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
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Cthulhu. "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
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
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
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
Zaphod Beeblebrox for president!
There you are, staring at me again.
Dont forget that he's on the board of Apple. He's also an unofficial advisor to google and cofounded something called Current TV which I'd never heard of before, but looks like youtube. Are there even any other politicians as tech saavy as he is, much less one that is hoped to be running for president?
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Fellow libertarian here, but there's one really tough question we need to ask your libertarian candidate. And that question is: Who are you? We need a libertarian candidate who's a self-made billionaire and can fund their own campaign.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
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
I'll take a stab at actually guesssing what Ron Paul's views on this are. No, I didn't read his website specifically looking for this so I could be wrong, this is just based on what I know of his philosophy and voting record.
privacy/total information awareness: He is as much a privacy nut a the biggest nut job here. Essentially, since the US Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government the power to collect the data then the government does not have that power. Period. A little more unclear is his opinion on states/corporations gathering information. Corps first... my take on it is that even though he would be apalled by the practice, corporations are private entities and so the government should not prohibit then from collecting data. I really don't want to hazard a guess as to his views on state governments collecting and using data. Obviously he's opposed to it, but whether the feds should prohibit it... you'll just have to ask him.
Internet regulation and taxation: This one's easy. He's opposed to it. Period. Never voted for a tax in his life. Note that since the constitution grants the feds power to regulate interstate commerce, the question is not purely consitutional. It also means he would have no problem prohibitting states from enacting thier own taxes.(I am supposoing here...)
net neutrality: This one has me stumped. On one hand, he would support the rights of providers to run their business the way they see fit. On the other hand, they are usually government granted monopolies which he opposed. I'll have to look into this...
copyright/patent reform: This one is the one that he would disagree with most slashdotters on. While I am sure he would agree tate the current patent office is broken, I am pretty sure he will conceptually side with patent holders on this one.
the right to read: Not sure what is really meant by this? Talking about censorship perhaps? If so, then he is most certainly opposed to all forms of censorship.
the right to secure communications: I am pretty sure he would see this as a free speach issue, so yes he would be in favor of it.
the right to tinker: Pretty sure he would support this as well, despite the patent/copyright implications. At least so long it is for personal use. But this is a guess on my part.
There are things I disagree with Ron Paul on, especially his anti-immigration stances, but overall he is the one I agree with the most. I even changed my affiliation to Republican(from unaffiliated) so that I could vote for him in the primary. Do I think it would be best if he did win... not sure. But I know we need a lot more people like him in office so that maybe, a generation or two from now, we'll have the same rights we used to. It will take that long.
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?
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."
# 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'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]
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.
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 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.
No, the armies of Satan are not marching. Put down your assault weapon, and put down your bible too. You've bought into another over-hyped threat. The *real* enemies, as far as I'm concerned, are the criminals in the government. Yes, I said criminals. They break laws. Not just stupid laws like circumventing copyright measures or jaywalking - real laws meant to protect you and me from oppression. I don't care what party they're from. I want them *all* rounded up and brought to justice. Otherwise, what will prevent future leaders - of any party - from doing the same thing? I don't get how people can sit around and talk about compromise while this is going on. Nothing our government does, from Iraq to Immigration, is going to be done right unless this problem is addressed.
Yeah, religious extremists are bad, especially when they get violent. I agree that many politicians don't seem to be on the right side of that issue. We should be fighting *all* religious extremism - foreign and domestic. Too many would pander to the religious nuts in this country while pretending to oppose those in other countries (and of course wasting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process). But it's not the Armageddon scenario you're painting.
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
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?
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.
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?
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."
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
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.
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/
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**
This 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.