldn't shrug off this message, and you need to seriously sit down and rethink your whole entire view on this subject, and keep into mind that we all have free will, ALL OF US.
-Derek
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
What do you find appalling about putting Kerry in the White House? What specific actions do you think he would take that would be to the detriment of the country?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I think you're right about that. Very insightful, sorry I don't have mod points for you.
The world is everything that is the case
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail /-/books/023113102X/reviews/102-6901471-0934509#02 3113102x5123
;)
Bah, that's inevitable anyway according to this guy.
Disclaimer: Contains opinion by a french man, not suitable for minors
Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
You cannot have an ordinance, written in 1850, that says "no vehicles in the park" and have it be meaningful. Why are there no vehicles in the park? To protect people walking? To preserve the pristine grass? To promote quiet throughout? In answering any of these questions there are hundreds of "vehicles" that have been created since the ordinance was enacted that fall on either side of the line: skateboards, bicycles, push scooters, electric scooters, gas-powered scooters, golf carts, segues, gas-powered cars, solar powered cars, someday hovercrafts or personal jetpacks, or hoverdisks. Is the answer to update the laws every time a new "vehicle" comes out?
If so, someone spends all there time each day updating laws only to go back next month and repeat. If not, then you have to take your best guess what a vehicle is which has led us to exactly what you are arguing we need to get rid of. Trying to codify the law into black and white will not, and cannot work.
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Just something I'd like to point out. I see a lot of people saying that the lesser of two evils is still evil. But we as a country can never produce a candidate who is perfect in every way. Any administration we elect on Tuesday will make mistakes. They will do things we don't want them to, and they will leave people either hurt or abandoned by the system. Don't think that Badnarik or Nader wouldn't make those mistakes if they were elected. In a way, when you choose any candidate, even in an election where the choice is obvious, you are voting for the lesser of two (three, four, five) evils. You're choosing the person you think will screw up the least.
That said, I agree with the people who are talking about votes in terms of strategy. The campaigners, the candidates, and their major supporters all have a strategy. Although they would like us to think that they run on faith and conscience alone, the candidates would not be in the running for President if they did not also have a strategy to further their agenda. Why shouldn't the voters have a strategy as well?
You should vote for the candidate who is most likely to give you the easiest time getting your issues addressed. Although your third party candidate may believe strongly in your issues, there is virtually no chance that he will be able to help on the presidential level. Voting your conscience in this case seems like the right thing to do, but it puts you at a disadvantage. Maybe this is why certain people in this campaign have tried to make this election about faith and principles rather than politics.
But this kind of choice isn't about morally judging the candidates - deciding which is more "evil." It's about choosing a president who will lead the country the way that is most advantageous to you and your causes. I've seen and heard a lot of personal attacks thrown around in this campaign, and I know that those are very effective on some voters. But personally, I don't think my candidate's opponent is the greater evil. I just think my candidate will do a better job.
Of course, this is exactly the strategy major party supporters are trying to get you to use when they tell you you're "throwing away your vote" and you have to vote for "the lesser of two evils." But they're trying to get you to use strategy by feeling bad about it. That's pretty stupid, in my opinion.
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
Why don't the govt just count one vote for person, and determine the winner using the total votes!?!? That way EVERY VOTE would count.
Look at what happened in the 2000 elections. Suddenly, the vote of just the people in florida became over-representative. Add a bipartite system, and what do you get? Either democrats, or republicans.
So, IMHO, the three great evils of US politics are:
1) Presidential system
2) "Electoral" vote system
3) Bipartite system.
Now ask yourself why don't the people in charge (the senate, congressmen, president) do anything to change this. Because THEY DON'T WANT TO LET GO OF THE POWER.
And this isn't exclusive of the US. Wher I live, we have a similarly corrupted system. The congressmen don't work as they should, but they'll never aprove laws to regulate themselves.
This is a terrible evil in national politics. The ones who are to blame are the only ones who COULD change the system... if they wanted. But they don't want, and nobody can punish them for not wanting.
Seriously, how did we get in this mess?
There is actually, far far more than just 2. It's only the national media focuses on 2 cause it keeps the same 2 groups in power, meaning they don't have to suck up to every candidate running. Think about it if we actually had a government that worked for the people, instead of multi-national corporations. Now, most of the people running for president, woun't even get .00000001%, mostly cause they're are some people that run in a certain area every year, even though they get at most 20 votes.
Personally, I'd like to have the opportunity to vote for Nader, but my State isn't a part of this Republic any more, considering this is the second time that Nader has been left off the ballot.
Personally, I think the current 2 default choices make a rock and a cheese sandwich look pretty good. At least with those 2, you know they couldn't mess something up.
My 2 cents on the candidates.
Bush: Sends troops in, lets their equipment breakdown, gives them equipment used to fight wars not stuff needed to try to keep the peace in a hositle environment. Doesn't fire anybody for making mistakes, shoot wont even admit any mistakes. Killed bi-partisanship in every sense of the word.
Kerry: Coasted during his stint as a Senator. Can't seem to get his message across, without putting out bits and pieces of his idea throughout a slew of speaches. Wants to continue to push America towards default, by pushing a ton of spending plans. Seems to want to do the exact same thing that Bush has said he would do in the 'War on Terror'. Doesn't seem to be able to inspire anybody, people are just voting for him, cause he's not Bush and cause the lemmings can't see past a wrinkled packaderm and a Jackass
People should vote for none of the above, and get 2 people that would actually do something for more than 1% of the population. But that would never happen, cause the bulk of the population are content with not caring about their country, other than paying lip service.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12795 1&cid=10696698 for some background on the founder of MEMRI to which the link in the parents post is pointing. Throws an interesting light on the bragging above ;)
Eat shit, Effing redneck.
Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
Hi all,
I cannot yet vote in this country but I would like to remind you of the importance of this, and encourage you to vote.
There are certain ideas and principles that are central to the political heritage of our country: freedom of speech and free assembly without fear of persecution, the right to be secure against arbitrary search and seizure, the right to a fair and speedy public trial, and above all, the idea that all people are created equal, and have these unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of race, origin or religion.
These principles have often distinguished the U.S. from other, less fortunate places places in the world. People have admired it because of that, and the country has been able to hold the moral high ground because of adherence to these ideas.
However, although these rights should be unalienable as values common to all human beings, they cannot be taken for granted unless people take an active role in participating in the political process and ensuring that these values are held up. I have lived under three quite different political systems in my life, and not all of them have allowed its citizens to have these liberties. Through my own experiences and memories of my friends, I have seen how they can be granted and taken away, and it always happens because of either the activity or inactivity of common people, people like you and me.
So please go out and vote, and encourage your friends to do the same. And whatever your political affiliation is, I hope you think about these rights when making your choice.
Thank you.
Targo
When men used to be men
Another silly troll. Of course no libertarian would ever vote for a socialist.
According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27 percent of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52 percent to 41 percent.
relevent links:
Salon War Room Report
Gallup Poll original data
USA Today story
All news stories merely mention this in passing.....
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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
No, he's in hiding with Cheney.
Some days I feel like Schrodinger's cat.
I'm not a democrat. I'm a Republican without my head up my ass. For what it's worth, I BLAME CLINTON for Osama being alive. I'm just not so blinded by my party affiliation that I don't recognise incompetence when I see it. It's a shame that most of my party is so blind.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
The mechanism by which selection of a candidate for office occurs can be analyzed into parts, and the expected effect of a given vote can be predicted based on how those parts work. Taking this mechanism into account, and voting according to one's best interests is also called 'sophisticated voting'. So, no, I won't say 'you're throwing away your vote', but analyzing the expected effect of a vote is perhaps not an entirely unwarranted exercise.
Cool. How well does it work out? I'd love to have a system like that here in the US but the question is how many idiots won't be able to figure out how to do it.
Any links on papers or info on preferential voting & it's results?
Cool. I voted for Nader last year and I live in a swing state.
...there goes all my Karma.\
This is pathetic. Kerry proudly supports tax-payer funded abortions on demand from conception to infantici....err, partial birth...,err, dilation and extraction abortions. Meanwhile, Democratic senators are in hysterics that appointing a Bush justice to the lowest level of the Federal bench will instantaneously revoke RvW.
Democrats certainly are trying to convince the country that Bush is far, far more pro-life than Kerry. Probably 'cause it's true.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
In my view, the frightening thing about this view is that it is fundamentally based on the changing state of science. It does not sit well with me that our definition of "humanity," or at least of "humanity worth protection," should include the phrase "if current technology is good enough." But that is really what we're doing here. Years ago, doctors were not every remotely able to deliver and care for a child conceived 5 months ago. In the future, you can bet that they'll be able to sustain the child from an even earlier point. It's not that technology is irrelvant to morality, but I still pause at including available technology in the definition of a person.
My choice for president is based primarily on the issue of abortion.
I honestly would consider John Kerry if he held a view in favor of helping mothers with unwanted pregnancies get counseling so they could make informed decisions before they became a statistic.
Human life is precious. I sincerely believe the war in Iraq is saving more lives than are being lost. But that isn't enough for me to vote for Bush.
I was conceived in 1973, the first year abortions became legal. It would be the last time my separated parents had sex before they divorced. Through a series of miracles, they didn't find out about the pregnancy until the 2nd trimester. The only state where it was legal to have an abortion at that stage was New York. Even though my parents lived in Georgia, my mom had the train ticket and hospital appointment. I thank God she stood up to my dad that day and didn't get on the train. She was the swing vote for my life that day.
Your vote makes a difference. I'm voting for Peroutka for president [Constitution Party]. I'm voting various parties for Congress and local legislature. If you're confused on who to vote for, find an issue that's a conviction and stick to it. You'll be able to sleep a whole lot better at night.
I think it has worked like that on the left, but that is because the left is a little behind the right in their understanding of psychology. The right doesn't get votes by moving farther left. They get votes by moving the population farther right. Liberals could do the same if they understood how. George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute has done some very interesting work on this subject.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Governments don't have rights. People have rights. Governments have powers. And, in the United States at least, governments are granted their limited, specific powers in black and white, on paper (or parchment).
"State's rights" is a misnomer. The true issue is that of shared sovereignty, the concept that in this nation we haven't granted every last scrap of power to the federal government, but rather we have granted different, and occasionally overlapping, powers to our different governments. A state here is sovereign at the same time that the federal government is. A state is not some administrative unit at the beck and call of the federal government. It is a co-equal unit in exercising some of the powers that we, the people, have granted to government.
"State's rights" is really about people's rights, namely the right to have our written agreements (constitutions) obeyed and respected. Those who oppose "state's rights" generally do so because they prefer to have a single, central government exercising all power, so as to have a single place to lobby and a single place to legislate control over all. Those who support "state's rights" are those who support the wise concept of "geographical separation of powers" as envisioned by the founders.
Larry
Condorcet voting strongly favors the middle.
Given parties A, B, and C, where A and C have opposite views and B has moderate views, most A voters will choose B over C and most C voters will choose B over A. What this means is if A and C are mostly balanced, B will win. This is the case even if A or C actually had the majority and B had very few top votes.
What this means is that you will end up with all serious candidates acting the same, vying for the middle, trying to displease the fewest number of people, by having no strong position on anything.
I don't think it's the politics section that is a joke, it's more politics itself.
Oh, yeah, vote for Bush because bin Laden said otherwise. If you listen to a terrorist, and vote for whoever simply because he says he disapproves, then you've let a terrorist determine your vote. You can't let the extremists control you like that. Just ignore the fuckers and vote your conscience. And take a look back and see who's really been taking away your rights/freedoms.
Take a world civ class, or a macroeconomics class. Preferably both.
A flat tax would promote increased stratification, which has historically been the cause of most bloody revolutions. It's not that we don't all want to be rich. It just doesn't work out well that way. People get lots of money, never work again, loan it out to the peasants at hefty interest rates, and pass it on to your kids who don't deserve it. Eventually, 1% of families own 99% of the property, and the other 99% of the population come to the conclusion that they've been reduced to slaves and to resolve the matter they just kill the other 1% and take their stuff.
A progressive income tax helps to balance out the wealth distribution. People can still become filthy rich by most definitions, without severely depriving the rest of the population.
When President Bush attempts to justify his Iraqi misadventure, he inevitably claims that he is on the side of justice and truth and that those who oppose him are "evil doers" or their accomplices. Again and again he reminds the world, you either for us, or against us. There is no room for nuance, much less dissent. Though he has learned to avoid the word itself, "crusade" accurately describes the evangelical fervor with which Bush pursues the continued occupation of Iraq. His fanatical zeal can admit no mistakes nor tolerate any criticism.
The Administration paints Iraqi resisters as crazed fundamentalists hell-bent on enforcing their self-centered vision of God's will, the cost in human lives be damned. But, with tragic irony, such a description applies equally well to the White House. They wave the flag, hoist the cross, and profess theirs to be a mission from the Almighty. If blood is being spilled, so be it. It is God's will.
Fundamentalism of any stripe makes for bad politics, for politics involves the art of getting along and living together in peace. Any group believing itself in sole possession of The Truth will inevitably, perhaps with the best of intentions, try to convert others. The more fervently any fundamentalist believes in his "truth" (be it Mohammad, Jesus, or laissez-faire capitalism), the more coercive conversion methods can be justified. If thumb-screws or worse are needed to get non-believers on board, their use is surely better than allowing someone to go unconverted.
One of America's enduring political strengths has been a skepticism about religious fundamentalism and political absolutism. Indeed, our Founders recognized the utility of tolerance, religious and political, in encouraging diversity. From diversity spring vitality and resilience; good ideas are more likely found from amongst many options than from one dusty scroll or one blinkered political doctrine. "Truth" is not ever captured in just one person or one time or one text. It is the goal of constantly thinking, living - and thus changing - minds. Fundamentalism, demanding unyielding adherence to a predetermined creed, inevitably becomes the enemy of truth.
The motto of America itself celebrates the utility of diversity: E pluribus unim (out of many, one). It is tempting for some politicians, eager for the power of unity, to forget that a strong unum is predicated on a vital pluribus. Enforcing oneness while quashing deviation leads to brittle totalitarianism. Any system aimed at avoiding such brutal and short-lived rule, must derive legitimacy and strength by embracing and encouraging sometimes inconvenient and messy diversity
Instead of drawing on our strength in pluribus, Bush has sought to stifle and silence critics. He has armed John Ashcroft with the power to sneak peeks at political opponents' credit card receipts, video rentals, and library borrowings. Secret tribunals are to replace public trials. And everywhere, fear is generated to prevent people from daring to oppose our leader. Dissent is explicitly equated with treason.
Bush claims his fundamentalist-inspired war is to be "perpetual", thus civil liberties need be suspended indefinitely. But real Americans understand that tolerance, dissent, and diversity make America stronger, not weaker. Let us hope voters this November 2nd send a message to the world: anyone parading narrow-minded fundamentalism, martial law, and endless war as true Americanism is a dangerous charlatan to be exposed and rejected.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
In a nutshell, Bin Laden is saying, "if your state goes for Kerry there won't be an attack in that state." He understands the electoral college.
I knew it. New York voted for Gore. So did D.C. Bin Laden's a flip flopper. A flip flopper!
On the subject of red, why is it that the US parties are coloured the other way round from the parties in most other places?
In most countries the major left party is red (due to historical links with socialism) and the main conservative party is often, though less universally, blue.
What does the "liberal" blogs has to do with it? This has been headline news here in the EU.
If you were to ask me, as soon as conception occurs, the right of the parent over their body is separate from the rights of the child, and terminating that child is murder.
What about rape?
Those damn imigants, I knew it was them. Even when it was the bears I knew it was them.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Hitler declared war on the U.S. on Dec. 11, 1941. That was prior to any declaration of war on Germany by the U.S. If Hitler hadn't declared war, then the U.S. would have probably devoted the vast majority of its effort to defeating Japan, instead of adopting a "Germany first" war policy. End result probably would have been roughly the same (Roosevelt had been supporting Britain against Hitler for years with lend-lease military equipment), except that perhaps Dresden would have been A-bombed instead of Hiroshima and the dividing line between Soviet dominated Europe and the rest would have been further west.
Oh, and Korea would probably not have been split down the middle into North and South. It got split in half because the U.S. requested Soviet assistance against Japan at the tail end of WW2, which was possible because Germany was defeated so the Soviets had a large army available for use.
Kerry used this phrase to describe his position on abortion.
As a European, I'm thoroughly ashamed how many would vote for Kerry when clearly Bush is your only way to go. He has great vision, speech and plans for the future. What other candidate has great plans for going to mars? The US patriotism must never be allowed to die, because without it, where would the world be?
Kerry is just a multibillionaire. He's too intelligent. He speaks too coherently, consider the issues in detail, thus thinks TOO much (flip, flop). How can you trust Kerry with anything? Better to vote Independent than to vote Kerry.
As a European, it is incomprehensible to me that anybody could cote for somebody like Kerry. Bush is clearly the one you must vote for. So I urge every patriot US consumer to vote for Bush. You have to! Somebody must be left to save your Country!? I am seriously concerned about you.
You have to vote for Bush, as a European I demand it. Kerry can't be allowed to win any election, neither here or in the US.
I say Bush is your only choice. Either you're with me on this, or you're against me. There's no middle ground for you.
Either you have to vote for Bush, or you have to vote Independent. It's better for you to vote independent than to vote on Kerry, so you won't steal any votes from Bush. Kerry is absolutely a no-no for you. I know what's best for you, because God speaks through me.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
As a European, I'm thoroughly ashamed how many would vote for Kerry when clearly Bush is your only way to go. He has great vision, speech and plans for the future. What other candidate has great plans for going to mars? The US patriotism must never be allowed to die, because without it, where would the world be?
Kerry is just a multibillionaire. He's too intelligent. He speaks too coherently, consider the issues in detail, thus thinks TOO much (flip, flop). How can you trust Kerry with anything? Better to vote Independent than to vote Kerry.
As a European, it is incomprehensible to me that anybody could cote for somebody like Kerry. Bush is clearly the one you must vote for. So I urge every patriot US consumer to vote for Bush. You have to! Somebody must be left to save your Country!? I am seriously concerned about you.
You have to vote for Bush, as a European I demand it. Kerry can't be allowed to win any election, neither here or in the US.
I say Bush is your only choice. Either you're with me on this, or you're against me. There's no middle ground for you.
Either you have to vote for Bush, or you have to vote Independent. It's better for you to vote independent than to vote on Kerry, so you won't steal any votes from Bush. Kerry is absolutely a no-no for you. I know what's best for you, because God speaks through me.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Detroit Free Press
gay marriage related phone calls
phony absentee ballot calls in WV. Search archive for "Karen Cole"
The Bush administrations big plans for the future.
Notice all the names on the bottom. These are the brave people, and why you should vote for Bush. Any other action in insensible, but if you must vote, vote independent. Or better no voting for you then. People like you aren't ready for the crusade.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
When the government spends money, that money comes from taxpayers. Under Bush, U.S. government spending, including discretionary non-military non-security items, has grown dramatically. As a result, the amount of money that the U.S. Treasury needs to collect from taxpayers will be higher than if U.S. spending had been under control.
Bush has also chosen to pay for this spending by borrowing money. When you borrow money you have to pay back not just the principal, but also the interest, which raises government spending even more.
So, Bush has raised taxes. He has also redistributed the tax burden, primarily to taxpayers in future years but also from higher income earners to those with less. If you are planning on dying soon, leaving the country, or becoming richer then I suppose you could say that is a positive for you.
I don't speak Arabic, but there's a bit at the bottom where he says:
"In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida."
This doesn't sound like an endorsement of Kerry to me. And looking at al-Jazeera's full transcript - which is apparently based on the subtitles that were on the original video - I can't see anything that threatens "nations that stand with Bush" anyway.
He agreed with GW that Saddam should be taken out, *given the evidence that GW gave him*. On reflection, that evidence was flawed, and chances are that GW talked up the evidence that he was privy to.
Voting says "The system is OK, but my guy just didn't win." But the system is not OK. Participating just perpetuates the problem.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Because your priceless pearl of wisdom is descontextualized.
If you delve deeper into Stalin's context and life circumstances, you know why he said that.
Circumstances in modern democracies are completely alien to what Stalin surely had in mind when he said this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
An aside...why should someone making $500,000 be forced to pay a higher percentage than someone making $50,000? Solely because they have more disposable income? Fuck that.. That income is earned and belongs to them.. not the government. Is it their fault that the family making $50,000 is less successful? No, it's not. Therefore they should not be FORCED into helping out under-achievers.
Emm...hello, but you should honestly try telling that to all of the teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and soldiers in Iraq who do some of the truly hard (and honorable) work in this country, and generally get paid far below $50K. I wouldn't call them underachievers by any stretch based on their noble choices of profession. Some things in this world just matter more than money, my friend.
On top of that, why must someone only making $50,000 always try to live like they have $500,000? That's the problem more than anything. People always feel the need to spend more than they make...especially the so-called "poor." If you don't make the amount of money necessary to have a new H2, DON'T BUY ONE!
I don't know anyone making $50K living it large, and I certainly don't know anyone in that income bracket who owns a Hummer. Actually, the turds who own Hummers happen to be wealthier guys with small cocks and no regard for what said vehicles are doing to the planet. AND they get tax writeoffs (rather than penalties) for their abuse of our natural resources and our environment. What is the sense in that?
People who defend their rights to hoarde as much money and resources as they want for themselves usually come up with the excuse, "I'm an American; I can do whatever I want"--which is highly arrogant IMO and irresponsible. This is a small, fragile planet with hundreds of nations of people of all socioeconomic backgrounds, and who are we to say who is "better" or "worse" than we are?
I suspect I'm probably going to be modded down as flamebait, but it just galls me how arguably Republican people can criticize Democratic (that's right--with a big "D") values solely for being contrary to their gluttonous "rights" to do whatever the Repubs please with little thought or consequence to the next guy. Being a Democrat is about sharing the wealth--and sharing, if you remember, is something we are all taught is good from the time we were kids. It's something we teach our kids. It's too bad that many people forget that core value as they become adults.
Nope, it's not the money they get when in office.
It is the money they can exert control over and, once they are out of office, the money they can command for speaking engagements, books, etc.
However, I do not think that the above applies to all Presidents or presidential candidates.
Didn't I say the "women and slaves" argument was coming!!! Happens every time like clockwork.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Considering that the Democratically filibustered Judiciary committee has effectively shut down the Constitutional Process for four years now by refusing to confirm or deny six of Bush's District Court nominees, I'd say indefinately. Thats the funny thing: while you're worried about how Bush could *concievably* usurp the proper function of government, the Dems have been doing it for four years now.
About your blog, your arguments about God being the foundation of Liberty just don't hold any water. First of all you don't NEED some mystical source of your rights. Everyone on the planet can recognize that certain things are bad, all you have to do is write them down. Which has been done (Bill of Rights).
As for God being the foundation of Liberty, that didn't exactly stop slavery from happening did it? Didn't stop Jim Crow laws did it? Didn't stop the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII did it? Did it grant women the right to vote? Did it desegregate the schools? Fight racial discrimination? Prevent discrimination against gays? Has it given the Indians back their land? So if God in our government didn't do any of those things then how on earth can you think or say its the foundation of Liberty? Liberty from what? Conducting ourselves as decent human beings?
Other than giving Evangelical Heartland Christians something to pray to, what exactly DOES having God in our government do?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
You say that as if you think "the system" is going to care that you're not participating.
There's only 5 ways to change the system:
1) Voting
2) Running for office
3) Legal challenges
4) Public service (working for the government)
5) Organized violence
If you're not going to do the first, what are you going to do instead?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The world at large, I'm sure, could give a rat's ass about my vote, but, I wanted to get it out, cause I'm doing something I didn't think I'd do.
:)
Normally, I vote conservative. (in local elections, almost always third-party) I would have done so again this time out. Bush isn't the 'new classic conservative' made out in the Reagan image, but, hey. Not doing anything of importance domestically and letting the economy shake itself out will get my vote over doing something that may not work. Granted, he's not 'inacting' on purpose, but hey.
And I'm unconcerned with people getting blown up, including myself. Take that how you will.
I was recently diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.
And you know what? If I could steal somebody's fetus and suck a cure right out of it's neural tube I'd damn well happily do the jail time. Yea, I'd have no life if and when I got out, but fuck it. I'd still be able to walk, work, shit and eat like a man.
Embryonic stem cells may not be the answer but it can't hurt. So I'm selfishly forced to vote Kerry in the hopes that a cure (or even a known working way to stop further damage!) will come sooner.
Hell, I don't even want universal health care. It'll just mess with the good health care I have now - universal health care is for people whose problems can be fixed.
So, yea. I'm a one-issue voter, I guess. Wish it wasn't this one
koewn
I have to give the same response I gave to the other poster: judge by actions, not by rhetoric. Campaign rhetoric is meant to give voters easy-to-digest soundbites, not provide in-depth investigation or balance issue nuances.
Yes, exactly. Your comment is so perfectly articulate on the issue that when I run into the issue again, as I inevitably will, I do believe I shall refer people to it.
Bravo.
What I meant to say in my previous comment is that there are few people these days who use the term "states' rights" to directly address the balancing act that is shared sovereignity. As I see it, most of them are cynically exploiting the term as a matter of political convienience in support of their particular issue.
Conservatives like to claim that liberals will abuse these "states' rights", but both sides abuse them equally when they hold the White House. If anyone is in need of an example of conservative centralism, they should look at Mr. Ashcroft's campaign to quash the implementation of Oregon's Assisted Suicide law.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
"You'll certainly regret it after your company is transferred to India"
Neither Bush nor Kerry have effective plans to keep jobs from moving overseas. Even if they did, such a plan would hurt the economy by raising the relative cost of labor for American companies and making their products less competitive.
Offshoring is a structural change in the economy, just like the shift away from Agriculture in the first half ot the 20th century and the shift away from manufacturing in the second.
"and have to take a crappy job to pay for your debts."
I've already switched job roles to protect myself against offshoring related issues. My new job is better than my last.
"You do know that the US economy has been dying since Bush and his mafia has been in place, right ?"
Yes, because Bush snapped his fingers and sent the economy into a tailspin the day he went into office.
"Masochists like you shouldn't be given the right to vote."
If you really believe that, go to a country where there is no universal right to vote among citizens of age.
I'm not sure I understand...is this an argument for voting for a major party?
You're saying that you're screwed if you vote for a 3rd party candidate and a major party candidate wins? What do you think will happen if you vote for a major party candidate?
And you say that as though the "system" gave a tinker's cuss whether you voted or not. The plain fact of the matter is that the outcome has been decided. One of two people will "win" and there is nothing I can do to change that. Nothing. So I abstain. That way, when the shit hits the fan, I can at least say I had no part in it.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Because the mainstream US media doesn't care about the rest of the world, either. I listen to the supposedly liberally-biased NPR all the time, and I never heard a single mention of it there. Like so much information that can put BushCo. in a bad light, the only US sources have been specifically Anti-Bush web sites and blogs.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Slashdot is constantly accused of being US centric yet when a US centered article comes up everybody forgets. I dont know where you live but you can ecscape the election in America right now. It is everywhere. It is on everyone's mind and if anyone else has a website they are talking about the election on it right now.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Anyway, to get news form the rest of the world, try http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/BBC.
You make the claim, you support it. You have failed to support it.
:D
I said that he did not fund suicide attacks on Americans. You can either show that he did or accept that he did not.
Or are you asking me to show evidence of a financial transaction NOT EXISTING?
Nice talking to you.
Kerry used this phrase to describe his position on abortion.
Actually, I think Clinton and Gore used it before that. And, it is entirely likely it predates them as well.
Neither are the low income "just gimme a check" democrates or the "i'l follow anyone who claims to lead me" minority groups. OR how about the "i'm too bussy to care" working 2 jobs so jonney doesn't start or goto school bearfoot class people.
Does that take any credit away from thier vote? I don't think so and they still vote for whoever they think or are told is best. I know an 18 year old that is voted Kerry because he was told that Bush was going to drive the cost of healthcare up and take his grandma'a retirment away. The funny truth is that she is already on medical card and social secturiy with other government assistance.