Slashdot Mirror
Best Presidential Candidate for Nerds?
blast writes "Given the broad field of candidates, I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about? Eg: privacy, 'total information awareness', Internet regulation and taxation, net neutrality, copyright/patent reform, the right to read, the right to secure communications, the right to tinker. Who do you think best represents your views? "
Al Gore
With the existing electoral system, only those in swing states matter. Most of the other votes are essentially discarded.
Deleted
Al Gore.... if only....
Myself.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Ted Stevens, he understands that the Internet is not like a big truck
Because, as all the political threads on Slashdot show, Slashdot readers care about the same issues, and all lean toward the same side of each of those issues.
Please check the box for the candidate you wish to support.
Republican Stooge [ ]
Democrat Stooge [ ]
Some Wacko Independant [ ]
Non of the above [X]
Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.
What would make us happy?
For example net neutrality. Net neutrality pisses off some money pumpers, though, and the general population doesn't care. Will we get it?
For example, no longer blaming computer games for violence. But it's a cheap scapegoat and it makes overcareful and ignorant parents happy, and it's a cheap excuse not to change a thing about education or social issues. Not blaming games cost more money and votes than blaming them.
For example, if the mafiaa didn't get whatever laws they want handed to them. Though, we're the only ones caring, there's a lot of money coming from them, so... see first example.
Do I have to go on?
Face it, as long as we don't ship more geeks into the US from somewhere, we won't get jack from either side of the political spectrum. We don't count.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not like any of us have the money to buy enough votes anyway.
Trolls don't actually read Slashdot. They're not even PEOPLE for heaven's sake! Not even 2/5ths of a person.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
CowboyNeal for president!
I read slashdot for the articles.
With everything that's going on now, I can't imagine putting geek issues on top of my list when I pick a candidate.
Strongbad.
Oh. You meant real candidates?
Custom, hands-free Linux installs. Instalinux
The obvious choice for anyone who values liberty. Tag it: ronpaul
Assuming he runs - it must be Bloomberg. I have heard from people that have met him that he is a total computer geek - and really understands technology.
Sad but true, it applies...
Someone broke into a party bureau. But no damage was done, all that's missing is the manifest and the election results of the next 10 years.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I hate to say this, but given the fact that the Commander In Chief is constitutionally responsible for things like dealing with the Iraq War (either waging or withdrawing, as your political leanings indicate), increasing or decreasing the federal government's footprint in things like military spending, the public safety net, drugs, energy and oil, foreign policy, government reform, immigration, infrastructure, etc., etc., etc., etc., isn't asking about technologically-specific issues sort of like arguing over the color of the china on the Titanic?
I mean, beyond setting policy which encourages economic growth, mindful to development issues such as environmental policy, who cares about a Presidential candidate's opinion about relatively minor stuff?
A very clear choice -- He has stated repeatedly that he does not want to regulate the internet in any way. (Most of his other views, immigration not withstanding, are sensible as well.)
Who cares if he's dead? That might actually help.
No question.
Get over there and establish residency!
Al Gore was the guy who brought the ARPANET out to be the Internet. He's tech savvy. He pays attention to technology and business. I wish our country was enlightened enough to have a guy like Al Gore be the President, but there's still a backward thinking element that favors authoritarianism (fascism).
Al was the one who helped get toxic waste sites identified and create a mechanism to deal with it. He's not working an agenda, he's outwardly focused.
Best regards.
Cthulhu. "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
'Nuff Said
He's not even running, but the "Not-Bush" candidate, the one that has the best chance of grinding the GOP into the ground, into utter irrelevance, until they're as dead and forgotten as the Whig and Bull-Moose party. That's the candidate I want.
No, I don't want single-party politics. And I don't even have anything against the GOP in general other than disagreeing with them -- but in particular, its current leadership is driving us off a cliff, and it'd be nice if anyone in the GOP who isn't a black-hearted mendacious zealoutrous hateful son of a bitch would jump ship. But it'll take driving the party into the ground before that ever happens.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
A person running that actually has enough integrity to stand behind what he says. Don't think you could say that about another person running...period.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
You would certainly be better than what we currently have.
While I don't have a particular favourite (because as you can tell by my spelling I'm actually not American), I think it would be good to get a president that would help get rid of that silly anti-online gambling law. I miss all my good american gambling buddies. While I'm sure Nevada/Las Vegas are trying to defend their brick-and-mortar casinos, they should realize that even with online gambling Nevada/Las Vegas will still have its attraction due to the instance weddings, glitzy shows and legalized prostitution ;-)
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
Mitch Kapor, I choose you! http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/transcripts/006 .html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Kapor
.NET. And we'd have to listen to him say "Cool" a lot. "Cool" is a cool word, but every time I hear Bill Gates use it the word dies a little.
Al Gore should be offered a position in the administration: It would be a shame to waste all those PowerPoint and 3DSMAX skills. Plus the guy can take out a rowdy student with a laser pointer at 500 yards.
Bill Gates? Nay Bill. His first act would be to make all schools buy Microsoft, and recast the 'Best viewed with Internet Explorer' errors on all Government web sites. Then NASA would be forced to rewrite all their software in
Use honesty as the first criteria in picking the candidates. If you cannot trust what a candidate is saying, then the validity of her political positions has no meaning because they may not be her true political positions.
Among the current set of candidates, the least dishonest persons are Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Dennis Kucinich.
Best candidate for...
... schhhluMPFFFFffffffssssizzle
BFG!
--
it takes a gssszzzzzzOORRRTTTCCCHHH
Ted Stevens, he understands that the internet is not a big truck, It's a series of tubes!
Barack Obama.
Is the best candidate for the U.S. Nerds... well he's popular on the net. BTW the entire world should be supporting this guy as well. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
FYI... No one coule EVER tell from someone's spelling that they aren't a native english speaker! We 'natural(?)' Americans can be pretty bad spellers from the get-go, so don't ever think that you'r on-line communications give anything away.
Keep passing the open windows...
I think that, while it is interesting and important to understand how a candidate feels on issues of interest to you, it is critical to understand two things.
1. No candidate, ever, will share the same views as you.
2. Determining who should be President based on such specific things as their stand on copyrights is an extremely bad idea.
If American society has really become so striated that this is the most important issue to middle- and upper-middle-class white men in their 30s and 40s, then we're really in trouble.
Please. I beg of you. Consider these issues as, to use a universally understood analogy, the flair on the uniform of a candidate. Worry about economic disparity. Worry about who will or won't lie their way into a war. If a candidate promised me that he or she would introduce national single-payer healthcare, address the rapidly increasing disparity between rich and poor (and uber-rich and rich), and would put the lives of our troops above proving a point, I could live with four to eight more years of vapidity and short-sightedness in terms of DRM.
go get it
http://digg.com/pc_games/EVE_Creators_CCP_Under_Fi re_Again_for_Alleged_Corruption_Open_Letter_Made
He without a doubt the best canidate but doesnt have a chance of ever being elected. His views are libertatian (good) but too unusual for main stream media
Whomever you pick at least VOTE!
I pick Hillary Clinton for The Office of Supreme Commander(aka President of the United States).
Zaphod Beeblebrox for president!
There you are, staring at me again.
...wouldn't the genuine nerd makeup want politics to be more like genuine open source, rather than politics that support hackable voting machines..
> With everything that's going on now, I can't imagine putting geek issues on top of my list when I pick a candidate.
Amen to that. Yes there is a lot of potential for bad stuff in the future if the Internet regulation thing goes horribly wrong. But patents and copyrights probably won't get any WORSE regardless who is elected President.
However all that pales into the background compared to the big issue, survival.
There are at least a million people who would like to cut our heads off/blow stuff up and anywhere between a few hundred million and upward of a billion that, while not having the balls to take up arms themselves would be more than happy to see it happen and/or lend the terrorists aid, confort and political cover to the ones with the AK-47s and the bomb belts.
One of our major political parties, from a combination of mindless BDS and a natural tendency towards spinelessness, is arrayed from apathy through surrender with a few outright ON THE OTHER FSCKING SIDE. The other has nost major candidates paying lip service to winning the War on Radical Islam but giving off strong hints they will at best be like Bush, willing to fight just enough to piss people off but with ho hope of going all in for the win and at worst as bad as the other party.
Democrat delenda est
I have no idea who you are or what you can, but you have no chance in hell to be worse than the current guy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A thing to note on Ron Paul, too, is that he is one of the few who voted against the Patriot Act and against Internet regulation. A few other nice things about him:
Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum...
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
He can't be worse than anyone else who has a chance of getting elected.
Which is better: emacs or vi?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
John Edwards Vs. Rudy Guiliani.
First of all, the democrats can't be stupid enough to actually nominate Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They have to win over the red states, and they can't do that with a black person OR a woman. If they think beating the republicans and stopping all this fascist bullshit is important, they'll go with the safe candidate, Edwards.
The republicans will go for the candidate that has the highest name recognition, somebody who has an appropriately heroic aura (even if it's mostly bullshit) and somebody they know will continue their nefarious activities. That's Giuliani.
So you vote for the democrat who thinks we should drop all this "war on terror" bullshit, or you vote for the republican stooge who just happened to be in the right place at the right time and will make it all worse. Those are your choices, guys.
Just to give you an idea of what you have to look forward to under Giuliani if he wins, he increased the police presence in NYC to never before seen levels. He also increased surveillance, and was known to crack down mercilessly on protesters and dissidents. He doesn't seem to care particularly about all those pesky "privacy rights" in your constitution, either. He's all about Big Brother. Hell, he probably IS Big Brother.
Edwards, on the other hand, seems friendly and harmless. And he'll probably turn things around and set this country back on course.
I'm a geek; I'm voting for Edwards. What do you think? Am I right or what?
NO CARRIER
Here is an interesting piece (source WND) on Ron Paul in the debate and his true comments about the war:
... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.
But who was right - Rudy or Ron?
Posted: May 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.
Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:
"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.
"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."
The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous - the sound bite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.
After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.
Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.
"I would ask the congressman to
A fair question and a crucial question.
When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.
Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahedeen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.
What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.
Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.
Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.
What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?
Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?
Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.
Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?
Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in co
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Actually the more fundamental question is, can any candidate accurately represent any individual's core beliefs? And is the idea of voting for an entire platform really democratic?
Slashdot readers will be familiar with the debates on issues such as a la carte cable channel selection, and how hard we fight to be given options instead of a one size fits all package deal. So why do we accept it with democracy? Why do we have to pick which of our beliefs are most important and vote for the person who best represents those, while sacrificing other beliefs?
The system must be changed to allow people to vote on issues, or at the very least sub-sections of government policy. Finance, social, military, environment. Yes these issues are all related, but individual opinions may not line up with the traditional slates when grouping these issues together.
So, what candidate will fight for this finer granularity in democracy?
Sadly I think the answer is none. Except for me of course (those in my geographic area, vote for me next time!)
> Democrat Stooge [ ]
> Some Wacko Independant [ ]
> None of the above [X]
Or the next best thing. If you can't vote with your dollars, vote with your feet.
"Stephen Harper, or whoever else is Prime Minister of Canada on November 5, 2008 [X]"
Anyone who can scrape together 67 points can get in, and anyone with a Bachelor's degree (which guarantees you'll get the full 16 points for English proficiency, even though your Americanness guarantees you'll get 0 points for French :) and one year's work experience and a job offer -- or one year's work experience and a spouse with a Bachelor's degree -- is going to make the cut.
Canadian income taxes aren't much more than US income taxes. US Federal tax forms don't show the extra 6.2% that's getting taken off for Socialist Insecurity, nor do they take into effect state taxes. The Canadian federal government just turned a $10 billion surplus, and you even get the equivalent of catastrophic health care insurance in exchange for your tax dollars.
Atlas shrugs, eh?
A Drag Queen would make a great President.
Three Words: CAN OF WORMS.
Applies to the question you've asked (you have opened a ____) the politicians (their brains consist of a ____) and most slashdot readers' egos (A ____ will agree more consistently than this lot). Also the trolls and loudmouths (they take the worms out of the can, dump it on everyone, and then use the can as a megaphone).
I'd vote for the worms.
"!"
Dr. Paul definitely has my vote. It's really unfortunate that the mainstream media won't even make his controversial (logical) values into an issue. The fact that he wants to minimize the fed and irs makes him a target by a lot of folks, so they ignore him even though opinion polls after recent debates show him out in front. It's nice to see I'm not the only one on /. mentioning Paul though.
Another man with integrity and vision.
"What do you think? Am I right or what?"
No, actually, you're completely wrong. In fact, after reading it, I can't find a single point in your entire post that is correct or accurate.
Please do not vote, you simply aren't intelligent enough.
He's an isolationist. That might sound ok... "America for Americans, high tariffs to protect American jobs, let others deal with their own problems, etc". That's the same attitude that kept us out of the League of Nations and out of WWII for three years. The United States is far to large economically, militarily and culturally to isolate itself like Paul wants.
Warnings of Chaos Ignored
I know you were probably only referring to Bush's poor reputation Stateside and his anemic approval rating when you said "fight just enough to piss people off" but you have the whole rest of the world to consider pissing off as well. I love the questions the reporters asked our President.
"Edwards, on the other hand, seems friendly and harmless. And he'll probably turn things around and set this country back on course."
You do realize that Guiliani literally turned around NYC and put it *back on course, don't you? The man has real grit and character. What did Edwards accomplish? A few hundred lawsuits? His hair is nice, though.
He has the most technical experience ( Former head of the Department of Energy ), the most foreign policy experience ( Former diplomat to the UN ), and an open mind. He supports medical use of marijuana. Most of all, he seems to be an honest guy. Too many candidates seem to have a facade formed by their political handlers, Bill just appears to be who he is. And finally, he is the only candidate I have drunken a beer with, and that seals it!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
If that's true, then without money to buy a press, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor. What good is the right to life if you can't afford food? Where is liberty if all land is private, and you own none? I've said it before, libertarianism provides only simple answers to complex questions, and libertarians will never directly answer any challenges to their beliefs, they will simply accuse you of hating freedom.
Libertarians forget that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. They want the freedom to do whatever they want without the responsibility that goes with it. Libertarianism: the philosophical equivalent of shouting, "you're not the boss of me!" in response to any question.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Bull shit he is all for free trade. In fact he wants lower tariffs. I hate disinformation jerks like you. It's the reason why the wrong people get elected.
t m
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst060605.h
"We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so."
I too support Ron Paul. He's the only candidate out there who truly believes in Liberty instead of demagoguery. See him in action for yourself on You Tube.
Personally, I wouldn't let Edwards off so easy. I'm a geek, yes, and I'm sure he wouldn't do too much against the geek/nerd community, but I do know you may want to look into his health care ideas. My fiancee (a medical geek), her father (a doctor) and her mother (a nurse) have all explained exhaustively to me about the problems of socialized/universal health care. I've looked up some of the research myself about these health care systems and frankly, they are much worse than what we have now, even for the poor.
I don't mean to turn this into a health care debate. I'm just saying you shouldn't let off Edwards so easily; and more so you shouldn't only vote for someone for their technology policies.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Debt and Taxes
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. (more...)
The american obsession with "low taxes" is a root cause behind much of the problems this country faces today. By avoiding our responsibilities to society, we propagate selfishness and authoritarianism.
American Independence and Sovereignty
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation.
Blanket statements like this make this guy look like a loon. How is the ICC a threat to US sovereignty? Pushing fear mongering bullshit like "the ICC wants to try our soldiers" is one of the reasons it is hard to take right wingers seriously. Like it or not folks, we are an important part of the world and we have to deal with it.
War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them.
This is true, but he proposes no alternatives. It is VERY easy to talk about the war, but not easy to come up with suggestions. He needs to work on this. Knee-jerk opposition to the UN is a simple minded and ineffective foreign policy.
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.
Ahh yes, and overnight put thousands of small businesses out of business. Again, like it or not, illegal immigrants do the work americans refuse to do. We cannot on one hand decry cheap labour and on the other hand demand huge pay increases for janitorial work. And how does he propose to secure our borders without TAXES? Yet another inconsistency.
Privacy and Personal Liberty
The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens' personal matters.
WRONG. The biggest threat to privacy are multinational corporations. Who do you think actually do the work of collecting, storing and profiting off our personal matters?
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
This is all well and good, but how is he going to protect families when the corporations come knocking? Corporate ownership of traditional family farms is rampant, and FAR WORSE of a problem than any government interventions, and yet he says NOTHING about this.
All told, Ron Paul just sounds like yet another pro-corporate shill, if he gets elected, you should fully expect far worse corporate interventionism in our government than we have with RIAA, MPAA, Blackwater, or Halliburton.
...if we're going for dream candidates anyway, the best guy to represent my interests would be ME! Of course, I'd take a few constitutional amendments for me to become president since I'm not a natural born citizen, nor 35 or older, nor lived in the US for 14 years though I did go there for two weeks on vacation. Then again, I'm not sure I could stomach all the politics even though the president is a little bit over that and sets politics instead. How ironic that to do what's in the best interest of the people I'd prefer as little "democratic process" as possible. Maybe that's what the people actually at the top are thinking too, that would explain a lot...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I've known about this guy for fifteen years now and never even thought of that.
You're right as far as Guiliani. This guy hates individual rights with a passion.
If you think Bush was bad as far as increasing the power of the executive, wait until you see Guiliani.
Nice name calling from a coward. He is an isolationist. Sure he's ok with low tariffs for imported goods, but what about selling US goods abroad? Is he going to force other countries to buy our goods? It takes international cooperation and policing to have international trade, or maybe you haven't heard of GATT.
To be blunt, if your biggest concerns are net neutrality, videogames, and the RIAA, I'm glad you are in the minority and you don't count.
I realize this is only a thought experiment for fun, but looking out only for your own narrow self-interest can be a bad idea.
Come on people, you know what it always come down to at the end: choosing the lesser of the evils! So I propose to reword the post's question: As a geek, which of the Presidential Candidates is the least worst for you?
Some examples:
Hillary (Hot Coffee)
Giuliani (banned honking car horns)
Obama (has a stupid Second Life account)
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
# Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
# Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
# Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
# Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
# Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
# Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
# No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools (AKA religious schools)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
In short, he wants to cut services, not allow woman to make up their own minds, and do what supports his belief in the magical tooth fairy...oh sorry "god"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I wasn't talking about Edwards' IT policies. I'm primarily interested in the fact that he's against all this "war on terror" bullshit, and Giulinani is NOT. This country, and our personal liberties, are being ruined by the so-called "global war on terror" and somebody needs to take that whole concept out behind the barn and put it down.
As for his health care ideas, I wouldn't worry about them. Even a president doesn't have carte blanche to rewrite the health care system. Bill and Hillary tried, and nothing happened at all.
What will PROBABLY happen if the dems take over is that the health plan that Congress uses will be expanded to all un-covered Americans, as one gigantic super-group. The result of that would be that our health care system would be essentially the same, only a couple hundred Americans would pay into the super-group and cover the much smaller number who fall ill. This would grant you nationalized health care without any of the problems you see in socialist-oriented systems.
You'd just be showing a different health insurance card.
NO CARRIER
Me and Jon Stewart like Mr. T
Kneel before Zod!!
No thanks...
From his site, and I quote "Javascript is in use by roughly 95% of the browsers on the Internet and is considered safe." - how many nerds would consider that statement true?... Don't all shout at once...
Javascript being demanded by websites is whats wrong with the internet, well, that and flash
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
...just not so much the ones that were mentioned in the original post. The most important is having a much stronger emphasis on math and science in our schools. It's no secret that the US is falling behind in these areas. Developed countries like Japan and Germany are more or less kicking our asses in these areas and even China is practically breathing down our neck, at least in the manufacturing arena. After WWII, when America could easily be called the world's technological leader, the economy was fantastic and we had a strong middle class. Now this is all changing. The de-emphasis on math and science will ultimately lead to economic decline, so this is actually a huge issue. As the richest nation in the world, there is no excuse why we shouldn't be the technological leader. Any presidential candidate that recognizes this would earn major points with me personally. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that Al Gore would be the best choice for this, but he hasn't thrown his hat in yet. ::sigh::
DAMN TYPOS!
s/couple hundred/couple hundred million/g
NO CARRIER
I agree with you on most of what you said. I'm actually leaning towards Obama at the moment, but my opinions will likely be influenced by the way he votes on the upcoming "show Bush the money" capitulation... er.. resolution. I actually voted for Edwards last time (by the time the election got to California it was clear Edwards or Kerry were my two choices). But I have reservations about Edwards' vote to authorize the war. And even though I know he apologizes for it now, it is my biggest obstacle to supporting him. He was in a position to stop the war, and when it counted, he let us down.
Obama on the other hand spoke out against the war at the right time, but also was not in the difficult position of having to vote when he did. Now he is. To me, Obama and Edwards are like mirror images so far... but what could solidify or weaken my support for Obama is his upcoming vote. We'll see things go.
As far as the Dems needing a white male candidate... I'm not so sure. I may be optimistic, but I think that race has become much less of an issue with the US population as a whole than it was even 10 years ago. Sure, there will be states in the South with lots of scared bigots voting for the white guy... but those people would vote Republican anyway. I honestly think Obama has a real shot if he gets the nomination.
However it plays out, in the general election I will vote for whoever seems most sincere and pragmatic about towing our country out of the ditch into which Bush drove it. It won't be an easy task.
HOWARD DEAN
http://dean3.ytmnd.com/
I'm British (and biased as I was a Green candidate over here this month) so I don't know much about the US Green Party's policies, but looking at RMS's website, he seems to be promoting them.
According to Wikipedia, the announced prospective Green candidates are Alan Augustson, Elaine Brown, Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift and there is speculation that Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Rebecca Rotzler, Cindy Sheehan and Al Gore might stand for the Greens.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Turd sandwich all the way. I think he can beat Giant Douche without a problem.
A vote cast in ignorance is worse than no vote at all.
No good reason except that corporate America really hates him.
Push the button, Max!
Anyone who believes in the conservative ideals of small government and civil liberty should consider voting for Representative Ron Paul of Texas. I'm fed up with the Republican party and their neo-conservative bullshit, and Paul takes a firm stance behind truly conservative principals and he defends the Constitution with fervor. I'm confident that, if elected, he will reign in the Republican party and set this country in a better direction.
He believes in civil liberty, the free market, he voted against the Iraq war, he seeks to abolish the IRS and the Federal Income Tax, he seeks to minimize the role of the federal government, and abolish deficit spending. What's more, he votes against any bill or resolution whatsoever which remotely violates the spirit of the Constitution. My libertarian ideals are so tickled by this man that I am supporting him despite his status as a Republican.
As a libertarian, I don't usually find that I can fully support many Democratic or Republican candidates from an idealogical standpoint. Libertarian candidates, like all third-party candidates, are marginalized by traditional political mechanisms and don't stand much of a chance in the running for any major political office, so I've decided to throw my support behind Ron.
Get the government you deserve: Zod
Clinton/Gore did more damage to copyright (damage to the public) than the Bushes.
We need someone who will get the government's mitts out of our lives. There are too many grandiose plans going about. Everyone wants a quick fix in his(her) lifetime. The best thing I ever read about Coolidge: there were no grand schemes, but there were no headaches, either.
We need a president who won't go trying to change the world (and ruin our economy in the process). We need a president who will let things run their course and let the private sector get our economy going again.
While he opposes "So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA", he is NOT a protectionist. He favors trade with all nations, and generally opposes protectionist tariffs."
"For example, he opposed CAFTA because it took the power away from Congress to regulate international trade. Check out his speech, CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html. Congressman Paul is an absolute free trader. I wouldn't expect any less of someone whose entrance into politics was the result of a study of economics. His solution to protectionist policies is to decrease taxes and regulations here that make our businesses competitive abroad. To quote the article, "CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body."
I've been saying for a long time now that slashdot (despite the wide spectrum of philosophies and voting practices of its readers) is becoming a political party. Let's face, we do have a common interest that is largely influenced by politics. America never had a united technocrats party before. You might be witnessing its emergence.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Well, this is approximately equivalent to asking, "Who would be a good candidate for people who try to be rational and take all salient information into account."
Among the current field of Democrats and Republicans, I have to say, "No one." Emphatically.
Running for President these days has degenerated to the status of trying to be the leader of the Bloods or the Crips. The story is power, who has it, and who can get it. Sadly, it seems that every one of these candidates are busy serving their party, and not a single one gives a rats' tail about serving the public.
The closest we can come to a candidate who wanted to take a centrist position and accomplish something of use for the American People was Bill Clinton. He, at least, was willing to go against his party when he thought that doing so would serve the public. It remains to be seen whether or not Hillary can live up to this standard.
So, if you're a nerd, consider... Moving to India, where nerds are valued.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
The Democrats were stupid enough to nominate Kerry. Enough said.
I'm voting for Edwards too, but I don't think he stands a chance in the primary.
The best thing a president could possibly do for nerds or just about anyone else is stop making more laws and start dismantling the stupid laws perpetrated by previous governments.
I am not in the US, so I can't do much about your choice of president, but at least I can have my say here. The way I see it from here, your options can be divided unambiguously into two groups:
1: Scumbags that will sell you out, nay, have already sold you out, to whichever corporate and special interests will finance their campaign.
2: Ron Paul.
I am a cynic. I hardly expect people to vote in their own best interests. There's a reason the scumbags sell their souls for campaign money - it gets them elected. So I expect another scumbag leading your country in 2009. But please, please, for the sake of all that is good, pure and true in this world, anyone but Giuliani.
I swear, if you guys elect Giuliani, I am going to go out every weekend, find drunk Americans, and beat the crap out of them. Maybe even daily. You've been warned.
Software patents delenda est.
The fascists in Italy had the trains running on time, too.
The fact remains that he accomplished his goal of cleaning up NYC by being essentially fascist. For example, he threw out all the adult-oriented businesses on 42nd street and brought in Disney and the like (this was the so-called "disneyfication of Manhattan", talked about and argued over in the press).
One of the primary tenets of Fascism is Corporatism, i.e. the support of corporations by the government and the collusion between the two.
He also increased the police presence and armed them to the teeth, another fascist staple. He is a huge fan of increased police power, which I am opposed to utterly. I do not believe the average cop has either the education, intelligence, or wisdom to properly use the power most of them have been given. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all that. The cops in NYC are totally out of control, they're no better than the LAPD.
Nah, you keep your fascists, I'm voting for the "nice guy".
NO CARRIER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
The Federal Reserve is a private FOR PROFIT corporation incorporated in Delaware.
Check your phone book, you wont find it in the gov section.
Kill the Fed or the country will continue to be run by puppet leaders.
http://www.specialfarm.net/macgyver2008.html
Why vote for nerd-men when you can vote for a nerd-god?
Granted, he is total information awareness unto himself, but here's a man who understands some of our problems in the Middle East, like Improvised Explosives, Improvised weapons, improvised planes and improvised... uh... stuff. His strong knowledge in this area of improvisation will no doubt propel him to the forefront much like an improvised rocket of compressed air will shoot him down a zip line as a factory explodes.
Macgyver. Think about it.
He's at least consistent. He's not my perfect candidate (he's practically homophobic, anti-choice, and doesn't really understand immigration issues), but perfection is the enemy of good, as many have pointed out. I think many slashdot would vote at least for good. Despite his imperfections, I can't say he's even evil.
Let's look at some other things about him:
I'm sure there's many more that I've forgotten.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Right, Bush is not running. And I must say that although I strongly disagree with everything said in parent, this should be modded down as a troll on the sole basis of the authors blind hatred and emotional diarrhea that really has no bearing on the question posed. It only serves to piss off those that have different views (read me). Sincerely, "black-hearted mendacious zealoutrous hateful son of a bitch"
The cool things is to have windows that bounce up and down like a good tits.
I'm a geek; I'm voting for Edwards. What do you think? Am I right or what?
Well, you're not right, but I find it hard to follow that voting for a sleazy trial lawyer can be interpreted as anyone as a GOOD thing.
Because of Edwards, many, many, MANY women have had to undergo painful and unnecessary surgery so their doctors can avoid lawsuits. If you had to pick a big contributor to health care costs all around, it falls right on on Edwards and his ilk.
As a geek, I don't think someone living in the back pocket of the trail lawyer industry should be in the Whitehouse. You think we have too much litigation on tech topics right now? Just wait if this scumbag hits the big time.
/// Not a super-genius . . . yet. ///
Don't get me wrong, I like Obama a LOT. If I thought he could win the election, I'd vote for him in a second. But I think most of the U.S. is pretty alarming culturally, for example, check out this museum down in Kentucky:
l ?em&ex=1180152000&en=3fce574910e89398&ei=5087%0A
7 28-Kentucky_museum-0
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/18-05-2007/91
I'm sorry, but I don't have too much "faith" (ha ha!) in the red states about now. They all look pretty nuts from my perspective. I hope the Dems go with the "safe" guy so Giulinani doesn't get in. One shudders to think of what life would be like under THAT guy...
NO CARRIER
Bender for president! "To all those who don't vote for me, you can all bite my shiny metal ass!"
Man: Hey, want to have sex with me and get knocked up?
Woman: No.
Man: Oh, uh... alrighty then. See you later.
Wow, so rarely does a man rise up to a position so high and yet deserve the title of pure evil. I have never seen a politician who deserves the name more than Edwards. He is a demagogue who wants to rally the poor against the middle class. Before you protest that he is rallying them against the rich, just remember that in today's world the rich can just leave. They are no longer tied to this country by almost anything. Edwards is the single force speaking for the rising tide of nihilism in this country. He is the modern day Hitler.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Long Copyright/Patent terms decrease the amount of information that the public can freely exchange.
The "public" library becomes a place not for information owned by the public, but rather a place for material rented from corporations.
Think about the things that a person must legally pay toll fees on:
- single clicking to purchase
- singing happy-birthday in public.
- to obtain writings/music/movies from before 1950. Note that according to the original copyright terms of these, they are in the public domain. But that was retroactively extended by 40 years in 1976 and 1998.
- medicine which has already more than returned the cost of research and development.
As the copyright and patent terms increase, the public domain (of recent works) decreases.
We end up with the corporate ruling class, with the rest of society renting from them.
**** ...the announced prospective Green candidates are Alan Augustson, Elaine Brown, Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift and there is speculation that Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Rebecca Rotzler, Cindy Sheehan and Al Gore might stand for the Greens.
****
Nader needs to be kicked out of the party and stuffed into a retirement home. Every time he TOUCHES the nomination, it tanks the entire party's legitimacy. I'm registered Green and I loathe the jerk. He's so far off-base from the core ideals that it would be funny if he didn't manage to self-proclaim himself the party's candidate every damn election. Watch what happens - he'll declare himself the candidate next time around, despite who the people actually vote for.
As for Republican, Ron Paul without a doubt. The powermongering and consolidation of power in D.C. is appalling and needs to stop now before the entire system implodes. Or we turn into a police state like the U.K. We need a massive swing back towards the center and he's the only person who's even entertaining the notion.
As for Democrat, obviously Obama, since he has the least political connections and time in the system(and therefore the least corrupted). He seem pretty level-headed, like with this vote - he said he'd read it before he made his mind up. Gosh - what a novel concept! Reading legislation instead of toting the party line!. Btw, he did vote against it. This should be the litmus test for Democrats, btw - whether they voted to stop the war or not.
I invoke Godwin's law and magically KILL your thread.
BTW, you're as nutty as a ten pound Christmas fruitcake.
NO CARRIER
Ron Paul is the best choice for Americans, period, not just nerds. He's the most pro-freedom candidate out there, and the only one - IMO - who's qualified to hold the position.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Big deal. Check out George W. Bush's desktop computer.
First of all, the democrats can't be stupid enough to actually nominate Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They have to win over the red states, and they can't do that with a black person OR a woman. If they think beating the republicans and stopping all this fascist bullshit is important, they'll go with the safe candidate, Edwards.
That's a very serious problem, yes. Strangely, I think the best way to combat it is to up the ante. Let's not just nominate a black candidate, but let's go for the black/hispanic ticket with Sen. Barack Obama and NM Gov. Bill Richardson.
First, Richardson will help steal hispanic votes from the GOP. This would help secure red states like Arizon, New Mexico, New Orleans, and possibly even (dare I say it) Texas which have large hispanic populations.
Second, Richardson will help balance out Obama's lack of foreign policy experience as Richardson is an experienced diplomat.
Third, I like the guy, he seems very thoughtful and intelligent, and he helped New Mexico get the space port.
This is a fairly half-assed idea; it's still to early for me to be worrying too much about who I'm voting for. I'll admit I want to see this -- Richardson, Obama, even Hillary -- simply because I would love to smash through a traditional race/sex barrier even if the result wasn't the best president ever. Outside of accidentally pressing The Big Red Button, how could they be worse?
The enemies of Democracy are
I don't know what his actual beliefs are but Obama was the first one to support placing the debate footage under Creative Commons. It also looks like Lessig is friends with the guy, it doesn't necessarily mean they share copyright views but it hopefully means he would actually hear our side of the copyright debate rather than just Disneys.
I stole this Sig
and you realize that what he said about Edwards and what you said about Giuliani are basically the same thing right?
look, vote Edwards, I don't care. As for me I am going to wait for awhile before I decide which "evil" to vote for. Unlike you I am also not going to say "Democrat Good, Republican Bad" for crying out loud you essentially invoke 1984 on Giuliani did you ever read Animal Farm perchance?
POTUS: Jimmy Wales
VP: Esther Dyson
Bumper Stickers:
"Save the Internets Nation"
"not@my.backyard.com"
He's been on Futurama two and a half times: in a segment with Uhura, Hawking, Deep Blue, and the guy that invented Dungeons and Dragons; as the Emperor of the Moon, having "ridden the mighty moon worm"; and an animated promotion for his own movie with bender; and he'll be in the new episodes as well. A Dune reference for cryin' out loud! He's got more nerd cred then every other candidate combined!
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Uhh, in case you didn't notice the article is about who is the "Best Presidential Candidate for Nerds?".
What on earth has a presidential candidate's foreign policy got to do with the matter?
To have enemies who argue the way you do makes me proud of being me.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
This libertarian disagrees with Ron Paul on the abortion and immigration issues, but I understand the principle of his position on Abortion. I don't agree believing that life begins at conception means the protections of life and liberty makes women a federal breeding machine.
He is against birthright citizenship. I believe the constitution is fine. Doesn't need changing.
I will vote for Ron Paul if he is in the race on some ticket. I don't agree with a lot of his views, but he has principles and has been willing to stand for them even when totally unpopular.
His stopped clock of a voting record has been much needed in a time of Patriot Acts, endless war and infinite executive power.
He has many flaws, but he is a principled man in a line-up of used car salesman.
What's crazy though is that the same people who go to museums like that to edu-ma-cate their kids would never vote for Giuliani if they actually paid any attention to his views on abortion or civil rights. Of course since they never got past seeing Bush as a folksy cowboy type who they'd like to share a beer with, I'm sure they'll never see Giuliani as anything other than "that 9-11 guy".
But as I say, I don't think those people are going to vote for the Democrat anyway. Maybe Edwards is the exception to that, I don't know.
1. Tux the penguin (if arnold is american he can be too) 2. dogbert 3. my left shoe
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
If candidates actually had an incentive to minimize the margins for their losses in states that they don't carry, that would certainly work, but as it stands, there's no incentive to bother. Just let the states you lose be a blowout and spend your effort on the few states that actually matter.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
You do realize that Guiliani literally turned around NYC and put it *back on course, don't you? The man has real grit and character.
That is the media-made legend around him, yes. But ask a New Yorker and you'll get a different story, what with nasty police-state tactics, slimy connections to crooked mobbed-up figures like Bernie Kerik, thinly veiled racism in city policies, and so on. Hell, ask a firefighter from New York what he thinks about "America's Mayor" and his first response will probably include some words that can't be aired on television.. Unless it's HBO.
Here's your "man of grit and character" for you: After 9/11, he pushed a group of first responders out of a
hotel room near ground zero that was being used for operational planning, in order to put his mistress in the room just so he wouldn't have such a long drive in between spouting platitudes in front of the cameras and screwing his girlfriend. That's integrity for ya.
What did Edwards accomplish? A few hundred lawsuits? His hair is nice, though.
Oh yeah, John Edwards has "Jacuzzi Cases!" as Tucker Carlson so disgustingly described the case of a 12-year-old girl who had her intestines ripped out by a jacuzzi, whose manufacturer knew it was dangerous but decided to save a few nickels by not adding a plastic guard over the intake. Edwards proved they knew about it, and the company was punished for their gross negligence, and the girl's hospital bills are paid up for many years. Sure, the girl (now 19) may have to spend most of the rest of her life attached to an IV in a hospital since she can't eat food anymore, but wow, she sure hit the jackpot, huh?
Ha, ha. Those wacky lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits! Just like that old lady who got third degree burns from McDonald's coffee, had to get tens of thousands of dollars worth of surgery for skin grafts on her lap, but got a million dollar settlement! Of which, McDonalds refused to pay more than a tiny fraction, telling her "you want it, take us back to court, bitch!" Yeah! Give me some of that!
Personally, I'm glad that Giuliana will be the Rep's choice. Once America gets a good strong whiff of the REAL Giuliani, past the mythical image, it will help put to rest a lot of the mythology and bullshit surrounding 9/11, and maybe America can finally deal with what happened that day in a rational manner. Plus, it'll be easier for the Dem candidates to rip him a new one than even McCain or Romney, which might help to destroy the rotting carcass that is the Republican party once and for all, and we can get a decent, respectable conservative party to take their place. Once that happens, we can worry about getting rid of the Democratic party and replacing it.
Of course, we'll probably be stuck with the festering insanity of the Republicans and the timid half-heartedness of the Democrats forever. But a guy can hope, right?
By the way, http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html is a great resource for checking whether you're overlooking someone, or thinking too highly of someone who doesn't really fit your beliefs. I don't think most people realize how far to the left Edward's stated positions actually are. He's not moderate.
Well, I agree with you there, I'd love to see an election shake things up for a change. I just don't think they've got a chance at winning, and I hate to see the Dems throw yet another election to the Republicans.
Do you ever wonder if maybe all this "election" nonsense is just a big punch and judy show they put on for us while the rich select their next president over cocktails at the country club?
Take the last few elections for example.
In 2000, Gore lost, but at least he put up a fight. And he clearly meant what he was saying. He TRIED. I believe this was the first crooked election in the current set. But the republicans outmaneuvered him, and we got Bush in power. In 2002, the republicans had an easy time because they were still riding on Bush's coattails.
In 2004, Kerry started out strong but then started dragging his feet. By the election, he wasn't that charismatic anymore. He didn't even try to fight the Swift Boat scumbags, and he could have nailed Bush to the wall on numerous occasions and didn't. It was like he was just coasting at times. Then, after an election with voting irregularities, Kerry just rolled over and died! He gave up INSTANTLY. He didn't even TRY to force a recount in Florida and Ohio.
Now, his wife is some kind of ketsup millionaire (Heinz) so he's connected to the Good Old Boys' club, right? Why would he give up so quickly? Why would he just roll over like that? This is STRICTLY A MATTER OF MY PERSONAL OPINION/SPECULATION but what if -- WHAT IF -- behind closed doors somebody decided that Bush would be the next president and Kerry went along with it?
In 2006, so much media attention had come upon the election process that nobody could get away with anything and you had a Democratic sweep.
In 2008, if the Democrats take over, there'll likely be some trials, the war on terror will end abruptly, and a lot of the fascist dreams of the republican party will collapse into so much confetti. SO, the Republicans will probably take their chances and try to cook the books again. And the Democrats are looking at two candidates that would be, at best, a long shot... Coincidence?
Just my personal conspiracy theory. Strictly a matter of opinion! But what if...
NO CARRIER
Starts with Cowboy and ends with Neal!
and, the obligatory,
In Soviet Russia, President elects YOU!
Proceed with your downmods! I have 5 points available. For everyone that gives me a -1 I shall mod the stupidest comments I can find +1 insightful!
Might as well throw in a few more....
!!!
TLF
I am now going off the caffeine for the day. Thank you for visiting.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
If the rest of the world likes a candidate, I'm all against that particular candidate. I don't want the world to run my country. I don't want my country to run the rest of the world. I want the rest of the world to realize the US has one of the best ideal governments humans can create (not that it is now an ideal government... it needs a lot of house cleaning... ) and conform to it.
Mike Gravel: http://www.gravel2008.us/issues
If I was to pick one bad apple, out of (nothing other than) rotten apples in a basket.
Gravel jams the "status-quo" bullshit and lies back up the ass of the other leader-clowns
and fraud-leaders (like Bush and Hillary), pseudo-patriot politicians/generals (like
Chaney and Franks), faux-prophet kings (like Falwell (thankfully dead) Roberts/Robertson,
Bin Laden...)....
GIVE U.S. FREEDOM FROM THE THREAT OF ALL MEGALOMANIACS/PROPHETS [AKA: Dogmatist]!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Tsk, no sense of humor. You should see a doctor about that, I hear they're implantable now.
NO CARRIER
I feel compelled somehow to vote for...
THE HYPNO-TOAD
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
No thanks!
I thoguht we wanted someone to PROTECT our privacy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If that's true, then without money to buy a press, freedom of the press becomes meaningless.
No, because I can always make a press - the question at hand is the right to even be ALLOWED to do so. Money never enters the equation. Are we so blinded by consumerism we have forgotten the power we wield now as potential makers?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I voted for him when he ran as the Libertarian candidate. Maybe he'll do the same this time, since he won't get the republican nomination.
The implied claim that conservatives won't vote for a black is a big lie that the left has been promoting for half a century.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Ron Paul is a Republican. He is under consideration by the Contitution Party as a potential nominee under their party, and it appears the people in the party strongly desire his transfer.
Libertarians believe in individual rights as well as social responsibility; furthermore, every Libertarian with whom I associate believes people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians desire the return to the fundamental Constitution of the United States. Before disparaging all people who beleive the best approach for the U.S.A. as a nation of freedom and liberty lies with the Libertarian Party, you should review the Libertarian Platform.
Not quite. I quite accurately stated that the policies Giuliani pursues are fascist, as are the policies of the current government. Fascism usually leads to evil, but calling someone a fascist isn't quite the same as calling him evil; evil is much broader and not particularly useful as an adjective.
Let's review. Fascism is a political approach that pursues:
Corporatism: the close collusion between corporations and the government, to the extent that many government functions are carried out by corporations and corporations hold much power over the way things are run. Google "Halliburton" sometime.
Militarism: the buildup of a military presence with which one can project one's power over those who disagree with you.
Abundance of police power: the use of an overwhelmingly powerful police force to keep the public of your own country in line.
Reduction of personal liberty and elimination of personal freedoms: tied to the use of police force, this is basically constant surveillance and suspicion. NYC under Giulinani put up thousands of cameras watching everything they could; it's very similar to the way things are over in London right now. It's interesting that you mention 1984 and Animal Farm -- Giuliani's cameras are actually a bit more high-tech than Orwell's telescreens. And yes, I have read Animal Farm, more than once. Do not call me a communist.
I could go on and on, but time is of the essence! Here's a nice Wikipedia article for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
The very first paragraph reads like a description of the republican party itself! Quite funny, here it is:
(From Wikipedia):
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests inferior to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
Sad that you don't understand this.
NO CARRIER
Ron Paul! Because right wing authoritarianism is GOOD FOR AMERICA!
If Elected I promise:
1) Decriminalize most crimes except for the really bad ones (Murder, rape, robbery, etc) and institute a policy of impaling for the rest of them. Worked for Vlad. I'd be Greyfox the impaler.
2) Mandatory reversible sterilization for all children at puberty.
3) Breeding license. It's harder to buy a gun or a car than it is to have a child. We'll have a test to insure that the Wrong Sorts don't breed.
4) Forced breeding but
5) Child rearing is a very difficult task and parents are far too busy these days. Therefore all children will be confiscated at birth and raised in sanitary state run facilities.
6) Not only will gay marriage be legal, it will be mandatory for all people who don't hold breeding licenses.
7) All organized religion will be abolished and a mandatory state run one involving Smurfs will be put into place.
8) Mandatory Samurai honor code for corporate executives and public officials. Bring shame to your office, commit sepuku.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I don't think that's true. Blacks only got the vote down South fairly recently (thirty years ago? A little longer?). And the South had to be dragged kicking and screaming into allowing blacks to attend the same schools as white kids. Rascism is still a HUGE problem down there. And regardless of what even moderate whites may say when you put them on the spot, internally many of them are nowhere NEAR ready to vote for a black guy.
If they prove me wrong, I'll be delighted. We'll have to see what happens.
NO CARRIER
I think this is a much larger problem than you're giving it credit for.
Firstly, having coherent policy is absolutely essential. Environmental policy draws on industry, with is more blurred with social policy than one might think, and so forth. To make it all worse, the groups involved are likely to be divided, sometimes quite bitterly. To take an example familiar to slashdotters, imagine coding a project where each module was written by a different person, each as embattled with all the others as Democrats and Republicans are today.
Secondly, there must always be some body in charge. To deal with the budget, for instance. I'm not sure I can think of a single system that really gives all people a say without depending on log-rolling coalitions, which basically reduces to the system we have now.
Note that I agree with you in principle; voting for a single platform is troublesome. But I haven't heard of a good way to ensure that the policies are integrated.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
That's how us New Yorkers see Hillary. She suddenly anointed herself a New Yorker, became a senator just like that, and now she's going for president. So she used US as a stepping stone too.
Ah, well. I'm going to vote for the lesser of all the evils, personally. We'll have to see what happens.
NO CARRIER
... your mother,... of course.
He voted against federal funding for it, not to ban the whole practice. On that matter, and on abortion in general, he believes it should be ultimately up to the states.
What's so bad about banning federal funding for failed social programs anyways, and please explain in plain English why it's bad to cut taxes and spending.
George Phillies
http://www.phillies2008.org/When he taught me physics, he used examples that included running around the auditorium, and rocket-powered VW-busses! On the first day of class, he demonstrated the value of a class cut by igniting $20 on a grill.
I actually had lunch with him in the same building that I saw Mit Romney in one of MA's Gubenatorial debates.
No, I will not work for your startup
Duh! Dennis Kucinich is obviously the biggest nerd up there on the debate platform. Ok, so he's a policy nerd perhaps more than a tech nerd, but I still think that counts for a lot.
Start Running Better Polls
You can look at india where both prime minister and president are nerds. They lack leadership skills. You need a person who can represent rather than hide himself in books.
The best art videos collection from YouTube
Tech saavy Jobs or anti-outsourcing/pro-American Dennis Kucinich. Both are Democrats.
Expansion of H-1b has caused more suffering to US tech workers than any other single policy. This needs to be on the table. Paul is anti-H-1b. Gore's record is more mixed(particularly as VP).
Ron Paul is the only candidate worthy of the presidency. YouTube Ron Paul if you want to know what he can do for our country. Ron Paul 2008!
Quite seriously. Why shouldn't we, the "common people", do the same the corps do and buy ourselves a congressman or two? If everyone chips in, we should be able to come up with quite a bit of money to start levering it into our direction.
I mean, when laws are bought and you can't afford one...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Again.
When we have our next Civil War/Revolution, that's when I'll pay attention to American politics again. Until then they all suck with complete, ten-decimal place equality. But go on with your foma about how it makes a difference which back-stabbing, blood-thirsty demon you elect, and stay in your granfalloons of your parties; you can't possibly do any more damage now than has already been done.
We're better off with no leaders, i.e., open source governance.
Hey, as a disclaimer I will say that I am pro-life and much of what you cite as reasons for not voting for Ron Paul, would actually be reasons I would vote for him. I have only voted once in my life, and that was well over 10 years ago because to me the lesser of two evils is still evil. The corruption crap from both parties stinks at pretty much every level of government right now, so the least I could do not to make it any worse is to not vote at all.
In spite of that, I am considering exercising the franchise this time around for Ron Paul, not because his positions are necessarily in lockstep on mine on every issue (for instance I think he is a weeeeeeeee bit isolationist in an era when China is obviously gearing up for war with us in a few years whether we like it or not), but sadly he is the only presidential candidate from either major party who actually has integrity, holds mainstream American values of freedom, and who is not a collectivist.
Every other candidate up there that I have seen just wants more big government to steal more money from us so that they can expropriate it to whatever favored friends or interest group favors them. The leading Democrats are all for a big welfare state of the parasitic everybody is a victim who needs to be compensated crowd, while the leading Republicans are all for a big welfare state for the parasitic corporations. In other words, you have two socialist parties masquerading as champions for liberty for the tribes who support them. This false dichotomy of left versus right and red versus blue, just pits Americans against each other while the globalist scum in Washington robs us blind.
For example with respect to illegal immigration. This is a win-win-win-win issue for the collectivists running our government as it creates more strife and more division in the United States that the collectivists can exploit for their divide and conquer strategy of hegemony just like with the "War on Terror". Not only do we have an external boogeyman of fear that our government can exploit while they rob us without mercy, but we now have an internal boogeyman in the form of importing an entire third world culture into the United States and pitting them against the native population. In the long run this is bad for Americans and bad for Mexicans because inevitably they will have to duke it out and the globalist scum will just pick up the pieces. European powers used the same strategy in Africa in ruling their colonies with divide and conquer tactics as well where they would create conflicts between two normally peaceful peoples and then cleanup after they kill each other off.
People need to stop thinking in politically binary terms and set their sights on the sociopaths from both parties running our government right now and do something about it. A good start would be to vote for Ron Paul irrespective of your current political affiliation.
Republican Stooge [ ]
Democrat Stooge [ ]
Ron Paul [x]
Why should ron paul be the geek candidate? He is the only one who has consistently opposed unconstitutional expansion of federal powers, including the regulation of speech, internet, and what you eat and smoke.
He also was on the banking committee for several years and is one of the few candidates who understands the massive difficulties our fiscal policies have caused since introduction of the Federal Reserve in 1916.
Most people have their heads in the sand about the shit that's really going down today, as a result of this leviathan federal government, and our empire abroad. Lets go down the checklist for tyranny and see how the US matches up.
1) National ID card and tracking database. (german accent) <i>"Papahs pleese! Show us yoah papahs!"</i> Total information awareness collects data on everyone.
2) Warrantless searches. NSA is scanning a large percent of US citizens email traffic (illegally). Sneak and peek searches authorized for FBI.
3) Right to a fair Trial / Habeus Corpus. Nope, that's gone too with the Military Comissions act of 2006. They can kidnap you on US soil, lock you up indefinitely and torture until you go insane (see the Jose Padilla case).
4) Martial Law. Wha? Nope. It's real. President now has the authority to declare martial law for... "Other Reasons" (unspecified). It's in the law!
5) Property Rights. Loooong gone my friend. Since the 80s brought in 'civil forfeiture' they can take your house, boat, clothes for a marijuana joint. Want to pay someone for a blowjob? You lose your car. Carrying large amounts of cash on you? Sorry, that's ours too. Want to earn some money? Nope the IRS will take a bunch of your income, although there is no LAW permitting them to do it. (Look It Up)
6) Concentration camps. Excuse me, <b>what?</b> Yes, the USA now has about 800 concentration camps dotting the countryside.
7) Free speech. Umm yeah well you still have it ~in theory~, but are you gonna speak your mind when the above shit is all plausible?
And we've still got people watching tv and voting on american Idol.
If that's not the kind of government you want. Start educating yourself and others on limited constitutional government. De-fund the american empire abroad and the police state at home. Get the film 'Money as Debt' and Aaron Russo's IRS film "Freedom to Fascism".
If you can read and think. It's your duty as a citizen to educate and lead joe six-pack and sally soccer mom to start demanding their rights back.
Ron Paul is our wake-up call! Restore limited constitutional government and Rule of Law!
by alhensel Friday May 25
"[Edwards] voted the way his constituents wanted, every single time....I don't think most people realize how far to the left Edward's stated positions actually are. He's not moderate."
I'm also a North Carolinian and also underwhelmed by Edwards.
But, to play devil's advocate to your post, you criticize him for constantly kowtowing to his conservative constituents (we did elect Jesse Helms five times, and haven't voted Democratic in a presidential election since Carter), and then you warn us that Edwards' stated positions are too far left. Unless you are defining his constituents as only the residents of Orange county, this doesn't exactly add up.
Whatever his stated positions are (and they are stated for the benefit of Democratic primary voters, of course), were he to get into office, he's probably be not much to the left of Clinton, if any, which is to say he would cut deals left and right. I don't think he's really an ideologue at all.
I think a lot of voters, me included, and probably you too, feel like politicians today don't have to do much to get taken seriously as presidential candidates. Obviously Bush didn't have many accomplishments under his belt when he was elected, and Obama started people chattering about his presidential worthiness based on his one speech in 2004 (though his academic track record is pretty stunning, and his community organizing is probably more relevant to politics than running a couple of oil companies into the ground). Edwards--same deal. One term in the Senate and all of a sudden he's a statesman.
Gore is only choice. I will add: Gops to Jail!
Government in of itself is bad for individual sovereignty and everything that goes with it, including freedom of speech online. The conventional wisdom has been: there is no such thing as an honest politician, at least not in the two mainstream parties. Most nerds are reasonable people, and reasonable people don't need the government to tuck them in at night, they only vote defensively, for the lesser of two evils, if at all.
In the 2008 election, however, for the first time in a generation, there's an exception to this rule - Ron Paul! In Dr. Paul we have a serious candidate who isn't owned by the military-industrial-complex or the unions, and who isn't running on charisma or mindless nationalism or promises of government handouts! He understands that the role of the Federal Government is to protect our borders and our airspace, ensure fundamental rights (life, liberty, and property), and that's pretty much it. If you want to hand out free blueberry muffins, this should be done at state or municipal level, or better yet through an NGO. Dr. Paul has a proven track record of standing on principle and not yielding an inch!
Going back to the "nerds" metaphor - he will keep the "jocks" from taking away our lunch money and giving a swirly to anyone who resists!
I am not going to try and refute the puerile comments extended in these threads toward the man. The fact remains though that when it comes to the stated criteria: "...when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about? Eg: privacy, 'total information awareness', Internet regulation and taxation, net neutrality, copyright/patent reform, the right to read, the right to secure communications, the right to tinker. Ron Paul is, actually, your candidate. I'm not a conservative, I'm not a Democrat and will not spend time trying to leverage this candidates "better qualities" it's very simple and doesn't need a lot of exposition. He is among a handful of the trustworthy people in the cess that is the U.S. Congress. If you're of a (open) mind, check him out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA If you think this man misguided, or sinister and prefer Attilla the Hillary, or Rudy "911" Giuliani or any of these other creatures, then you are simply not understanding the dynamic. The (very) close second is Democrat Mike Gravel of Alaska: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gravel2008 An excellent elder statesman of resounding integrity. It's not about Left and Right, it's about right and wrong. You're all (most of you anyway) extremely intelligent people, let's please apply some of this rigor to something perhaps more fundamental than technology. p.s. An array of issues that might make this whole point, well, moot... : http://blackboxvoting.org/
He may lack the charisma to win, but his position on a lot of these issues is fairly good, if a bit to idealogical.
What you are looking for is open source governance.
It is beginning now with the Metagovernment project.
I'm not sure about his agenda, but the guy has got brains. Why hire someone with a shovel if they don't know how to dig?
Gore is at least as rich and connected as Kerry(he doesn't have quite the level of funds, but he has plenty). His money has connections to oil, and his father was also a Senator.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.
No, libertarians advocate liberty. Even people who have nothing can choose to use their mind and their hands to create wealth for themselves. Libertarians just don't think it should be somebody else's responsibility to make wealth for the people who choose not to make it themselves.
libertarianism provides only simple answers to complex questions
Libertarians do provide mostly simple answers, but the questions aren't as complex as you think they are. They only seem complex because they've been answered by corrupt bureaucrats who are beholden to conflicting corporate and minority interests.
and libertarians will never directly answer any challenges to their beliefs, they will simply accuse you of hating freedom
I am a libertarian. I will directly answer any challenges to my beliefs. I will also not accuse of you hating freedom (most people I encounter, including you, truly do love freedom). However, when a libertarian answers a question, liberty will almost certainly come up; it is at the core of the libertarian ideal. Moreover, you must expect that a Libertarian will often claim that liberty trumps utility. If you don't believe that liberty could ever be the paramount consideration, then become a utilitarian and form your own party. I've said it before
Yeah, you should probably stop saying it, huh?
Libertarians forget that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Libertarians believe that every action has a consequence, and everybody is responsible for his or her own actions through the consequences of those actions. Libertarians also believe that society is responsible for somebody, that person is no longer completely responsible for themselves. So, libertarians advocate that these people be solely responsible for themselves.
Libertarianism: the philosophical equivalent of shouting, "you're not the boss of me!" in response to any question.
Funny, I would say it's the philosophical equivalent to pleading "give me liberty or give me death."
...and I couldn't agree more regarding State's rights.
I don't see that a strong federal government has accomplished much except to allow the more reactionary states to hobble the progressive ones. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if large groups of the population of the North American land mass choose to remain shithouse poor, pig ignorant, and trembling in fear of their imaginary antagonist^W^Wgod, let them. As long as they isolate their madness to themselves and leave us the fuck alone, they're welcome to push the envelope with regard to their chosen idiocy.
Like most from the Democrat side of the spectrum, he wants to take the nerd money (and everyone else's money) and spend it on pork.
Middle america will elect Yet Another Corporate Hack from one of the two Corporate Sets of Well Financed Hacks, and nothing will change. It'll be just like the Democrats "taking over congress". Tons of promises, but are we out of Iraq? No. Are there *any* legislative signs we're going to be? No. Do we have any relief from Bush's illegal wiretapping and "signing statements" and pandering to Haliburton and crew? No.
You're using an interesting technique to tar the Democrats.
First, haul out the old canard that the Democrats are less fiscally responsible than the Republicans. That may have been true when Walter Mondale was running for President, but those times are long gone. The White House and Congress have presided over an enormous porkfest over the last six years. Instead of inefficient social welfare programs, it's being spent on Halliburton and Blackwater. The party of small government has disappeared, and has been replaced by the new and improved "Spend & Spend" Republican Party. As long as you spend it on war, somehow it's not as wasteful as spending it on social programs. The Democrats have become more fiscally responsible than the Republicans, at least at the national level.
Next, blame the Democrats for the failures of the Republican Party. Ohmigosh! The Democrats haven't suddenly extracated us from Iraq! You seem to think that the Democrats have been doing nothing, but there has been a heated battle on Capitol Hill over funding the war. The budget is the only weapon the Democrats have in this situation, and everyone knows that if they go nuclear with the budget, they'll lose their leverage. It is Bush's complete refusal to listen to the will of the public, to budge even one inch, that is keeping us in Iraq. Let's put the blame where it really lies, with the self-proclaimed "War President."
the Democrats have just shown us, there are no differences between mainstream moneyed candidates
There are differences. Look at where our national priorities were under two terms of Clinton and compare that to two terms of Bush. Look at the issues that are most important to Republican voters (Guns & God), and the issues that are most important to Democratic voters (Jobs & Environment). The fact that both parties have money behind them doesn't mean that there are no differences between them.
That said, I think we need more choices. A choice between two parties doesn't adequately represent the range of views in the American electorate. Paul certainly looks more credible than any third-party candidate in recent memory. Unfortunately, the sort of government Paul wants is a radical return to a prewar ideal that may be impossible to achieve, given the fact that government is the largest employer in the United States.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
A chicken in every pot and an iMac on every desktop!
Seriously, I believe it's extremely important that the next president, whoever it is, has a sense of history. The present jerk-in-chief has absolutely none, and that's a major reason why he got our country into this pathetic mess in Iraq. I think Harry Truman was the last president that really knew his stuff about history, and it served him well.
So then the best candidate is Linus Torvalds? :)
Best president? How about a new "party"? I always thought the "Technological Party" was long over due.
A chicken in every pot and fiber connection in every livingroom.
-A.C.
Well, for starters, this foreign policy of war without end is hemorrhaging cash faster than a drunken racehorse could wet your Rice Krispies. If you thought that little slump of 2001-02 was bad, just wait a little while longer until you see what IT job prospects are like in the midst of a DEEP global dollar devaluation. It won't be pretty, and Ron Paul is probably our last chance to stop it.
2008 is going to be an interesting election - the US has a hard choice to swing hard right or hard left - here's my reasoning:
If another republican is elected, they will most likely replace another left-leaning Supreme Court justice with a right-leaning one, most likely overturning Roe v. Wade.
If a democrat is elected, and both houses remain in control of the Democrats, a nationalized health care system will be created.
Move to Ohio and take your pick... At least your vote counts then.
Given the choices, I think we'd be better of with someone who doesn't pretend to care about our best interests. With any politician these days, you know that's all it is - pretend. At least with Cthulhu you know that it's telling the truth.
Whenever someone ask what is "best" in this manner (whatever best means ...), it is often equally important to ask/answer what the "worst" is as well. If you can answer both, and answer it well (no hype thanks), you probably know wtf you are talking about and the one who asked have an idea what you mean when you answer, including bias.
Who is the Worst Presidential Candidate for Nerds?
Carbon based humanoid in training.
Ron Paul stands for what a lot of people in America believe in.
Hear what he has to say, and let the facts speak for them self.
vote For MANBEARPIG
I am surprised at the number of Ron Paul responses. NOT! I do have to agree with Slashdot on this topic. I have been an avid supporter of Ron Paul since he got in office as a congressman. He advocates Freedom. A message that is taken lightly in today's world. Freedom has been taken away by fascism in light of the 9/11 attacks, in the false name of security.
As a geek, and as a founding fathers supporter, Christian, southerner, and as a 2nd amendment die hard conservative liberal, I take advocating Ron Paul very seriously, and I believe that if the US wants its freedoms back, and the constitution reinstated that Ron Paul is an absolute must.
So lets get out there, and vote in the GOP primary, and take America back. If you ever see this message Dr. Paul, I want you to know that my family is praying for you, and America.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
but those little snippits we use are "Al Gor'isms"
4) Martial Law. Wha? Nope. It's real. President now has the authority to declare martial law for... "Other Reasons" (unspecified). It's in the law!
Citation? I checked against Cornell's US Code database and found only five passages that contain the phrase "martial law." Two pertain to China (Title 12, 635 and Title 22, 2151), one to suspension of aid to Eastern Europe (Title 22, 5491), and two to governors of Guam and the US Virgin Islands (Title 48, 1422 and 1581).
Want to earn some money? Nope the IRS will take a bunch of your income, although there is no LAW permitting them to do it. (Look It Up)
There's a law authorizing regulations authorizing what the IRS does. You can read the IRS regulations in the US Code of Federal Regulations, specifically Section 26. The laws that the IRS enforces are in Title 26 of the US Code.
6) Concentration camps. Excuse me, what? Yes, the USA now has about 800 concentration camps dotting the countryside.
Again, citation? I remember this being talked about on Cipherpunks years ago, and I shot it down then with satellite pictures courtesy of the then-fledgling Microsoft satellite photo system, not to mention that I was familiar with some of the areas in question in SoCal and that many of the cross streets identified ran parallel for miles -- sometimes miles apart -- and never intersected once.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Not so long ago, I heard about one candidate that wouldn't accept campaign contributions from companies.
I don't know what his policies were/are, but there's someone I'd seriously listen to.
I wouldn't vote for anyone who takes such contributions.
Max.
While I respect the man very much, I doubt I would vote for him. But McCain authored The Community Broadband Act of 2005 when the telcos were trying so hard to kill muni wifi.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Ron Paul, among all candidates, takes the founding documents of the United States most seriously.
Most of our problems can be traced to divergence from the founding principles, exemplified by engaging in an undeclared war.
This "constitutionalism" use to be considered a quaint preoccupation. It is now apparent we should have read the operating instructions for our nation more carefully.
I wrote parts of this stuff
Why is digg - and now slashdot - full of these crackpot Ron Paul shills?
Cthulhu might dismember and devour you, but at least he won't be taking away your freedom of speech and expression. You are free to scream and writhe to your heart's content. Ia! Ia!
Interesting reference to Godwin's Law. It was fun to read the wikipedia page. I never made this comparison before in my life. You don't have to believe me. But in case of Edwards, it is simply warranted. Not because he shares Hitler's goals, but because he shares his use of the appeal to the nihilism of those who (for reasons of bad luck or bad intentions) have not succeeded in life. He appeals to the forces of nihilism to propel himself into power. A candidate that stood for so little other than his own ambitions has not occurred at any point during the 20th century in America. I am not intimately familiar with politics of previous centuries so I won't make statements about it. But the fact that this man has a voice in modern American history is dark, dark moment. That being said, I'll agree that Guiliani detests civil liberties. I was afraid of NYC cops in the 90's even as a white guy. Black guys on the trains openly expressed fears of getting locked up for nothing -- not with a sense of victimhood by with a sense of true fear -- I remember. But Guiliani's intentions were to create order (arguably so were the Palpatine's, but there goes Godwin's Law again). Edwards, however, is all too clearly motivated by nothing but personal ambitions.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The United States might have got by fine prior to 1913... But we've gotten along a lot better since.
Actually in that case wouldnt it be Jimmy Wales?
Is there really ANY other choice if you're ...
* Against the Patriot act
* Against the War
* Against the debt
* Against taxes
* For securing the borders
* For personal property rights
* Against corporate welfare
* Against Internet regulation
* Against the Real ID
Freedom, fiscal responsibility - I agree, it's nuts in today's age, but wtf? I re-registered Republican just to try and get him in there.
I decided to run for president just over a year ago && think I'd probably be the most /.-friendly candidate available.
Please check out PipForPresident.Org && let me know what you think or just write me in on your ballot. =)
-Pip
Let the parties figure out who they want to present to the nation and ask again in one year. Until then, sound, fury, etc.
Aren't people more interested in a candidate who appreciates intellectualism and reasoning? After the last 8 years, I'd be ecstatic with a person from either party who actually values reason and reasoning rather than empty ideological-driven solutions that have almost nothing to do with the overwhelmingly accepted perception of truth. I'm surprised how many people here have such a narrow scope of reference and even more-so by those who start rushing toward candidates, without a shred of recognition for the inconsistency and incompatibility of their various postions, who represent an ideological mishmash of populism, xenophobia, anti-government, and pro-statist positions.
Which is exactly why the rest of the world doesn't want you to get what you want. Why should the rest of the world submit themselves to America?
I always vote. But I vote in a way that voices my displeasure with the entire system. I always vote for fringe parties (I live in Canada, so we have them) that have no hope of ever winning. Last time I voted for the Communist party (for the perversity of voting for a party that would take away our right to vote), and next time I think I'll vote Green. The Greens have the added bonus of being radically environmentalist, something that I'm rapidly becoming, but at the same time they still have no hope of winning in any riding, which to me is more important.
Why do I vote this way? All politicians are scum. They all lie, cheat, and steal, and the political process practically demands it. Hell, even the public demands it.
To top that all off, there isn't a single candidate or party that I would actually support on the whole. Conservatives hate me for my environmentalism, atheism and bisexuality. The NDP have their heads in the clouds. The Liberals are corrupt (not that any other party isn't) arrogant and clueless.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
I'm a socialist at the municipal level. It's the only way to keep an eye on the money. There's going to be corruption in government, so let's keep it close to home.
Where the problems arise with a weak Federal government is in civil rights cases - protecting the rights of the minority. So the majority in one state is against gay marrage and considers it an assult on the family while the majority in another state is against teaching creationism as science to school kids and considers it child abuse.
Back on topic: Best candidate for nerds? Probably Bloomberg though I wouldn't vote for him (great software company, a mayor for the higher income brackets).
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
After months of careful consideration, Ron Paul is the only politician I can truly stand behind in this race. I will not vote for another Republican who will just continue the War in Iraq. The Democrats have been predictably, but sadly, spineless in stopping the war despite a practical mandate from the voters that returned them to Congressional power. Most Republicans and Democrats are going to increase the size and scope of government. Giuliani and many of the Democrats seem like they'd love to repeal the second amendment.
If Al Gore was actually running, I might consider voting for him, but only if Ron Paul were not running. I don't even agree with Ron Paul completely, but his honesty is glowing and his strong belief about personal liberties and national security are simply too important to pass up. I hope that even if Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of winning that there is an outpouring of support for him both in and out of the voting booth, because we need our other politicians (and citizens!) to WAKE UP.
>
>Again, citation? I remember this being talked about on Cipherpunks years ago, and I shot it down then with satellite pictures courtesy of the then-fledgling Microsoft satellite photo system, not to mention that I was familiar with some of the areas in question in SoCal and that many of the cross streets identified ran parallel for miles -- sometimes miles apart -- and never intersected once.
The ones from the Cypherpunks discussion several years ago were bogus.
The poster is talking about the camps being funded by the contract described in this KBR/Halliburton press release (now a KBR press release after KBR was successfully spun off from HAL last year.)
Coming just a few months after Katrina, "The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts", it seems clear that the camps are intended for more than just the Mexicans.
Remember, a concentration camp is not the same as an extermination camp. Buchenwald and Dachau, for instance, were concentration camps. So were the internment camps the US used to house the Japanese. Not happy places, but there's a bed for everyone, even if the Germans immediately turned them into a slave labor camps; the modern equivalent would be the places where Chinese prisoners are used as slave labor. It still beat the hell out of Dachau and Treblinka were extermination camps; the trains show up, and there's only enough housing to keep one or two trainloads of people. For an educational time, take a look at how the buildings were laid out at Dachau and Buchenwald, then take a look at Auschwitz (which served both purposes, gradually turning into an extermination camp towards the end of the war), and finally take a look at the building layouts at Treblinka and Sobibor. Those last two don't seem to have many barracks, do they? :)
$385M buys a lot of camps, but it doesn't buy enough to enslave (or even exterminate, which is cheaper) the Mexican or Muzzie populations in America. That leaves the most likely option: they're intended for housing (and triaging those who will be too sick/wounded to save, which will be misreported in the press as extermination) the swarms of refugees from a Katrina-level catastrophe. There are lots of things, both man-made and natural, that can wipe out a city (or region), and trigger the activation of the camp network. It'll be like the Japanese internment; unpleasant, but the internees will live. Unlike the Japanese internment, the internees will probably find life in the camps an improvement to life in their homes.
All hail leader Kibo!
So, you mean Larry Sanger, right?
You can't seriously be planning to vote for any of them, are you?
The lesser of two evils argument is dead. You're no longer controlling the country anyways, your waisting your time participating. This country needs a rollback and admitting success to any party at this point isn't helping anything.
If you wanna help, just keep trying to learn the truth.
Your fiancee, her father and her mother are all wrong. And if you care to look there are boatloads of statistics on patient outcomes that will explain just how wrong they are.
But thanks for playing.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
It should be noted that the two most popular candidates in this poll rare
Ron Paul with a B rating from Americans from Better Immigration(and A- recent record)
and Al Gore with an A- lifetime rating.
By Comparison, McCain is a D
Hilary Clinton (despite tough talk) earned a D-
Barack Obama also earned a D.
ABI is an interest group that advocates restriction of immigration-an F corresponds to loose immigration policy and a A to a restrictive policy. The average congression grade is a C-which is in effect support of one of the loosest immigration policies in the world.
My articles on immigration are here
The party of small government has disappeared, and has been replaced by the new and improved "Spend & Spend" Republican Party. If we had been a little less compassionate (read: pansified) we could have nuked the right parts of the Middle East and the spending would have significantly less. Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia all have to go.
Cthulhu is close #2nd .Come on folks why settle for lesser evil?!?
...Newt Gingrich is a great candidate from a nerd standpoint. He's a historian by training, and was deeply influenced by the Alvin Toffler books that were oh-so-popular in the '70s and '80s; I know, Toffler is a bit over-rated, but at least we'd have a guy who has some kind of background in the ever-changing interactions between technology, society, economics, etc.
Most people aren't going to change states because of their state's policies. Also, environmental issues of one state effect the environment in other states.
Taking this idea even further, would you be pissed if you were a landowner and your next door neighbor decided to build a power plant and a toxic waste dump on his property? Clearly anyone who doesn't like it should leave his property. But you are on a different property.
Have you seen how stupid NJ's state government is? They raised the sales tax from 6 to 7 percent. Now, tax hikes are tax hikes, and they happen, but here comes the punchline. Our governor refused to pass the state budget without it. The legislatures refused to pass the budget with it. Now, a sensible compromise might be to raise it to 6.5 but instead, they chose to raise it to 7 percent, the catch here is that .5 of that will go to relieving property taxes. You read that right, they raised the sales tax to help lower the property taxes, taxes that essentially effect the same groups of peoples! The essential useful property tax for the state is 6.5%. Oh and if that wasn't crazy and stupid enough, property taxes are pretty much municipal, so the state is going to spend millions of dollars just to figure out how in the world they are going to accomplish the goal of that .5% in sales tax.
Paul wants to abolish the income tax, repeal the 14th amendment in regards to creating citizenship for American born babies (which would create a whole new multi-generational class of illegal immigrants living in the shadows), supports the states right to take a way a woman's right over her own body. It always seemed odd to me when libertarians prefer state rights over individual rights...
Granted, his Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 is a fucking awesome idea, if only for being so old-school. He called 9/11 "air piracy", which it absolutely was.
If the Democrat nomination is locked up by when I vote, I might cross over and vote for Paul. There's no way he would win, but it would make the general election far more entertaining and would shape the debate in useful ways.
Wrong. I don't know why anyone modded you up for this gross and blatent revisionism, but Clinton promised tax cuts in 1992, then delivered tax increases in 1993. Just search Google for "1993 Clinton Tax Cut".
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Hillary Clinton - I don't she's very popular on Slashdot. She seems too wishy washy to me
Barack Obama - Not too bad, perhaps the most socially liberal of the major candidates.
John Edwards - Seems to really have his act together now, taking strong stands on issues like his opposition to the Iraq war funding.
Bill Richardson - Seems a bit clueless sometimes, but would probably make a pretty good President. He does have some significant foreign policy experience.
Chris Dodd - Of the Presidential candidates, he was the first Senator to come out against the Iraq war funding. However, he doesn't have much of a chance.
Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinch, Mike Gravel - Irrelevant
Ron Paul - His main problem is that he's running for the Republican nomination. Not going to happen.
The rest of the Republicans - Pro-torture, pro-escalation, pro-warmongering. No thanks.
I've entered fucking retardville. ...a moronic post with moron scoring. What grand 'ol state are you living in? I'll take my shitty red state over whatever small minded, crap hole, socialist feed bag you live in.
btw...to the Al Gore posters...Al Gore is just another profiteering oil man. His old money is from oil and his new money will be from his "carbon offset" shell game. You get nothing new with Al Gwhore.
I agree that Ron Paul is by far the best candidate for geeks. He's on Real Time with Bill Maher Tonight. Its on right now on HBO.
If the feds are funding it, shouldn't the feds administer it, effectively reducing the size of (total) gov't at the expense of increasing the federal bureaucracy?
If the feds didn't tax so high then states would be able to fund programs like these. A state could also use programs that are appropriate for the state. As it is now fed programs are one size fits all, and may not be appropriate in all cases. At least if individual states were able to fund and run their own programs then as a whole the states could find a program that works for them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What accomplishment does Barack Obama have that should put him on the top of that ticket?
Governor Bill Richardson is a former Congressman, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and a four-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee. He's best known for successfully negotiating to get hostages out of Iraq, North Korea, Cuba and Sudan, and he recently negotiated a 60-day cease-fire in Darfur.
Compared to Bill Richardson, what candidate has more experience as an executive, as an international diplomat, or in determining energy policy?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/why -we-should-support-ron-388565.html
Yeah, that is a good group to be associated with. Heres a hint if the nutbags at Stormfront think "your" candidate is a good choice, make another.
Before someone quibbles, let's define what a fascist government does: it cedes various government powers to a select group of corporations. That's the real definition and I don't think anyone can deny that this has been going on for several years.
The reason that fascism is almost universally considered evil is simple: Governments serve the needs of their citizens, corporations operate to make a profit. Those two goals are often mutually exclusive and when corporate government sets in it's like living in a bad job that you can't quit. Research Italy under Mussolini for a richly detailed description of what living in a fascist society is like.
It's going to take at least one person with integrity and honor (and brass balls) to get this country to make a quick turn back towards democracy. I can only hope that such a person would be willing to take on one of the hardest tasks a man could face.
It's almost certainly not going to be someone coming from one of the regular political parties. The parties have a vested interest in keeping things the same; all that under the table money is hard to walk away from. They wouldn't consider offering a candidate for public office who wasn't going to play the same old game, they haven't and they won't.
And don't look to the corporate world for good leadership. Consider one of the most successful companies: Microsoft. Consider what they offer, how much they charge for it, and how they've interacted with competitors and regulatory agencies in their continual quest for more, more, more money. Ballmer (or Gates) for president? Whose interest do you really think they'd represent?
The next few years are going to be very, very tricky. They're monitoring your phone and internet, cameras watch you as you move around and it's all to keep you safe. Sure it is; they're also building many large "holding facilities". It's a small step to where they monitor your communications and activities to keep the government safe - those who represent some kind of risk to the continued power of the government get whisked away to a waiting "holding facility". With these "useful" tools in place, how long will it be before they're used against the people? What would Bill Gates do with these tools? Right.
Wake up, folks - the 2008 elections are coming and every one of us should become very familiar with the candidates and vote appropriately. It's too dangerous to stay home and let someone else choose...
I'm not really in the loop with US politics, as I'm Australian. But anyone for net neutrality is fine by me. It's a much easier choice for Australian nerds in this years elections. On the one hand we have a 10 year old government who refuse to do anything about global warming. On the other hand we have an opposition that is promising to build a largely vendor neutral, national, high-speed broadband network. The internet is a much ignored infra-structure for the current government, who have let us slip behind in world standards and hopefully the Labor Party will get voted in this year and rectify this.
Give us this day our garlic bread and lead us not into vegetarianism but deliver us some pizza.
I think a lot of libertarians would be mighty offended by you calling them conservatives. Libertarians, are, by defenition, socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Many get lumped into the republican camp, but just as many vote democrat because of the social issues.
I think one reason many take Libertarians as conservatives is because supposedly conservatives were for small government. The founders of the Libertarian Party were dissolutioned Republicans during the Nixon era. And while some Libertarians do come from the Republican party others come from the Democrat Party as well. I first voted in 1980, for Jimmy Carter. Then in 1984 I voted for the Dem candidate, though I don't recall who it was. However in 1988 I learned about Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party he was the Presidential candidate for and I voted for him then.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The Democrat side of the aisle CHEERED when the largest tax increase in modern HISTORY was passed, because the Democrats controlled the House and Senate at the time. Not only that, the increases were RETROACTIVE, something that has still never faced the constitutional scrutiny it so badly cries out for. Don't know how readily available the video is, but I was watching C-SPAN when it happened, and they CHEERED. It was so pronounced, a Republican representative (don't remember who) came to the floor and asked that it be entered in the record that the left side of the aisle cheered.
The fact that someone on here, in fact probably many, think that Clinton cut taxes is one of the top ten signs I'm POSITIVE my country is doomed; I guess that's not so bad, I'm tired of living with so many damned blind fools around me.
I encourage nerds to vote for Republicans. If you're lazy like me, yet you yearn to destroy the world such as mad scientists are wont to do, you'll find it'll save you the bother of having to invent Ice 9.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
See what we put together last year, grading tech votes:
http://news.com.com/2009-1040-6131719.html
It's not a lack of compassion. it's, oddly enough, an abundance of reason that has kept our nukes in our pants thus far. The blowback from preemptive aggression resulting in widespread regional destruction and contamination would be overwhelming. Or maybe it's because Haliburton and Exxon don't want to work in a radioactive wasteland.
Please tell me the name of the state where you cannot be elected to public office if you are an atheist, and provide a reference to the relevant law.
That or go home.
If you wanted to do engines or rockets or radio. If you wanted to do medicine or communications or energy experimentation...
Every nerd discipline was a great beneficiary of Nazi encouragement and largess.
So, be careful for what you wish - and where you prioritise.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
True, but he didn't seem like he was throwing the election; he really seemed like he wanted to be president -- BADLY. He just couldn't pull off more than a slim margin, and Bush's supporters tinkered with the final counts to deliver the win. If Gore had been a better candidate, had been a more motivated, animated speaker, maybe he'd have delivered enough of a margin to make stealing the election impossible.
I dunno; in Gore's case I think he really tried, but couldn't pull it off. But in Kerry's case, I don't know how he managed to blow it in so many ways all at once.
But maybe it's been a sham all along. I don't have much faith in our system anymore.
NO CARRIER
I guess you haven't heard of Tom Tancredo. Believe me, we can vote for worse than Giuliani. However, if we elect any Republican other than Ron Paul (or someone similar who isn't running yet) you've got my permission to beat the crap out of us whenever you feel like it.
A states rights leftist is in essence a Green Party member. The Greens believe in lefty positions like pro environment, pro choice, pro health care for the poor, but done in a decentralized fashion check out the ten key values of Green Party platform if you are not familiar with it already:
http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml
Of course the Greens tend to be poorly organized, poor at media outreach, and unfairly slandered when they do get media coverage but this point anything is better than an interventionist anti COnstitution neo-con Republican or a Caveinacrat, so check them out if you are not already familiar with them.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Stephen Colbert. Period.
There is nothing in the constititution about immigration laws. Immigration laws were an unconstitutional addition in 1882 the Chinese exclusion Act - a blatantly racist act. Before that there were no laws preventing anyone in the world from coming to America and as long as they followed American laws they were Americans. Since its not even constitutional to have immigration laws on a national basis how can you have it between states?
**Life is too short to be serious**
You should be the next President. You should be your own Sovereign State (this is not a new idea, a number of books have been written about this). You should stash enough money, skills, and enough social capital, to be able to move to another State -- or to another Country. You should have enough control over your life, that you can chose the kind of work and the kind of people that you allow to enter your life. You don't need to carry a gun, or dig yourself an underground bunker, and become a social outcast, usually -- having the freedom and the ability to relocate to another country, to another State, to another city, or to another neighborhood, is all you need to live the kind of life you really want.
On the topic of the media, you should be your own media, and you should stop whining about the things you can't really control. Sure, the media is awful, the media is trollish, the media is biased, etc. Now give it up already... There is enough technology within your reach that you have the ability to control the kind of information and images that end up reaching you. And sure, you won't be able to affect your neighbors -- by controlling the kind of media *they* watch, but that's ok -- if your neighbors are the types that don't listen to you -- chances are you won't be able to control the kinds of things they watch anyway.
Focus on the things you can control, and forget the rest. For instance get rid of your TV, or a less drastic option would be to get yourself a Tivo (or a Linux MythTV). It's a world of difference to be able to choose the kind of programs you watch, than to let the program directors and the schedule for the day make those decisions for you. Subscribe to the publications you actually want to read, instead of only reading the ones that appear in the newspaper dispensers in your area. And use the internet to find the kinds of the articles that you really want to read -- but can't get elsewhere. Again, I don't care what you do, just be proactive about it. You can set up your computer to automatically download podcasts. You can set your computer to automatically print out a couple articles every morning before you wake up. You can set up filters to email (or sms) you every time a politician votes on an issue you care about. And if you need your local news, you can usually find a quality blog or two that only blog about local issues in your area. In the end, you're in complete control of the kind of information that you allow to enter your mind.
And if all else fails, because no advice is perfect and no two situations identical, be prepared to move away -- we're not all destined to remain in the area/region we were born into -- just give yourself an escape valve.
I was forced to send out this message earlier this week, after very soundly endorsing Ron Paul to my coworkers and friends. I suggest that you read it if you are a Libertarian-leaning person, as I am:
I owe everyone an apology. It is with profound sadness and
disappointment that I must withdraw my support of Ron Paul for
President. It turns out that he is a well-documented theocratic
racist.
I'll include the writing that I came across that destroyed my hopeful
optimism. The chink in his armor was his hardline stand against
women's reproductive rights... something I thought I could chalk up to
his experiences and a long-practicing OB/GYN. It turns out that his
convictions are religious in nature. The bottom line is that, like
most libertarians and constitutionalists, I strongly favor a wholly
secular state, regardless of my personal religion. Ron Paul
absolutely does not. And following a little bit of googling, I found
that he has also made numerous clearly bigoted, remarks regarding
stereotypical african american youth.
This is a man that I cannot, and will not, support in public office.
My apologies for my previous endorsement without sufficient research;
I was wrong and I have been corrected. Fortunately there is plenty
of time before the election for a real leader to emerge.
Bet that I will not be holding my breath, however.
----
Statement from Ron Paul
December 29, 2003
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it's hard not to notice that
Christmas in America simply doesn't feel the same anymore. Although an
overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who
don't celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation's
Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has
disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of
goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war
against religion.
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination,
the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation
that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is
always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel
uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so
all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate
goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a
completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally
biased against Christianity.
This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas
traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including
Handel's Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls.
Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even
criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office
Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal
parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a "hostile
environment." Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa
Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as
Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort.
Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas
decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered
busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of
"Merry Christmas" has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous "Happy
Holidays." But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word
that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists
to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful
Christian celebration?
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis
in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding
Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly
informed by their religious beli
Although I don't agree with him completely on regulation and taxes (I think the government has a role in property crime prevention and the mitigation of natural externalities), he seems principled and honest about his views, and is much more willing to consider rights and freedoms than anyone else in Washington. I'm willing to vote for him just to see what that's like.
though he doesn't have enough buzz/money around him to give him much of a chance, I'm really liking Mike Gravel.
He demanded that the debates he was in be released under a Creative Commons license.
They're using their grammar skills there.
That said, I think we need more choices. A choice between two parties doesn't adequately represent the range of views in the American electorate. Paul certainly looks more credible than any third-party candidate in recent memory. Unfortunately, the sort of government Paul wants is a radical return to a prewar ideal that may be impossible to achieve, given the fact that government is the largest employer in the United States.
Which is why we should enact my law. It's a two-tiered election system.
Problem: Right now your options are to hold your nose when you go into the voting booth and vote for the crook or the idiot. But hey, you pick the lesser of two evils, and you have to vote for him, cause if you vote for Nader or Perot, you're going to lose the election to the crook (or idiot).
Solution: Run off elections. Open a general election to candidates from ANY political party, and people will be able to truly vote their conscience. Your hot button is the environment? Vote for the green party. Your big thing is free trade? Vote libertarian. Your one plank is abortion? Vote for the evangelical. Then, we take the top two plurality winners and run them off in a national election.
~Wx
sig?
Are we not geeks? If you pay us, do we not fix your computers? if you mention soviet russia, do we not lol? if you make us watch wrasslin', do we not die? and if you fuck with us, shall we not haxx0r ur shit?
If those fucking machines could be hacked to put Bush in office in the last two elections, they can be hacked to reelect Gore whether he's on the damn ballot or not!
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
My vote is for Bill Richardson. He should be added to the poll.
Ron Popeil is the marketing man every geek yearns in their heart to be, and we should all conscript him into our service as the new face of geekdom.
Inspired by all those ludicrous Ron Paul threads.
(Either that or hold a Constitutional Convention and let foreigners in so we can vote Linus in as chief executive. "VOTE LINUS: He doesn't have military experience, but he wrote a kernel!")
-- ToroThis has got to be one of the stupidest questions ever asked. Slashdotters are not some group of insulated nerds living divorced from the real world (I mean, if your parents go broke, whose basement are you going to live in, huh? :-).
Off-hand, issues that I find most important are little things like the Iraq War, the disastrous ecological problems and looming energy crisis we need to face, the national debt and potential meltdown of the economy, trade imbalance and job outsourcing, to name a few. Compared to these, the technical things that I care about (i.e., copyright law, internet control, etc.) are so far down the list of issues that will form the basis for my vote they don't even register. Sorry if that's not nerdly enough for you, but if you really make your choice on technical issues at this point, you really are a clueless geek.
That is all.
I would consider the founding fathers nerds. They read material that today would be considered the liberal fringe (Thomas Paine). Even if someone like Pat Robertson would read Thomas Paine, he would immediately pray for God to smite the evil. They would also probably be atheists today. Many were deists such as Thomas Jefferson. Deism decries the miracles in the Bible as false, but used reason to validate the existence of God. With the evidence today, the founding fathers would be behind reason to argue that there is not God. Jefferson didn't really believe going to church was necessary. Jefferson also founded a university and was into architecture so he designed it, which is pretty nerdy. I'm sure you guys can think of other examples, such as with Washington. I just know most about Jefferson.
Solution: Run off elections. Open a general election to candidates from ANY political party, and people will be able to truly vote their conscience. Your hot button is the environment? Vote for the green party. Your big thing is free trade? Vote libertarian. Your one plank is abortion? Vote for the evangelical. Then, we take the top two plurality winners and run them off in a national election.
I like it. The big problem is that everyone would be too afraid to pass the necessary Constitutional Amendment to make it happen. The mystique of our existing system, with its bizarre Electoral College, has proven remarkably difficult to dislodge, despite its obviously antiquated nature.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The question was who would be the best presidential candidate for nerds, not who would be the best presidential candidate for fucking retards.
Wyhhtg...Why me...whoooe..who elssseee?? *brraaaaappp* oops..sosorry..didIgetanyonya?
What?
In a capitolist society, shouldn't all research be funded by the corporations who have a vested interest in said technology? It seems that the only technologies that the government should actually be interested in would be applicable to defense and war. The free economy should be able to support it's own research based on projects deemed viable and profitable.
Mike Gravel is my top pick so far. According to his Wikipedia article, he is:
In favor of the FairTax, which is a traditionally conservative talking point, but one I find very interesting and attractive. A consumption tax is progressive in the sense that it "punishes" those who consume more, not necessarily those who are making the most money. There are obvious problems with this, but it definitely sounds better than the usual spaghetti code our current tax structure is.
Pro nationalized health care. C'mon, the poor deserve to not be sick, too.
In favor of a multilateral approach to foreign affairs, including:
# Support for a Palestinian state to exist alongside Israel
# Disavowing a nuclear first-strike policy
# Immediate US military withdrawal from Iraq and support for a UN-sponsored regional peace process to arrest the Iraqi Civil War
That Iraq war one should be obvious, but not a lot of people seem to really be in favor of it.
Here are some other nice ones:
He's pro "gay rights"
Pro drug (legalized marijuana)
Pro choice
Anti death penalty
The National Initiative is an interesting idea, one that advocates more citizen voice in government -- allowing citizens to vote on ideas on national legislation -- something only he advocates and supports.
The one thing that is annoying to me about Gravel is his blanket non-support of nuclear energy, which I think is a losing position.
As far as Obama:
Pro universal health care, pro net-neutrality, pro choice, doesn't support the idea of marriage for gays, but is okay with civil unions.
However, he does not promote an immediate pull out of the Iraq war, has not ruled out attacking Iran, seems to be iffy on gun rights, seems mildly pro-religion, and supports Israel's position in the Palestine/Israel conflict.
I really wish Gravel wins the nomination, but I suppose I could make do with Obama... almost anything would be better than the last eight years, imo.
Ron Paul might be an option if he gets the Republican nomination, but I'm really not a fan of a libertarian economic ideal.
Forget Ron Paul! Vote Colbert! He knows what the people want, and if they don't, then he tells them.
If I were in the US I'd demand a Stephen Colbert/Jon Stewart option.
Dr. Paul has a perfect record of voting within the boundaries of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No one else can claim this. Ron Paul for President!
None of the above. Period.
Its like the old joke - How do you define an honorable politician? Once he is bought, he stays bought.
There's not one in any of the party lists that wouldn't sell out one "nerd" issue or another somewhere along the line.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because Ron Paul just isn't neo-liberal enough.
Seriously, I want Saipan in my backyard.
He qualifies, too.
sig? Oh, that sig...
Ever notice... the sudden trend of comments and mod points going towards this "Ron Paul" person.
I guess we all know who bought the tech vote.
After your insightful comment I believe I like Ron Paul even more!
To be honest, I think what we need is a new constitution. Whether you agree or not with the way our government has been federalized -- and actually, I think I do agree for the most part -- you have to accept the fact that key provisions that our founding fathers inserted into the Constitution have been blatantly violated. The 10th Amendment has been trampled on by the Commerce Clause, and so many of the very important rights have been arrogated by the federal government. When you have such blatant hypocrisy, constitutional rights have a tendency to get muddled and could become meaningless. The only check there is, the Supreme Court, has been packed with justices who adhere to the modern torture of our Constitution -- they WOULD have the power to hear a case challenging the Commerce Clause as it is applied to X law, and just by creating a precedent, they could either uphold or tear down the whole system. Like I said, I believe in increased federal powers in this modern era (although not the way they sometimes use them...but I don't think the problem is the federal government as an institution). But it's ridiculous to pretend we're still adhering to our own Constitution.
- (1) He opposes the separation of church and state and wants a Christian America, he says as he panders to the religious right.
- (2) While he claims that abortion is not a federal matter and thus should be left to the states, he had absolutely no problem seizing the power to Federally outlaw D&X abortions. No matter how you feel about D&X, this is not intellectually honest - either this is a Federal realm or it isn't.
The man is a relgious zealot, masquerading as a friend of liberty. Don't be fooled."It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
"Net neutrality" is not a great word choice. Of course the providers should be able to use QoS tools to optimize connections. But it must be done in a content-neutral way.
We don't want the Verizons of the world to be able to give their VOIP packets a high priority, and everyone else's packets a low priority. That would effectively force all Verizon customers to only use Verizon's VOIP.
Neither do we want the Verizons of the world to be able to sell higher priority to specific content providers. This would give Verizon the power to effectively "sell" its customer base to the highest bidder.
Internet providers have an obligation to abide by "common carrier" principles, one of which is that common services must be provided to everyone. Our national highway system doesn't have a "Fords Only" lane for precisely the same reason. The lanes are open to anyone with an automobile, regardless of who made the automobile, where the automobile is going, or why it's being driven. That's the way the Internet needs to be.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Invading Iraq was bin Laden's dream come true. He probably thought that just luring us into Afghanistan would be enough to weaken us, but then we went and not only got ourselves embroiled in an even bigger quagmire, we also took out a huge enemy of his for him.
Ron Paul was right about the 9/11 attacks being motivated by the US's involvement in Iraq (and Saudi Arabia) during the 1990s. But I'm sure that Bin Laden is not happy about the results. If the Iraqi government fails, the possible beneficiaries will be the governments of Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia. They are as much the rivals of Al Qaeda as Saddam Hussein ever was.
Of course, Afghanistan, for better or worse, is another matter.
The French have been doing it for 4-5 decades now. It has almost always resulted into a conservative-vs-socialist run-off, won by the conservative. And often crook-vs-idiot, though not always as in "crook=conservative, idiot=socialist".
A notable exception was the 2002 election, where the left-wing vote was so split among small parties (green, communist...) that the mainstream socialist candidate was eliminated on the first round and the run-off was crook-vs-nationalist. The reaction, this year, was a dwindling of the small-party vote on the first round, and many complaints that France is moving towards a virtual US-like two-party political landscape.
For elections where one must designate a single preferred winner, Condorcet methods of voting may be better, although they will always favor centrists. And the process is difficult to explain, which may lead to loss of public confidence in the results. After all, "voters decide nothing; people who count votes decide everything" is a Stalin quote.
It is pretty scary how fast the dollar's value has gone downhill!
The government don't seem to have any solution. Sure, a weak dollar makes our exports cheaper, but that also means that they are simply less valuable and imports (which we have a lot of) will continue to become more and more expensive.
HA! Mississippi finally did something right. (GASP!) Maybe we aren't so backwards anymore...
Well, how 'bout that! They're not all in flyover country! The list includes Massachusetts! Would any of the coastal jacka$$es with superiority complexes care to comment?
ANY resource, cash transaction, etc are already TAXED while being used for running the internet. from electricity to any profits internet entities make.
"taxing" internet from things like email traffic, site traffic are not "taxing". it is TROLLING. like standing up on a bridge and extorting money from people passing it.
Read radical news here
Gore has been a leader in pushing technology and improving the business and governmental climate for technology for many more years than the other crop of goofballs have been counting their campaign contributions. He was putting money into DARPA budgets for internet development long before most even knew the internet existed (and all he got for it was the slur about him "inventing it" from some repug talking point guru). Likewise, he has served on the boards of several technology companies, and while one may disagree with his specific influence, he certainly understands technology and technological development. It is the country's loss that he refuses to run again. Had he been elected Al Queda would have been hiding in caves rather than using Bush's failed policies to defeat us.
I would agree that Ron Paul has shown the greatest propensity to advocate for issues that might benefit technology in general (unless of course you are in the business of developing buttons to press for staring nuclear war with Iran as the others seem to have him beat on that specific issue), but he has no real track record here compared to Gore. Its the track record that counts, not the empty rhetoric that all fools need to cobble a majority will agree on. On the negative side, Paul seems to advocate getting government out of the education business, so technology grants for education would take a tremendous hit.
As far as the constitution is concerned, my last reading didn't find a specific word related to technology spending or development, certainly no word of Linux or PC so don't hold your breath hoping to find salvation for technology there. Perhaps we need an amendment to protect us from electronic spying, err ah, oh, I thought we had one against that.
One fourth of young American Muslims think suicide bombings are justified, 40% condemn the invasion of Afghanistan, and 60% believe that 911 was not done by Arab terrorists. Al Qaeda doesn't have to infiltrate our boarders, there are already plenty of recruits here. The next president will have to deal with this and the worldwide threat of Islamic Terrorism as his top concern. None of the Democratic candidates take the threat seriously. They have opposed successful surveillance programs and undermined the troops. A lot of Nerds work for the country's defense, either as servicemen or contractors, and know this is the most important issue facing the country. They will vote for candidates who realize we are at war.
Ron Paul is from Texas. We've had far too many crazy Texans in political power. Look at Johnson and the two bushies. Crazy war mongers all. Doesn't matter which party - Texans are to be avoided.
This is kind of presumptuous don't you think? Because I read slashdot I somehow make the copyright reform a keystone issue? Perhaps the "nerds" need to get their priorities straight, or perhaps they need to read the constitution to realize that the president doesn't pass laws, he enforces them. The concept of the president's stand on the issues is largely irrelevant. The president's real power comes from control of the military, control over foreign policy, and proposal of the budget. "Nerds" and everybody else should be looking for the technocrat that is interested in effective and efficient governance.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Paul is an idiot. I live in his district and he won't even support bills to help the people who live here. He lets his personal views get in the way of representing his voters. He has really turned into laughingstock here, but the power of incumbency has kept him in office.
I did look at their boatload of statistics and did some research of my own. And there's a whole bunch of research against socialized health care. You need to look at what's happening in Canada and Britain. The majority of their budgets are going to their health system and that amount is increasing indefinitely. Their emergency rooms don't have to save you, only stop your bleeding. And should you need serious surgery, prepare to wait months if not years before you get it. Those are only a few of the many problems. So in response to your lack of information, here's a good article http://www.health--savings--accounts.com/article-8 -john.htm/.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Kerry proved that he is simply a dufus when he flubbed his joke in September of 2006.
That his military record was easily characterized as him going to Vietnam to 'hero up' helped him none at all.
I think he wanted it pretty badly too, he just didn't have whatever it was that was needed to win the 2004 election; there was absolutely zero sense of people rallying behind him, even in the face of the partisan divide that was so well developed at that point.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Is this some kind of sick joke?
Rudy Giuliani, the man responsible for letting "terrorists" successfully attack his city, is leading slashdot's own poll compared with Mike Gravel, the former Alaskan senator responsible for ending the vietnam draft, getting nixon busted for watergate, etc?
What the hell is wrong with you people? Have you not even heard of Mike Gravel?! Did you not watch the democratic debate?!
I beseech every last one of you, please, at least watch the debate. It's on youtube, you can find gravel's segments specifically if you search right (youtube gravel debate). Or check his website http://gravel08.us/
Now is not the time for a technologically-minded president. That would have been a fine consideration 8 years ago, but today, we have -much- bigger issues. Bush has just about broken america; we have much fixing to do in his wake. Between fixing foreign relations to fixing the budget to fixing the lack of constitutionally guaranteed protections. Mike Gravel is not only a refreshingly principled man, he's got a radical plan that could return america to its former glory. It's just a shame nobody even knows who he is. For a man that's Alexa's 15th most popular web search term, you guys sure are ignorant of his campaign. And slashdot of all places, this is really unbelieveably.
Mike Gravel for President. Register democrat, vote in your primaries. We need a real candidate, not one of these assholes that talk a lot but don't say shit.
Trying to distill it down to a couple of key button issues like internet taxes or broadband for everyone really misses the point and the bigger picture. It's exactly why we're stuck with the 2 shitty parties that we have right now. Remember how the democrats were going to get us out of Iraq and do all that congressional reform? So reform is dead and they folded on getting out of Iraq, how are they any better than the republicans exactly? What are the results?
If any candidate from any party puts together a platform to deal with some of these bigger world issues, particularly the debt, medical care and tax situations, I recommend that you vote for him/her regardless of how "geek friendly" they may or may not be.
Libertarians oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Libertarians believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.
Less government, lower taxes and more freedom. This is something Democrats, and to a much lesser degree Republicans, do not comprehend.
The problem I have with that chart is this: few "strictly personal" matters are so easily defined. A perfect example is country crack usage or crystal meth usage: is this purely personal? When more people in an area are using this stuff all sorts of other crimes go up - theft, personal invasion, child and spouse abuse, etc. Yes, these are already crimes and we have plenty of laws to use against the people making these "bad personal choices." Problem is policing all that added crime means more court expenses, more beat officers, etc.
So, not placing laws against personal use of these sorts of drugs means more burden on the courts AND the people in the area where the crimes are taking place... but legislating and enforcing laws against same also means more burden on the courts and police. But not having laws potentially means allowing crystal meth usage in certain areas to become as common as alcohol abuse today, complete with neighborhood stores selling the stuff. I suppose the one redeeming feature of this scenario would be that crystal meth will at least kill the person faster, thus ridding society (and especially the person's family) of that burden.
I hate the nanny state - but pretending _any_ actions are purely personal requires taking a logical leap of faith that is every bit as beyond reason as a great many of our current nanny-laws. Whether I am sitting in my home gambling away my money and setting myself up for dependency on a welfare state, or polluting the lungs of my kids with cigarette smoke, or drinking myself silly every day instead of feeding and caring for my family, or locking myself away in a bedroom and surfing porn every day, our actions affect everyone around us. So where does that leave your flowchart of doom?
Not modded as funny?
He's shown how its possible to get elected on principles. For instance, he still has support in a farming district, although he doesn't support subsidies for them. I disagree with him on things but at least he's going to be reliable, unlike the others. His voting record shows that he sticks to the law (the constitution.)
If environmentally bad things like your example (toxic waste etc) happens then it is the law and courts who are not upholding the proper property rights. 150 years ago the courts started siding with the factory owners rather than the owners or orchids, or washing lines. So, there was no incentive to use cleaner coal or invent new ways of filtering out the dirt. So, if a state upheld property rights properly then it would be a plus.
But that's freedom only on a strictly formal, institutional level. And that means very little in reality. As the OP said, without the money to buy a printing press, freedom of the press would mean nothing.
I do consider I have liberty in very high esteem, and I do think it is fundamental por societies to build upon it. However, that very same liberty means nothing if it is only implied in pieces of paper rather than acted upon by the social body (or even the State, if you like). Classical negative liberty, as in freedom of the State or "you're not the boss of me" conceptually considers individuals as atomic entities without substantial bounds amongs themselves, which is not true. Social bonds preexist you, you are born into a given context or another and are raised within a set of laws and customs. This is not to imply we're not free - only that freedom does not consist or cannot consist in denying the contexts of meaning upon which freedom evolved.
Somewhere above another poster was considering that if you didn't like your state's laws, then you should just move somewhere you liked the laws. And that's easy to say and think, but in reality, leaving your friends and family, the people and places you're used to, the memories, and so on, make it not such a clear-cut choice. Moreover, that very same notion of being a part of that place and having an interest on what happens there (so you will not want to move somewhere else) gives you a say on the process how such things come about. In other words, if you don't like the laws, you're entitled to participate on changing them (or barring them from being unlikable in the first place).
So, although freedom is of the most importance, it cannot be realistically taken as an absolute. Theoretically, sure, you can conceive of it, but must deal with the consequences of such a belief for it to be acceptable. In reality, several factors condition the way in which we make decisions and take action and effectively limit or shape our freedom. It is certainly not as simple as saying someone who doesn't have wealth, chose not too. Personally, I consider such a thing not only wrong, but dangerous. My experience is certainly different: I live in a poor country in which we have formal freedoms, but in which a vast amount of people manage to support and feed a family on a day to day basis. Their children are not fed properly and that will affect their mental capabilities if they are ever sent to study at school, instead of working on the streets. You could stand by your statements (as I would expect you would) and argue that these people are making choices, they are managing to create wealth by themselves and survive, and are thus exercising their freedoms. By earning those 2 dollars a day with which they manage, they're proving individuals create their own wealth and open up their own possibilities. I consider such a thing a blatant disregard for humanity, and a comfortable thought from a comfortable position.
Just by denying the fact that we live in societies and from there deducing all sorts of consequences about people getting of your lawn, does not make it valid, much less desirable. Freedom from something is useless unless you have freedom to do something. Not only that, but formal freedom is unstable unless there is actually a material, substantial freedom for people to develop themselves within the support networks of society. I refer you to the work done by Amartya Sen on the subject, and his studies on how the appearance and stability of political freedoms are related to the distribution of goods and wealth.
http://castorexmachina.wordpress.com - Filosofía, tecnología y cultura.
give me liberty or give me death
I prefer 'You can have my liberty when you pry it from my cold dead hands'.
Oh my Lord, that is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. I can't decide if parent should be modded +1 Funny or +1 Naive. And if only those damn gays would choose to be straight!
The idea that poverty is a choice, that, in the modern American economy, a poor person can reliably pull himself up by his bootstraps -- absolutely ridiculous. Institutional racism and classism are just the tip of the iceberg on this one.
go get it
The Ron Paul Revolution is coming? Actually, there was like 200 people camping out in front of CBS studios last night with Ron Paul signs. Personally, I think he not only won both republican debates so far, I think he made it obvious that Giuliani is way out of his league here.
Because, *gasp*, some nerds live in countries other than the US! OMG !
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Thank you.
_ want.
I have been speaking against the top-down strategy since Ross Perot. It's high time people realize that a top-down strategy simply will_not_work. It is as if we are looking for fundamental, system-wide instant gratification - this will not happen! Though I disagree with him on certain issues (I have not found a single elected official with which I agree about everything), I respect Ron Paul and his views immensely and I think that his position on those issues comes from the right place.
That being said, the best way to fight the corruption of our elected officials, as well as the destruction of our democratic _society_, is to start at the bottom. Local and state officials are very important here. If we want it to reach the highest levels of government, we have to start on a good foundation and make it ubiquitous enough so that a wave of change is unavoidable for the higher levels (Legislative and Executive branches) of our federal government. Not only will it make for more complete change once accomplished - but it will be a more fundamental and long lasting change. Not to mention, it is easier to start at the bottom (less competition, less of a barrier to entry, etc.)!
As per the society part of the equation, we have to do our jobs as citizens and willing to make extremely tough decisions. Thing is, those decisions must be made on as accurate and complete a set of information as possible. In order to get this set of information, we need a free press that feels the need to give us that set of information. As it stands, the majority of the press is basically owned by a few corporations who "give us what we want", rather than what we need (re: above). It is our job as citizens to expect better from the news than who won American Idol, whether or not Anna Nicole Smith's custody was given to the boyfriend or whoever, or even O.J. Simpson. That is not to say that these aren't newsworthy events in some cases, but we as a society must demand that we get the_information_we_need_before_the_information_we
I have been voting in a bottom up strategy for years now - third-party candidates only in local and state races, the big two in congressional and presidential races. Sometimes, people need to see that their contribution will matter. If those of us who desperately want change in higher offices want to convince others to help us, we must show that them it _can_ be accomplished and then we show them how.
Sometimes I look back on the Revolution and wonder how they did it. I sometimes wonder why people think it was easy. It's as if sometimes some people think that the founding fathers just decided one day, "Screw that King, we are going to change things", and then the next time they woke up, it happened.
But we all know it was much more difficult than that. The idea of liberty and freedom did not happen in a day, it was a long hard process of convincing everyone they could that
A) it's a good idea
B) it's possible
C) it's worth the effort
and
D) the effort itself
The process of attaining it did not happen from the top down. Yes, the founding fathers were, for the most part, higher up on the socio-economic ladder than most people. However, even they had to build this idea from the ground-up. Building from the ground-up is the way we can get it back.
A press can be as simple as a box and some carved potatoes, or carved wood if you don't want to keep re-carving. There are a million other creative options now.
You see, when it's really illegal to publish your own works even such simple things as these can land you in a gulag. That's what the original quote is referring to. Not the "man" putting you down denying your eighth credit card and thus eliminating your "right to free speech" by cutting off your credit.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
'Nuff said.
Dear Will, the plums were poisoned. -- Cheese Club
how about ralph nader???
Now that you mention it, quite a few people on Slashdot are nuts about quite a few different things. There are enough browsers, lurkers, and active members to get close to the general population, to have a broad range of sometimes surprising interests, and to interpret reality very differently that you do and than the cliche slashdot reader does (whatever that assumption is).
I don't want you, slashdot, or anyone else assuming what issues are important to me, how I side on them, who my best candidate is, and how I'm going to vote.
Damn it, Jim, I'm not a slashdot voter. I'm a human being.
As well, look up the clause that Congress shall make no law impeding commerce. Check your modern defenition of "regulate" is not the same as "regulate" when that Constitution was forged (~1871). Also, the several States are not the united States, and neither is that pirate nation "the United States" corrupting the original nation "America" to be confused with the united States of America or the Confederacy styled as "The United States of America."
without prejudice
That's why we have a Federal court system, so states can sue each other.
Similarly, that's what you'd do if your neighbor started doing something that was adversely affecting your ability to use your own property -- you'd sue them and get an order making them stop what they were doing, and probably also get damages to compensate you for what's already occurred.
The solution to many environmental problems is just to not give them special exceptions from normal civil processes -- if Kentucky allows coal-fired power plants that cause acid rain in Vermont, then the AG of Vermont, looking out for his own state's interests, should sue the state of Kentucky.
We already have frameworks in place which, if left to work unfettered, would allow many more environmental externalities be brought to bear on the parties responsible. Unfortunately, years of corruption in the Federal government have left a vast tapestry of exemptions and bureaucracy that prevent much of it from working as it should.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Not for a presidential race, anyway. Back in 2000, I doubt many people predicted that Bush would turn out to be such a fascist. But everyone should have known that he would be a good little right wing Christian corporate toady, and that the election would be close. They should have learned from the wingnuts of the 60's and 70's - try to take over the party most aligned with your interests, rather than consigning yourself to irrelevancy by going alone and changing nothing.
Capitalist-Communist Domino-theory [FALSE]
... [FALSE] .... [TRUE]
... !HAVEFUN!
Plutocrat-Dogmatist Terrorist-theory [FALSE]
Persistent-Stupidity is Vacuous-reasoning. [TRUE]
We broke it we own it
Collect and keep the spoils of war [FALSE]
We broke it we, we paid for it, now it gets thrown-away
A problem worse than the one created by 9-11 BinLaden-dogmatist.
Is a problem worse than the one crated by religious Bush-dogmatist?
Two wrongs created is proof of vacuous-reasoning by evil wannabe
megalomaniacs. US using persistent-stupidity to follow flawed and
evil justification for more wrong and evil is unpardonable crimes
against humanity. [TRUE]
Fool you once shame on others,
Fool you twice shame for many others,
Fool you thrice shame for far more others.
What religious Bush&BinLaden-dogmatist would continue must be ended by US.
It is time we develop real plans for protecting Humanity, Individual rights/freedoms, US Citizens, USA Borders, US Culture, and working with the global community to redress social/cultural, economic, education... disparities. We must provide for Common Human Welfare (Liberty, education, life, food, shelter, health... with collaboration, equality, and stability for all (US and EU included, not as privileged plutocrats).
This is the evening of the great wealth-right nations, the last great birth-right empires ended with WorldWar-I creating social/cultural, economic, education... disparities with social/cultural, economic, education... disparities and WorldWar-II which was used to validate the ruling by wealth and birth-economics, nepotism at best/worse. Ancient empires Egypt, Persia, Rome, China... failed due to internal corruption and special privileges for unqualified fetid divine-rights leaders. Divine-rights (gods guiding hand) leaders today are just as destructive to peace and prosperity as any of the past empire-gods. I hope (as a species) we are wise enough to see the next dawn.
War-Devastation or Peace-Prosperity, history proves
all empire-gods using aggression by War-Devastation are wrong.
Humanity proves the real value of Peace-Prosperity
let US never again trust empire-gods perpetrating
and then perpetuating War of Aggression/Devastation
THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY to "end the enemy" of
Peace-Prosperity. I agree with murdering one person,
that cannot be captured and imprisoned, who would
murder 10 folks. I agree with murdering 100 person,
that cannot be captured and imprisoned, who would
murder 10000 folks.
BinLaden is alive and not imprisoned for life; therefor, shame on humanity and G.W.Bush.
G.W.Bush is not impeached and imprisoned for life; therefor, shame on humanity and US.
MOST OF ALL SHAME ON ALL THE Pseudo-prophets of all religions that support, approve, and
justify MURDER in GOD's name. The floors of hell will be paved with their upright followers
for the Pseudo-prophets to walk on like the weeds elevated above the shit of those damned human souls.
Okay, I am tired
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Forget "who you're for", read this:
d =19277405
0 0.html
e e_al_gore_will_be_a.html
MY KINGDOM FOR MOD POINTS
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236259&ci
Book Excerpt: The Assault on Reason
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622015,
Contrary-ism and political hit-jobs by programmed imbeciles.
[you think I'm kidding?]
http://www.smokingpolitics.com/2007/05/we_guarant
I'm Independent, I haven't decided.
~hylas
I'm not wed to Obama/Richardson vs Richardson/Obama. The only reason to put Obama first is his popularity and war chest right now, if Richardson lost the primary he might throw his lot in with Obama. As far as an effective executive office, the other way around makes much more sense. If Obama ran for VP with Richardson, who knows, maybe that would be less threatening somehow. I have no idea if either possibility has a chance of happening, but like I said it's still early.
The enemies of Democracy are
Now imagine if the supreme court were not permitted to safeguard your "life, liberty or property" because Ron Paul's HR 4379 had explicitly forbidden it in matters of "sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction".
This means that states can now legislate against contraception, abortion and consensual sex. It means that the definition of "privacy" as seen by the courts under the fifth and fourteenth amendements is valid to give you the right to "to marry, establish a home and bring up children", but not to decide how and when to conceive those children.
In short, Ron Paul is a very strange and impractical obstetrician and an even stranger kind of politician. I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
There are many bad voting systems in the world, but the american is the worse by far. Even with only two options the majority might lose (if it's not distributed well among the states), take the 2000 election for example, gore had about 2-million more voters and he lost.
Even if we ignore this, the fact that you choose the president directly (although you don't) does not allow multiple choices. Look what Nader is doing to the democratic candidate over and over again. If you'll have two republicans and one democrat, the democrat will probably win even in Texas.
If you want more candidates, you'll have to choose the electors nationally, and then allow (publicly, not only legally) them to vote for other candidates, if the one they suppose to vote for obviously fails. Then you might get many (that is, more than 2) candidates, who might even inform you of theirs second best options etc.
Of course, the parties will never allow such change, as they will lose power.
The Republican party used to be like the current Libertarian party, but ever since the neocons took it over (around the time of the Reagan administration IIRC), we've had these corporatist fascists with a hard-on for absolute power and control.
Actually it started before Reagan. It was already going with Nixon. For instance, Nixon had presidential commission studying whether hemp, marijuana, should be legalized. However before they ever came back with a decision he said there's no way he agree to make hemp legal again, which is what the commission decided. In part because of this some Republicans split off with the party and formed the Libertarian Party.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Galbraith is worth reading as well. The reason classical capitalism doesn't work is simple. Money is power, and so the rich have the power to become richer, and they will do so, on the expense of the weak - the poor. The only way to stop this is by using some other sort of power, the goverment, which will usually follow the interests of the voters, the poor. By the way, you can only understand Smith (or Ricardo, Marx, Keynes or, for that matter, Plato) in the context of its time. Smith wrote for those who don't know what capitalism means, to a world where everything was regulated. That is what he knew of and what he tried to change. Don't look for anything regarding macroeconomics in Smith or Ricardo, they couldn't know there is a difference between the micro and macro levels, there was no such difference in their time. Oh, and the main problem with the west agriculture, is that there is no world-wide regulation. When the market is global, so should be the economical goverment, but it isn't, and the rich (the west) keeps its wealth.
It's the same old problem of the old 'tax brackets'... get a raise and cut your pay because you got bumped to the next tax bracket. I don't understand why there are "brackets"... why isn't it a continuous curve instead? The only thing it would change is the way the tax tables are calculated.
I say make income tax as easy as they can be by getting rid of personal income taxes. At the federal level the only entities that should be paying income tax are corporations. If a person, stockholder, wants limited liability then they should pay for it. But instead of billing individuals bill the corporation, one flat tax rate.
As an aside, I'd also bill corporations an added amount when executives of the corp get paid more than some multiple, say 1000, over the lowest paid fulltime employee. Using the 1000 above, if the lowest paid employee makes $24,000 then the corp can pay the ceo $24,000,000 without having to pay extra. But say the ceo is paid $50M, every dollar over the $24M, the corp also has to pay in tax. So the corp would be paying another $26M in taxes over the tax on profits. This would give the ceos, and maybe stockholders, an incentive to pay the lowest paid employee more. Oh, and this counts vacation pay, use of corporate gyms and jets, health insurance, and all other benefits.
my main issue with libertarianism is that it is an "ism"
Now apply that to democratism and republicanism.
I also belive that completely free and unfettered markets are very, very damaging to the greater good (as we see under this current administration, with the likes of Haliburton and Enron and all the corruption and concentration of wealth, and corporation actions that go directly against the welfare of the citizens of this country)
There is NO Free and Unfettered Market under Bush. Under a free market no contracts would be been handed to Haliburton, Enron, or any other corporation without open competitive bids. Why can't people understand these things don't happen in free markets? It's only by the power of the government that these things happen. As when government is involved there is no free market.
There needs to be a strong central regulation of commerce and the markets, to prevent fraud and graft
That's what courts are for. Fraud and graft are crimes and perps shoud be charged with said crimes.
to prevent corporations from polluting indiscriminately and to hold them accountable for their negative environmental impact on the nations resources (land, people, health, air, water, etc).
Courts apply here too.
We need labor laws, and laws against discrimination.
We can have these laws without more bureaucracies.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There are many problems with small goverment, and the greatest of all are: 1) Education 2) The economy 2a) Research The first is about freedom. My children should not be held back because their parents are poor (no matter why they are poor) or stupid. Why would Bill Gates' son get better opurtunities than mine? Now good education is expensive. Very expensive. Who will pay for education for my children? I can't afford it, and it shouldn't be my desicion anyway. For the second, I remind you of the great depression. There were several reasons to it, but such a crisis is much more probable under a small goverment, and you can see what it took to get out of (very big goverment, especially during the war). About research, no private organization will get into scientific reaserch. The costs are very high and you can't expect it to get you money within a short period of time (that is, less than a decade). Even then, the risk is very high, most reaserch doesn't give you much. That is the main profit we get from the military. The Internet is a great example.
I've met him. He is a good guy and could handle the __job__ of being president better than anyone else who has run in my lifetime. Say whatever you want about his appearance, he is the one person who has been consistent and right about the importance of peace, all this time.
If you still think that looking good is more important than doing good in our leader, you're a fool, and you might as well re-elect bush. It's SO offensive that he's not on the poll. FIX THAT!
He's the obvious slashdot candidate, and the only one who understands the issues we have been talking about online for decades (check my user number, I've been around a while.)
Here are just a few examples of for incredibly forward thinking this man is:
He at least deserves a spot before Cthulhu. The future of the country matters. C'mon, I know the poll software can handle another spot or two.
...in an isolated hamlet of a few hundred people. In a nation of 300 million, it would be an absolute disaster.
There's all sorts of people in the upper floors of this house! Of course we need a president who can deal with foreign policy issues we face.
Unfortunately for you I live in a country with socialised medicine and I not only know the stats, I know first hand that you're wrong.
Also, your source of info there is rather humorous. Nice try though.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Dennis Kucinich
Looking like a nerd, and with a wife who looks like THAT, he is an inspiration for all us nerds. It. Is. Possible.
Maybe he was reading slashdot and was using the spacebar to page down.
Under Chomsky's news for nerds, see sig.
However, when a libertarian answers a question, liberty will almost certainly come up; it is at the core of the libertarian ideal.
There is no "core" to the libertarian ideal. "We believe in liberty!" *Everyone* believes in liberty. And everyone is just as sincere as you are.
Real ideologies are opposed to other real ideologies, that is, they exist due to a conflict between people who are otherwise like minded. Conservatives and liberals agree on 90% of the issues but they have some fundamental disagreements. Libertarians have to invent counter-ideologies, like authoritarianism and populism, to try and pretend that they're not single-issue voters or members of the dominant ideologies. Most libertarians are really fiscal conservatives or watered-down anarchists.
The most disturbing thing about all this is that many libertarians are veering towards isolationism. (Not all, thankfully, the Objectivist crowd is still merrily pro-West. Well, merry by their standards, at least.)
oops, I meant to say Rove (The Political Strategist), not Cheney. Cheney doesn't many much sense in there. Oh well.
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The democrats could end the war tomorrow.
they write a law that says "It is a federal crime to commit military troops to the nation of Iraq." They have the votes to do this *if* they wanted to... they don't want to do this however.. they WANT the war to continue so they can use it against the Republicans in the next election. Even when they win it still wont end because they wont want failure on there watch so they are going to pull back SOME of the troops and downplay their actions. That is what "re-deploy" means.
Besides this, why are the Democrats voting to renew the Patriot Act? Both Obama and Hillary voted FOR it. They vote for it because they want it. Pay more attention to what they DO and not what they SAY.
You say the government is the largest employer in the US but the government does not produce anything. If you pay people money yet nothing is created from their labor.. isn't that a giant waste? I heard a story from Montana where one town had 1 manager job for every 2 employee jobs. Do we really need this many bureaucrats?
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Lets face it, nerds love playing with all sciences, and sciences that make loud bangs are REAL fun ;-)
(This statement is satire, so if you're an FBI agent looking for terrorists, grow a sense of humour, OK.)
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
n/t
Take the Google4Paul pledge!
I had the idea that we can leverage Google AdSense to help finance Paul's campaign.
We just need bloggers to sign up for AdSense (if you haven't already) and then pledge a certain percentage of the revenues to Paul's campaign.
The idea and reasoning are fully explained at Google4Paul.org. The site has graphics you can display on your blog or website.
Please help spread the word.
This is the best pole I have seen, and I am extremely happy with the results. Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate who understands what is actually in the best interests of Americans, since he is a staunch Libertarian.
I truly hope that he wins the election, even though I live in Australia, he would have the power and chance to set some excellent presidents for the rest of the world.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Gavity = Highest Power
Even your god is dependent on gravity for the stars and planets to work.
But, see, the thing that makes me suspicious is that he didn't even TRY to beat the election fraud that was obviously going on. He didn't even make an EFFORT to sue and get a recount of Ohio and Florida. He just laid down and gave up. That's unforgivable! It's why we had another Bush presidency.
The only good thing to come out of this is that Bush can never, ever run again (shudder).
NO CARRIER
It would be interesting to be able to hear the water cooler chat, or the bar room ramblings, circa the run up to FDR getting elected for the third and fourth times. That gets added to my book search.
That it even got to the point where a recount was needed is more what I am talking about; if Kerry hadn't been dead wood walking, he could have run away with the damn thing, it didn't need to come down to legal maneuvering and foul crying(and here, in 25 years, it will be interesting to see the extent to which the alleged irregularities came from the top down and so forth).
I'm not sure that he would have been worse off running on the 'Elect Me, Cause President George W. Bush is a Poo-Poo Head' platform(and I mean quite literally, putting that directly in his ads and so forth).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I am as much a geek as the next guy, but I am certainly not picking a president based on this issues. Things like taxes, health care, the war sure seem like real reasons to pick a candidate.
Wait, I forgot where I was....
Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.
You can check his voting record and see that he is indeed the real deal.
Libertas in infinitum
How do you guarantee that the federal government wouldn't do harm to people? They already have, many times. Also, if the federal government does something bad, the entire country suffers, as opposed to a few states.
That is the main problem with Business Libertarianism.
The idea that poverty is a choice, that, in the modern American economy, a poor person can reliably pull himself up by his bootstraps -- absolutely ridiculous. Institutional racism and classism are just the tip of the iceberg on this one.
Tell that to the illegal immigrants who cross the border with "nothing", live "off the grid(with no social welfare)", yet still manage to make enough money to survive and send some back to their family in Mexico.
People who are currently poor and stay poor are such because they 1)lack the productivity to create wealth, 2)are just fucking lazy, or 3)can't properly manage money. I have parents that fall into the third category. I have an uncle who falls into the second. I have personally seen both of those in action. It wasn't racism or classism that kept them down; it was their own stupid decisions.
The electoral college is actually a pretty reasonable compromise between 'per person' and 'per state' representation. I like it as a concept, since it also allows the president to be much more independent of congress. What I would like to see is a massive expansion of the house, so that it at least is more or less proportional to the size of the state. The artificial cutoff on the number of members throws the intended balance pretty badly out of whack, which also throws the presidential elections out of whack.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
What?! So you are implying that the definition of the word "regulate" had changed to a sufficient degree that it means something totally different? Lunacy! I call shenanigans. Prove it, dude.
Your website makes no sense, either. What is your schtick? Trying to figure this out.
It's not narcissicism if it's true!