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.
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 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'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
Even while in France last week.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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)
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?
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!
Why does it matter?
There are really more important things than terrorists. Such as education, jobs, the economy..
There's not much we can do to keep another attack from happening. But there are things we can, and are doing, that will provoke another attack.
We should try not being the Global Police for a few years, try to make buddies with our allies that we've pissed off.. and just focus on the home front.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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?
What's worse, that he has a strong decision, or that he's more informed on the issue than most americans voting?
Pretty Pictures!
The tech areas are still covered extensively, including FreeBSD.
More to the topic, though, I'm blogging live on the current Center of the Free World - Milwaukee, where both the Leader and the Contender are right now - Good music, lots of rain, hot coffee and the regular blather.
Tomorrow night will be a long haul, with all the coffee needed.
If you like your civil liberties then vote for Kerry. It's a pretty simple equation. Bush has done more to roll back our constitutional rights than any president in history.
You could be on the next plane out to Guantanamo.
-MichiganDan
Hey, wait, where are you HEY YOU CANT I'm just typing its a free country what do you mean its not Stop ^F^F^F^F^F^F
NO CARRIER
As an undecided, perhaps we can start the discussion off with you. What issues are important to you and what do you expect to be resolved are revisted by the government in the next four years? The answers to such question ought to help you become a 'decided'.
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,
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
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
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
Okay, I'll bite:
I can think of at least a few reasons Osama would like Bush to get re-elected:
- He's still alive
- He's still able to plan and carry out attacks
- Recruitment is probably at an all-time high thanks to the Iraq war
- His captured/killed deputies have been replaced (this "75 percent" figure is apparently directly from George Bush's ass)
- Al-Qaeda is probably operating in MORE countries and is hence more decentralized than before 9/11
These are all known, with maybe the exception of the last one, which anyone who believes Richard Clarke might know what he's talking about will also be inclined to believe is true.
What the GOP argument seems to be is, "Kerry will be a pussy and will pull out of Iraq, stop hunting terrorists," etc. Which is completely unknown and, I would argue, unreasonable, but you're all entitled to your opinions. I think the Republicans basically try to reason this out because they think they know what Kerry will do. I'm saying we already know what Bush and Bin Laden have done. Bang-up job in Iraq and Afghanistan (omg but tehre holding elections now wtf lol) but we still haven't caught the guy, and the fact that he's distributing video and has any ability to speak, let alone taunt Americans, is hideous.
So the proposed GOP solution - vote for Bush, he'll keep us safe. Okay. Here's what Cheney said about a week ago on Mr. BL:
"We haven't seen much of him. You'll notice there haven't been any Bin Laden tapes running on the air where he's out broadcasting messages, frankly, because we think he's probably in a deep hole someplace, in hiding."
So as you can see, I'm completely on board with that one.
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.
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.
I can't vote (not a US citizen) but basing your idea solely on the purported "fact" that Bin Laden supports Kerry you may shoot yourself in the foot.
I 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.
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
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.
Recommend the link if you would like (or don't mind) votes transferred from Bush to Peroutka (Constitution Party).
I'm right. You're Wrong.
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!
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!
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.
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.
The Southpark episode that aired this last week was right on target:
Giant Douche OR Turd Sandwich
A sobering thought as the electoral process becomes more and more opaque.
Deleted
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.
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
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.
I don't have any numbers on this at all but I was reasonably sure that if the people who had voted for Nader in Florida had voted for Gore instead, Gore would have easily become the president. No supreme court involved. Your vote *does* make a difference.
Voting for the lesser of two evils versus the voting for candidate you truly prefer is one of the most interesting aspects of this election, IMHO.
Random is the New Order.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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
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!!!
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.
A vote for anyone else than Kerry is a vote for Bush. And i can't vote for Bush.
The best thing you (we) could do is find someone who is in your same district/precinct/state/whatever who is going to vote Bush. Thus your Kerry vote and their Bush vote would be a wash. Instead, you each vote for a third party candidate that you would *really* like to win.
That way - you don't impact the election, but you send a message with your votes....
FLAMEWAR!!!!!!!!
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
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
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.
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.'"
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.
(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?
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.
But what's the CAUSE of the terrorism? Why attack them directly when we may be the ones at fault?
If I stomp on your foot and you punch me in the face, do I get to shoot you dead? No.
I caused the problem, and next time I won't stomp on your foot.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
At the risk of sounding like an arrogant American, I must ask, "Why is Bush a nightmare for the rest of the world?" I could flip your statement around and ask, "Why is the rest of the world such a nightmare?"
What with the terrorists, kleptocracies, dictatorships, civil and genocidal wars and all, I think it is the rest of the world, in general, which has the problem.
Europe seemed pretty happy to have the US help out in the Balkans (and Germany I, Germany II, Soviet Union, Vietnam, Palestine, etc.) but where are they now?
Actually, Palestine is a bit of a cheap shot, since that was a British problem and the Brits still have a good global view...
Oh yeah, if Europe was so superior in terms of diplomacy, why did the League of Nations fail?
Bottom line, if you want a United States which is 'engaged' in global affairs, you're gonna get things like Afghanistan, Korea, Iraq... or you're going to have another Hitler or two pop up someplace. It doesn't matter who the president is.
And yes, America is only a part of the world.. the part that everybody runs to (or from) when there are problems.
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!
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.
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.
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.....
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.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa121 800a.htm
I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
Or, better yet, Google for Dred Scott. Or just read this article.
...since you hold the exact same positions that a Bush supporter of 12 months ago would. But I might as well respond, so you don't feel lonely so far down the page :)
That being said, the most pertinant issue is Iraq. The war was totally justified. We knew Saddam had WMD's at one point in time. There's no question about it. We also knew that, when he kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998, they said that their work wasn't done. We also had intelligence indicating that Saddam still had WMD. What evidence did we have that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD? His word. Nothing more. UN Resolution 1441, passed in November (IIRC) of 2002 gave Saddam one last chance to document fully his weapons programs. He failed miserably. There was a ton of stuff that was just plain unaccounted for. Saddam had the burden of proof to prove that he had gotten rid of the WMD's, in the treaties ending the first Gulf War. He failed. He gave no proof whatsoever. It would be irresponsible to put the the security of the US in Saddam's hands.
You offer a revisionist view of the relevent events. Everyone, even george bush, agreed that new, thorough weapons inspections were the correct course of action to ensure that Iraq had actually complied with disarming requirements. Suddenly, before the inspections were even completed, Bush declaired that they weren't working and went ahead to war anyway. Why did he initially support the inspections if the war was so "justified" from the get-go? Why did he cut the inspections off if he initially supported them? These are questions that have never been answered.
Also, let's not forget that John Kerry looked at the very same intelligence as the Bush administration and came to the very same conclusions, namely that Saddam posed an iminent threat.
Entirely, 100%, completely, and shamefully false. Kerry NEVER said that Iraq posed an imminent threat. NEVER. Do I have to repeat it again?
Kerry also voted for the war.
This is an oversimplification of what the war authorization entailed. See here for basically the same argument that I'd make about this: http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/authforce.html
He also stated, a couple months ago, that, knowing what he knows now, he'd still vote for authorization to use the troops.
He believes that it's the right authority for the president to have in that situation. But he thinks the president used it wrongly. He's been consistent about this.
Well, that was a couple of months ago. I don't know if it's still true today.
It is still true. He hasn't flip-flopped. The flip-flop accusations have turned into this big whisper campaign. It's really disingenuous.
However, Kerry tried to attach a caveat to that, namely that he voted for the authorization so that Bush could back up his threats of military power, but Kerry didn't want Bush to actually use it. In a nutshell, he said that he wanted the threat of military force to be a bluff. What kind of respect will that get on the world stage, now that our enemies know that Kerry won't actually use the military?
No, you're still misrepresenting his viewpoint. Please read the speech he gave before voting on said resolution. The war powers were there as a LAST RESORT, in case diplomatic means to ensure Iraq's disarming didn't work. "Last Resort" and "Bluff" are entirely different concepts.
How can you be so sure that you dislike someone whose viewpoint you don't even understand accurately?
Speaking of world respect, the Economist has no respect for Kerry either. To use their word, they recognize that his vacillations lose a lot of respect.
The Economist has their own opinion. Besides, most of the accusations of his "vacillations" are fallacious.
Furthermore, his whole promise to bring American troops
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
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."
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 care because my country seems to support the US in whatever they do.
I care because of the USA, my country went to fight a 'war' against a country that didn't have any of the weapons that were listed as the reason for going in.
I care because I'm a member of this world just like anyone else.
Join the Free Software Foundation
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.
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.
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
Completely agreed- so what about the other option- A United States of America that isn't engaged in the world at all? If they hate us that badly, what if we suddenly *stopped* importing and exporting, defaulted on the entire $8 trillion we owe to other countries, exiled the MNCs and just simply stopped buying from the rest of the world? I hope they enjoy the depression.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I will vote for Bush because Kerry is stupid for authorizing "use of force" to somebody like Bush.....oh, wait
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
So...your comments are presented quite succinctly, but a myth-busted is not to say that it wasn't heading in the right direction. To your points:
1.) Yes! Certain trials were destined to affect this president with regards to the economy. Unless you _still_ believe trickle down is good for the masses then things like HIS tax cuts are hard to stomach. Also...his energy policy, invading energy critical areas of the war etc, lack of investment in renewable energy are all long-term bad decisions for the economy. Shipping jobs? Arguably bad for spending since the UNEMPLOYED DON'T BUY CHRISTMAS PRESENTS.
2.) Bush did deal with 0-11 and no-one could have stopped the drop. Thats so true! Hardly gives Bush any points though since anyone could have done it. Me for president!
3.) Yes! And Clinton bombed those camps. And..Clinton made it clear that terrorists were the single biggest threat to national security. Bush said...missile defense is where we should spend our money. Increased contracts with Lockheed and such...they don't stop rats in the streets, they stop COLD WAR STYLE SHIT. He (BUSHCO) lost focus on VERY CLEAR information that was handed to him. This is what happens when you import a bunch of cabinet members who haven't seen the light of government work since the heart of the cold war. Heck...even Condy is a cold-war specialist, but at least her brain is nimbe enough to do a semi-adjustment.
4.) Yup. Kerry is for some of the same shit that Bush is for. Is that an argument for or against Kerry? Are you patting him on the back?
5.) This is the worst interpretation of Kerry's policy I have EVER HEARD. Kerry makes clear that the ponderance of allies would warrant action. I think that (assuming we have any allies left) the invastion of France and England and half the western world would suffice under the proposed Kerry Doctrine. Arguably Desert Storm I would pass muster. Take another look.
6.) Liberals hiding from what? Wasn't it Clinton that created terrorism as the number one priority and BushCo that dropped it until after 9-11? The commission (even the commission which seems a bit hog-tied...waiting on some CIA docs that are magically held up currently) seems to think so? More than 1/2 the senate seems to think so.
7.) Ahhh...the global police AND our need to access global markets in the same sentence. Doesn't that just sum up the sickness of this administrations objectives. Scream freedom! and then push products. Sounds more like tyranny to me. I think a collection of countries providing policing services is at least marginally better than one country doing so. How exactly could it be bad? I like to consult with a friend before I bomb my neighbor...seems like a reasonable axiom for decision making that involves bombing the #@$# out of a bunch of people.
8.) Social Security = Handout. That is a very fascinating view of things. Have you EVER LOOKED AT YOUR PAY STUB?
9.) OOOPS...my numbering is off. I forgot to address the 100,000 deaths. While that statistic is clearly wrong (study states that there is a 95% chance that somewhere between 8,000 and 200,000 people have died as a result of the invastion and 100,000 is basically the average) conservative estimates DO STATE (other studies) that at least 15K have died from actual invastion (bombs, guns, falling buildings etc.). Thats a big enough number for me! At what point exactly does the number get small enough that I just shouldn't care? That I shouldn't make policy decisions to try to avoid that number? Hmmmm.
Your summary;
I'm not quite sure where you are going with your capitalism rant. Your use of jargon is all over the place, like a half-assed college education might provide. "Liberalism" and "capitalism" you seem to think are at odds. Check out the dictionary...liberalism's very definition includes the free market (and historically the gold standard, a bit wac...but whatever). What I think you have a problem with is the injection of certain adjustments in the form of social programs and those that are funded by taxation. I just plain ole disagree and would love to chat with you about assuming you can get your head out of your ass and vote for Kerry.
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!
Everyone should vote for Bush because he respects the seperation of church and state?
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
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.
unlike lower court judges, Bush cannot arbitrarily appoint a supreme court judge in temporary stead of congressional approval. So...next conspiracy theory.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.....
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 $190 billion from the budget.
Do away with federal welfare and trim the fat from other programs and we can have a fully functional federal government (that is still getting ~10% of the GNP) AND leave ALL working Americans with at 15-35+% more money in our pockets.
Just food for thought.
The sheer volume of European holiday travelers is now pushing the Euro as second national currency in all popular tourist destinations, pushing US$ 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.
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).
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
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
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
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
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