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.
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?
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.
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
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