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.
"Who Let The Dogs Out" ...and whatever else he thinks might be popular with the electorate.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
What's on his iPod: "Who Let The Dogs Out" ...and whatever else he thinks might be popular with the electorate.
That's not what's on his ipod. That's a question he really wants the answer to. Mitt Romney wants to know who let the dogs out, because Mitt Romney believes the dog(s) should be firmly locked on top of his station wagon, and covered in feces.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
At least Romney hasn't advertised he'll put Steve Ballmer on his cabinet like McCain has. Gak! You think we have it bad NOW?
Most of the stuff on
I still can't figure out why slashdot never posted my submission for Ron Paul's article at http://www.news.com/Technology-Voters-Guide-Ron-Paul/2100-1028_3-6224161.html?tag=st.num which is much more interesting.
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.
Romney is the greatest USA Presidential candidate ever. Think about it.
...he'll still hold an opposing stance.
Look at someone like Ron Paul. What if you don't agree with Ron Paul about something? Bad news...
Mitt Romney, though, is the true candidate of hope. He likely agrees with you. He might not now, but he probably has at some point in the past and might again in the future.
In this political season where the candidates are talking about change, the change involves growing the size and roll of government (which isn't change at all). The REAL candidate of change is Mitt Romney. Sure, he'll expand government too, but his positions change often. And change is change.
Vote change. Vote Mitt Romney!
As an automaton yourself, what rights do you think our constitution grants to humanoid robots?
It's impressive how slow those pitches were. There wasn't a single hard question among them, and the interviewer clearly spelled out the answers he wanted to hear (and knew Romney was going to give).
On another note, his idea of alternate and sustainable energy seems to be coal liquefaction and "maybe even" nuclear. Forward thinking guy much?
Fair enough. I'm not a big Mitt fan, but he's a economic genius and an experienced leader. And fixing this economy and handling the war are much more important that medical marijuana, though I agree with a prescription there is no reason not to permit its use. One affects hundreds of millions of people, the other affects very few people (if you use this kid as your argument).
I don't think it's sensible to pick one issue and judge everyone who disagrees with you a monster. Of course, I also don't have that kid's disease so it's easy for me to feel this way. Still, single issue voters miss the boat these days. Who is your candidate that meets your standard? I can find something inhuman about them if I really wanna.
Mitt Romney runs attack ad about self
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Really? I'm trying real hard, but I don't see how "freedom requires religion" could in any way be considered secular.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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.
94% to 79% - Willing to vote for an African American
92% to 72% - Willing to vote for a woman
72% to 38% - Willing to vote for a Morman
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.
About 200,000, actually.
but they don't seem to *do* anything but wander around in suits on hot days (when everyone else is in t-shirts), carrying bibles the size of house bricks and shouting at the tops of their voices at anyone who wanders too close. I can't imagine anyone actually giving them money, but then someone has to pay for all those suits...You're talking about missionaries, not regular members of the church, and they are unpaid volunteers who pay all of their own travel and living expenses -- including buying their own suits.
And as for what the church does, it does quite a bit to help people who need assistance, but doesn't advertise the fact. There was a time about 10-15 years ago where the LDS church began issuing press releases about some of the larger welfare projects, but accusations of self-aggrandizement made that short-lived. Now, some highlights are on the church web sites for those who care to look (I notice on lds.org.uk that the church apparently did quite a bit to help with some flooding last fall in Sheffield).
Some numbers for you: the church welfare program collects about $50M per *month* in charitable donations and distributes about $60M per month to needy people around the world. They can distribute more than they collect because much of the food they distribute is grown on church-owned farms worked by volunteers and packaged in church-owned factories worked by volunteers. There is zero administrative overhead, because most of the administration is done by volunteers (many of whom are full-time "welfare missionaries") and the small paid staff is funded from other sources. I know people who are not Mormon but donate to the LDS Church because it's one of the most effective charities in existence.
This, of course, is in addition to all the church does for members, who tend to live longer, happier lives than average and be more educated and wealthier than average. Then there's also the whole issue of salvation which is the real point, but probably of less interest to you.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
One more thing:
:)
Most people don't realize how young Thomas Jefferson was. He was just 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. He was very good friends with Franklin, nearly 40 years his senior.
In fact, Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration and sent it to Franklin with a request that he suggest revisions such that his age and experience compel, or something along those lines.
He made a change of just a few syllables, but with an enormous magnitude far beyond his years. He read Jefferson's line, "We hold these truths to be scared and undeniable" and he was worried that the word "scared" might be misused in future generations to justify religious dogmas. (Most people fond of saying that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs look over the fact that most our founding fathers were agnostic.)
So he put a few slashes thru the words and penned in their place, perhaps the most succinctly written statement of purpose in all of human history: "We hold these truths to be self-evident." What seems like just a small change was, in reality, a massively different statement. It is undeniable that 2+2 = 4. It is undeniable that the opposite of True is False. But a select few truths in this world are Self-Evident. At that time, the list was even smaller: The world in which we live and that we are being.
After 7/4/1776, that list became: The world in which we live, that we are being, and that we are free and that all men are created equal.
Simple as it sounds, it's the first time anybody thought to actually write it down.
And herein ends the history lesson for today
As Flash Gordon, one of the worst political possibilities I can think of is voting for Ming the Merciless.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
Mormons are just regular people. One of my good friends in high school was a Mormon, and aside from us teasing him occasionally, it never came up. Some of my in-laws have converted and they are pretty much the same as they were before becoming Mormon, minus the alcohol and caffine. I would not characterize it as a cult.
I'll grant you that the origin of the religion is pretty hokey, but is that really such a big difference between that and other major religions? Christianity involves a woman getting knocked-up by an angel, Hindu involves gods with multiple limbs and faces incorporating animal features, etc. Give it 2000 years and it won't seem much stranger than Christianity.
As an aside, I like those Mormon missionaries - I can always count on an American being around to talk to when I'm homesick and in a strange country. They tend to be glad to have an American to talk to as well.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
As I have patiently explained many times, America does not lead the world in most areas of science and technology. Or free speech. Or social mobility. Or even per capita wealth. The only thing the US leads the world in is military power, and as Iraq has shown that doesn't seem to help you much anyway.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?