Slashdot Mirror
Mitt Romney Answers Tech Questions
DesScorp sends a link to a TechCrunch interview in which GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney answers questions of interest to techies. Included are questions on H-1B visas, Internet taxation, venture capital taxation, alternative energy, and carbon emissions. Finally, we learn that Romney is a PC guy, and get a summary of what's on his iPod.
At least we would get a democratic filter between McMobileDisneySoft and questions of war and peace. As it is, the corporate world drafts a Project for the New American Century and it gets implemented regardless of public opinion. Romney's answers gave no indication of any departure from that scheme. Instead all the worst of the Bush administration would go on at top speed: H1Bs slavery instead of real immigration help, "Open" markets that are bound by US Patent and Copyright ownership, corporate bail outs and other predatory policies designed to make the US "Powerful" instead of Free.
Wealth, influence and power come from freedom and justice not the other way around. Countries that waste their efforts on raw power end up like North Korea.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You didn't answer my question: who is your candidate?
We are in a representative republic and do not vote on issues, but rather people.
300 million people are not affected by this. That's absurd. I say fewer than one thousand people really have a legit need for medical marijuana, at least to the severe degree the example needs it. I agree his rights are violated.
Also, 300 million people do not pay their share of taxes, or even near their share, so you can't say this kid's money is being stolen, when he probably pays no federal income tax. You're just trying to goad and troll, I guess. I'm very sympathetic to this kid, but your lack pf perspective is very high.
Pot does ruin lives. It makes people paranoid and stupid and is linked to paranoid schizophrenia. It should not be legalized. Those who have severe medical problems that a doctor says mandate smoking pot have a right that the rest of us 300 million people do not have.
You think this issue compares with the war on terror? Whether you are pro-war or anti, thousands of people's lives hang in the balance. Thousands were killed on 9/11, and Saddam killed millions of people, while our effort has probably killed over 100k people. That's somewhat more important, right? You claim I dismiss "basic human rights" with no idea what basic human rights are. I wish banned smoking pot was the biggest problem in human rights in this country. While the war on drugs is very wasteful and destructive, it doesn't register at all when compared with the destructive potential of the bankruptcy of social security. Then the elderly may go without food and restorative medicine. Millions of people will actually suffer, as opposed to hundreds at most (I imagine in many cases, Romney is right and other drugs can take pot's place).
You're extremely judgmental. And compared to you, I do have it easy because I understand that other people can disagree with me and not be morally inferior. You live in a simplistic jingoistic world and must hate the vast majority of Americans (who would ban a lot of drugs and repeatedly support candidates that do). I don't have to hate them, even if I disagree with them and wish doctors could prescribe pot.
Opinion poll leadership has more than its fair share of additional faults:
1) Who is conducting these polls? Who is collecting the numbers to call? Who does the calling? Who gets to design the questions?
2) Do we really want people who are too lazy to get off the couch every 2 years and vote to have that much of a say in government?
3) How are we to know if the people polled are of eligible voting age? Or that they are even permitted by law to vote (they could be convicted felons, incompetent, etc.)? Or even citizens of the U.S.?
4) How much public policy do we want to actually entrust in the hands of a highly opinionated but entirely ignorant populace? Should foreign affairs with Burkina Faso be a subject of polling? Or how about complex economic matters? Again, who decides on what issues we poll on? Does the public's knowledge - or complete lack thereof - play a role in what we ask? How do we determine public knowledge? I can't go a day without hearing a Ron Paul supporter, for example, inventing from whole cloth some magical constitutional requirement for this or that. (All while inexplicably shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!")
5) As to questions of "war and peace", do keep in mind that public opinion polls tend to support war at the moment - and it's not all because the evil corporations you demonize so much are responsible for it, either.
6) Countries need to depend on each other in the long-run: how will this work if a country is commanded at its core by a very, very fickle public?
Clearly, the present republican form of government suffers from all of the above to lesser degrees.
As to the rest of your fascinating arguments, *YAWN*. If you honestly believe - as you clearly imply - that the U.S. is heading down the path to becoming like North Korea, then you either lack knowledge of the U.S., North Korea, or both - or you choose to engage in the same sort of hyperbolic, poorly-reasoned thinking that steers me away from rule by public opinion poll in the first place.
As for wealth and power coming from freedom, I couldn't agree more. I'm an American. My wife and I both come from lower-class to very lower-class backgrounds. My mom (single divorced parent, 4 kids) was a frequently unemployed elementary school teacher. My wife's father has held a variety of odd jobs. We both worked hard, and we're both now in law school. Within a few years - practically upon graduation - our combined income will be well over six times what either of our parents brings home right now. There are very, very few places in the world where a person can make that kind of socioeconomic jump in one generation without criminal/political connections. America is one of those places.
If you're unhappy where you're at, here's a tip - work harder and work smarter. Whining will get you nowhere.
Someone says I have dismissed the rights of hundreds of millions of people, and I'm the troll? How can someone troll when there are simply replying to a personal attack? And the fella who demagogues in the most ridiculous terms possible is insightful?
Moderator: go fuck yourself, please. You're what's wrong with this society where both political factions think the other is 100% inhuman.
You should use your moderator points to determine if comments are interesting, etc. Not to upvote crap you agree with in the most childish digg-style possible. By validating the parent poster's simplistic and stupid attacks, you're fueling the fire.
Mitt Romney isn't being attacked for his view on drugs: he's being attacked for being a republican. Everyone knows it. Hillary's view on the War on Drugs is identical. Obama actually talks about ramping up the War on Drugs. But they aren't republicans so they aren't subject to the same level of attack.
Romney is showing some awareness of technology that people like Bush "uses the google" fundamentally lack. It's refreshing. Idiot trolls crawl out of the woodwork to attack Romney's entire moral system for reasons utterly irrelevant, I call them on being single-issue-selfish.
I'm not even a republican, and I'm getting sick of this crap. Every election year I have to listen to trolls validate each other's existence while hating huge segments of society. For whatever reason (likely Bush's fumbling presidency), Slashdot leans left, so Romney's embracing of technology is seen as an invitation to attack.
Well mods, if you really want to, go ahead and moderate down every single thing I have ever said. Because I disagree with you. Call me a troll for issuing obvious and relatively polite self-defense. slashdot can be another digg.com.
You mean like China, Russia, Cuba or Venezuela?
Some folks in the US prize economic and political self-determination over having things run by an 'enlightened' few. That's a principle of the Federal system, believe it or not. A little idealistic? Maybe. But that's how we roll.
The opposite of progress is congress
I understand your confusion, but I'm afraid if we slide any further toward theocracy, those of us who are not believers are going to learn exactly what "freedom requires religion" means.
You are welcome on my lawn.
An early clue that someone may be a sociopath is mistreatment of animals. It points to a lack of empathy. How you treat a pet is a good indication of how you are likely to treat your brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter or a stranger in the street.
I don't care why you're posting AC