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? "
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.
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.
HAhahahha...unless a woman wants an abortion, or you want vouchers for a non-religious school, or you want network neutrality.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
So you don't want network neutrality?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The party of small government has disappeared, and has been replaced by the new and improved "Spend & Spend" Republican Party.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.
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