Slashdot Mirror
IT Workers Split For McCain, Obama
antipeon alerts us to a presidential preference survey, done in late February and early March, indicating that Obama and McCain lead among IT workers with 29% each. Clinton follows with 13%, just ahead of Huckabee (11%) and Ron Paul (9%). The Computing Technology Industry Association commissioned the poll, and the article notes that this trade group claims the population of IT workers is four times as large as the Bureau of Labor Statistics thinks it is — the better to make a voting block whose views must be attended to.
...but on the ballot or not, Steven Colbert gets my vote!
The game.
Read his speech from last week. Think about leaders that you've disagreed with, too, but followed because you had faith in where they were going. There are lots of those in my history; we're not perfect beings and his pastor obviously has some issues with where America's been going. So do I. His pastor's not a showstopper for me. Given Clinton, who can't win, and McCain, who's too much of a turncoat and politico, Obama's the only remaining horse that can win this race and try to mend the mistakes made in two terms of an elected fear-monger.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Hillary is a member of the Family. If you know what that is, you already knew that. If you didn't know what that is, then you should look it up.
Plus, what did Obama's minister say that was all that bad? If you're a moron and only listen to the sound byte, then you're going to be fooled, because it's your fate in life to be fooled. If you're a thinking person and dig a little deeper, the attempt to smear Obama is transparent.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
but the idea of a "voting block" made up by geeks, is uterly inane. Why, you say?
We like to think ourselves (ie, us geeks) as a special part of our society, (us vs the ID-10T problem). it's a dipole, hence a false dilema. we're part of the US society as much as everybody else. We are workers ourselves, even if most of us make a well-to-do living from our work.
But in no-way do we differ from another working caste of this society. In this Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle of the wheel, we got the upper hand, because we are techically inclined. But the wheel *will* make another revolution, and we'll be bottom-feeders once again.
My point is, in these comming elections do not vote such and such because you are a geek/woman/black man/white man/polka-dotted-man from mars. Vote vote according to your class: a working man trying to make ends meet.
----
Um, McCain solictited and got the endorsement of John Hagee, an outspoken anti-Catholic pastor of a megachurch in Texas. Among other things, Hagee has called the Roman Catholic Church "the Great Whore" and says that Catholics are apostates (non-believers).
Of course, McCain now says he disagrees with Hagee's remarks on Catholics, but he hasn't renounced the endorsement.
Personally, I think these types of attack vectors are silly. People make all kinds of friendships and relationships throughout their lives, and to be held responsible for all the beliefs and actions of those friends or associates is just ridiculous.
You know, IT people are generally all kinds of smug how much smarter they are than everybody else, but 20 percent of them are apparently still backing candidates who dropped out of the race several weeks ago.
I'll add another log onto your flame war bait fire....
John McCain is the *ONLY Candidate* (of the three) who can claim "IANAL".
We can all admit to ourselves, that there are FAR MORE Lawyer jokes then Honored Veteran & Hero Air Force Pilot jokes... Just saying...
To serve in the military is NOT the same as to serve in any elected office.
i cannot understand why ANYBODY would want to vote for the party that has done more to destroy the USA in the last 7 years than any other party in my memory the USA seems to now stand for war,torture, xenophobia, racism, corruption and financial mismanagement full of the same corrupt actors as the nixon era but worse (cheney et al), even "conservatives" are disgusted with what the current incarnation of rogues that are perverting the name of true conservatives have done (record debts, gov size) but hey you crack on, the rest of the world is busy making plans without you (witness the dollars slump) if the GOP get back in power you agree with all they have done and you deserve everything you get
Translation: Give us our pork, or else!
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
From the summary: "...done in late February and early March..."
I agree the sound bites were taken out of context.
Hilary Clinton has been encouraging the media to keep talking about this and tipping the election towards McCain. Ugh. The right has accused the Clintons of being a smear machine and a mobfia if you get on their bad side. I was a democrat at the time and didn;t believe it.
Now I see what Rush and Hannity were talking about. Very personal and nasty. If Clinton wins the nomination I will vote for McCain as a result.
But the pastor's remarks on how he hates America are very disturbing coming from a pastor who is close friends of someone running for president. He could say he hates how certain Americans act or even a policies of this country but to hate the country and blame all white people in an extreme way is disturbing. But all we know is what FOx news and the Clinton campaign has been telling us without the whole sermons taken out of context. Just disgusting and nasty fud slinging.
http://saveie6.com/
I had the pleasure of growing up in one of the few really integrated towns/school districts. I had many black friends but none that would invite me over because they were afraid of what their father would say.
Rev. Wright is sadly enough the norm...
It would be nice if we could brush the situation under the rug, but we can't and we shouldn't. I don't believe that Obama shares the Rev. thinking, and I can understand why he doesn't disown him.
If you really want to find out the current status of race relations in the US watch some of the Chris Rock videos on youtube.
love is just extroverted narcissism
According to the summary, the people were polled in late February / early March. Mike Huckabee dropped out March 4th, and Ron Paul is still running even though he cannot mathematically win the nomination.
I don't see the issue of obama following the same pastor over many years. I know my priest sometime says things that are wrong or I really disagree about. But for the most part I follow his message. The news likes to give sound clips, not the entire sermon. And having 5 or 6 clips out of 20 years is expected. What the pastor sermons is not what obama needs to fully beleave. Even if he doesn't mean be will act on that durring his administration because he is too pilolitically astute to be that way publically.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I largely agree, I like McCain and he's the candidate that will most likely receive my vote in November. It's really not surprising that he'd be getting most of the Republican votes out of the IT sector.
I too was really disappointed that sen. Obama didn't take the opportunity to say on the record that racism is racism and that black people shouldn't behave in a racist manner either. Just seems to me to be common sense, as well as common courtesy. Race relations are largely a mess because of the differing standards that come into play. As well as the willingness to not play well with other minority groups.
As far as McCain goes, he's the only Republican candidate that has an official statement on how he plans to remedy global warming. It isn't as strict as the ones pushed by most Democrats, but it does exist. He's officially on the record as saying that the government spending is largely out of control; furthermore has declared that earmarks need to be eliminated. Presumably cut in some instances and moved into the regular budget in others.
That's not to say that I don't agree with some of his view points, but at least I can respect that he's come by those viewpoints honestly.
OTOH if Obama manages to get gov. Richardson as his vp., candidate, that would definitely make it a tougher choice. Richardson was the only Democrat who could make a meaningful list of accomplishments which required making deals across the aisle. Richardson was the best candidate that the Democrats fielded this election, it's really a shame that he wasn't able to capture the attention of the Democratic party early enough to get his campaign going.
IT was not a POTUS preference survey, in late February and early March 2008, which indicated that Ubama and McSoft lead among IT workers with 29% each. Suselinton follows with 13%, just ahead of Apple (11%) and others (9%). The Computing Technology Industry Association commissioned the poll to be only slightly bias, and the article notes that this trade group claims the population of sexually active IT workers is four times as large as the Bureau of Labor Statistics knowss it is â" the better to make a voting block whose views must not be attended to unless supporting H1B visas.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Ron Paul is still in the race.
Entire sermons by Wright can be found online. That's not exactly "out of context".
It was never America, not in that sense that was even talked about there. Very specific cirtique of prevailing social trends, and that is the point of a large church like that. It is a social center. Obama is the best candidate, and if this shit pulls him out then maybe we deserve to be doomed to the hell of the current ways, at least then the ignorant motherfuckers and blind fools will be happy.
Do you feel better about Hillary Clinton being a Walmart Board member during the 90s when they earned their deserved anti-worker reputation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart#Governance
http://beforewisdom.com/blog/?p=276
Please do not take any offense.
If she didn't care about workers getting health care as Walmart Board Member Clinton, why do you think she will care about people like you getting health care if she is elected?
I want McCain. He's the only one who's proven his courage and loyalty under fire.
<sarcasm>What, by getting shot down?</sarcasm>
Seriously, whatever young John McCain, fighter pilot, may have done four decades ago, it's clear that old John McCain, politician, has no integrity left today. Look at the way he rolled over and showed his throat for Bush's people after the smear job they did on him in the 2000 campaign. Look at the way he talked tough about banning torture by the US military and intelligence services, then voted for the Military Commissions Act. He's a cowardly, self-serving, party-line Republican, and anyone who falls for his "straight talking maverick" act is a fool.
If McCain had associated with a minister who was a white supremacist and KKK supporter, he would have been kicked out, just like that.
Bullshit. McCain is closely associated with -- in fact, has courted and embraced -- right-wing preachers like John Hagee and Rod Parsley, who are on record with views that are at least as extremist as anything Jeremiah Wright has ever said. And yet somehow, the "liberal media" has failed to pick this up. Just like Bush, McCain is getting damn near a free ride from the press while his Democratic opponents are picked apart.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
cahoots? I think you're mistaken. He wasn't in cahoots with anyone. This whole thing got blown WAY out of proportion because the media tried to crucify (pardon the expression) Obama. What about John McCain and Hagee? I think you need to watch Wright's speech in its entirety before you pass judgement, I think you should see the whole picture first. And in any case, who cares? You're feeding into the propaganda machine. And FYI, the Clintons had invited Rev. Wright to the White House in '98..
McCain might help the economy if he is true to his word about reducing government spending.
I really wouldn't count on Mr. "Hundred Years in Iraq" to do that if I were you.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I think Hillary knows if she can turn this into a race issue then she'll win, and she's hoping everybody will think the way you do.
Have you heard of John Hagee? He's a Protestant-supremacist whackbag who things that Catholics are "the great whore" and the Jews in Israel exist to be wiped out in the coming armageddon. When the guy isn't out promoting religious intolerance or genocide, he's John McCain's "spiritual guide" (whatever that means). The funny thing is that McCain doesn't feel any need to distance himself from the guy, he's /proud/ of it. Of course, all of the column inches are being devoted to Obama, but the McCain/Hagee thing is way, way creepier. For one thing, this guy will be influential on McCain if he wins the presidency, and the last thing we need is anyone else promoting stupid incendiary anti-muslim "Crusade" rhetoric within 500 miles of the White House.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_connection_1.php
[McCain] is the only one who's proven his courage and loyalty under fire. The others are just talking heads.
That was decades ago, and has very little to do with running a country. Since entering the Senate, he's been a pretty mediocre Senator. He's already denounced his most famous accomplishment, the McCain/Feingold election law. He knows nothing about the economy or domestic policy. He's a part of the Republican machine, which is corrupt as hell and seems to basically exist to deficit spend and pump money into the defence sector (which then pumps it back in the form of campaign contributions, aka bribes). Plus he's old and his politics seems to have more to do with personal vendettas than actually advancing America's interest. God help us all if he wins. And god help the Republican party if they manage to "pull off" 12 years of mismanagement. They may con America into giving them one more shot at the presidency, but their long-term relevance to this country's politics is what's at stake.
I highly recommend watching his whole speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp-v2tHaDo
If you didn't know what that is, then you should look it up.
I should look what up? The Family? Should I Google the word 'family'? That will lead me to a richer understanding of what the hell you're talking about, right?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
From an IT perspective, since all of the candidates some how think that there is a massive shortage of IT workers in the US and we should increase the number of H1-Bs to solve this problem, it really doesn't matter who is elected.
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The really interesting story in this election is which candidates have most successfully embraced the Internet in order to collect money and run their campaigns. It's no guarantee, but I'll bet that a candidate that achieves success due to grassroots Internet fundraising is a candidate who is much more likely to push for a free, open Internet. Or at least, to oppose some of the really blatant attempts by corporations, ICANN, etc. to limit individual's access. In addition, a candidate supported by grassroots donations is much less beholden to industry and to the political party's institutional fundraising/organization leverage.
If you're wondering which candidate is doing best in this area, by the way, it's Obama. Who has managed to overcome the institutional advantage Hillary Clinton came in with, organize and win dozens of caucuses, and raise an absolutely absurd amount of money--- mostly in the form of small Internet donations.
I hope you enjoy war with Iran and a never ending war on an intangible concept that can't technically be defeated. Real bright decision there, chief.
I too was really disappointed that sen. Obama didn't take the opportunity to say on the record that racism is racism and that black people shouldn't behave in a racist manner either. Just seems to me to be common sense, as well as common courtesy. Race relations are largely a mess because of the differing standards that come into play. As well as the willingness to not play well with other minority groups.
Did you read the speech? The whole point was that people have reasons for their flawed beliefs, and we should empathize with what the origins are, but he in no way endorsed them. I think a lot of people haven't gone any further into this subject than "Wright is Barack's pastor" and a few 10 second YouTube.com clips. As for standards, they're different because people in this country have historically been treated differently. I think the speech was historic in that it spoke at an adult level. Now, if you chose to evaluate his words at the same old bumper-sticker level, then that's your fault.
Richardson was the best candidate that the Democrats fielded this election
That's obviously a very small minority opinion. Resume bullets are only a small part of the job interview. Remember, GWB had great resume bullets as well.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
So tell me...watch Fox News much?
Remember, GWB had great resume bullets as well.
He did?
paintball
In short, it's mission statement is: "To develop and maintain an informal association of people banded together, to go out as "ambassadors of reconciliation," modeling the principles of Jesus, based on loving God and loving others. To work with the leaders of other nations, and as their hearts are touched, the poor, the oppressed, the widows and the youth of their country will be impacted in a positive manner. Youth groups will be developed under the thoughts of Jesus, including loving others as you want to be loved."
I wouldn't go that far. It's a very clever cowardly, self-serving, party-line Republican act. Even non-fools could fall for it if they're not paying attention.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Poll after poll has one consistent trend; people still find passive sexism normal and acceptable.
If you want the media, from the SNL skit to even hard topics the past weeks, the media is very afraid of walking the racism line (except FOX that might as well wear white hoods).
However the media isn't as afraid of walking the sexism line and even pander to sexist tendencies that are instilled in Americans to the point they disappear from perception.
The media shouldn't be as afraid of race as they are, even Barack pushes this issue and says we need a more open dialogue to help in breaking down the latent fences that are still left in portions of the country and in portions of people's minds that have been indoctrinated by it their entire.
We need the media to realize this about sexism as well, and reopen that dialogue as well. I met a student on her way to becoming a constitutional lawyer just last year, and she even had sexist ideals that made her believe Hillary being a woman disqualified her. And in other aspects of life this person is smart, liberal even, and wants to be a federal judge. Anyone else find that mouth dropping that conflicted 'beliefs' like this still exist?
Sadly though, if you are sensitive to sexist tones, remarks, etc - you like me would be horrified with the current election cycle and how little progress has been made in this regard.
There are an enormous amount of items from this primary that I take issue with from the press to the other presidential candidates regarding sexism. We are still in the 60s and 70s with regard to sexism, and sadly people are more PC so it is just more hidden.
From the press pointing out how 'emotional' Hillary is, but when other canidates did the same thing, it was candor and 'emotional' was never used. There are too many of these examples to note.
Anyway, I truly had hoped Americans had come further with regard to sexism, and the ignorance associated, and sadly the IT world isn't any better. You would think that the IT world would respect Intelligence and stop to realize on average Woman run 20% smarter than men, and the highest IQ goes to women, beating the highest male IQ by almost 40 points. But I guess if geeks like to look at dumb blondes and boobs, maybe this is all they will think of when crossing the issue of the gender differences.
In contrast to the Democratic candidates, McCain is a tool. McCain lost all conservative respect when he started supporting the Bush admin economic policies, even though he had voted against most of them.
McCain may be from Arizona, but he doesn't have the disciplined principles that Goldwater did.
(This is where I recommend any of the last 3 John Dean books for Republicans/Conservatives/Anyone to read that think the current party is either conservative or believes in smaller government. In addition to being in the middle of the Nixon administration, Dean was a friend of Goldwater and Conservatives WIHTOUT a Conscience is a book they started together, as a direct response to the movement of the party from Reagan to Newt and how horribly off track Goldwater felt they were.)
I like both Hillary and Barack, they have some real principles and 'new' ideas from the horrifying Bush legacy. At this point, I would seriously vote for Colbert before I would Republican for President or Congress. At lesat he knows he's joking. They had 6 years of all Republican controlled government with rubberstamp everything, and it was the largest spending and worst policy period in American History. No more chances for Republicans until their party finds it ideals and real conservatism at its core.
No, you should do the research that will eventually lead you to the Family. Then, you'll have had a full education on the dark world of Christian Dominionism.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
i heard a rumor that you bottom for him.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Looking at the Clintons' record on H1B visas and Hillary's deep connections with companies like India's Tata (remember this http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22654114_ITM) its no surprise that IT professionals are rejecting her. She's all for sending our jobs overseas.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Thanks for the link. What a ridiculous name for a lobby group. How do they get any communicating done at all?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
If all you watch is Fox News, and all you listen to is Clinton, then I agree. That's all you know.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Don't forget Hageee's whole idea that the goal of US foreign policy should be to promote apocalyptic war in Israel so Jesus can return and take all the white strait people away in the rapture.
Obama offers real hope for the future. A future with Obama will change the politics of Washington and provide hope for America. The future needs more hope and this will only happen if we have real change, because the future is ahead of us and it needs a lot more hope. Change will provide the hope we need and the future, guided by the past, will be changed for the better.
Change is what America needs. Otherwise hope will wain and the future will be like the past, only with even less hope. The future will provide real hope when Obama brings the needed change. That is why I think the change Obama offers is what we need for a more hopeful future.
Anyhow, I hope you will change your mind in the future and vote for Obama.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
and will never get my vote. While Obama is for Net Neutrality and will be receiving my vote for POTUS.
While that is a bit extreme.....it is nothing unusual for religions to point at others to say they are wrong, or doing the wrong things. If they didn't , well how would they differentiate themselves and get people to believe in what "they" say, you know?
This is something MUCH more different than putting someone down for being of a certain race, or sex....something you don't have a choice in. You can decide what church you want to go to.
That being said...I think Obama got a HUGE slide on associating with that preacher who was giving some really, really racist 'sermons'. If someone white was known to be going to a church where the minister was extolling how the black man had been responsible for all the crime in the US or something equally distastful....I can imagine that white candidate would apologize enough or distance themselves enough to have a remote chance of staying in public office, much less run for high office. I was shocked how little this stuff Obama's preacher's statements initially was played on tv and discussed in the general media. It did finally get out there, but, it took a bit IMHO.
I still like a lot of what Obama says....I think he's a great orator....and I'll listen to what he has to say....but, I hate the double standard we have here in the US about what is generally tolerated by what minorities can say about whites vs what whites can say about minorities before the racist card is thrown and they are publically crucified.
Personally...I think both sides need to quit being so thinned skinned....and people shouldn't get so upset when someone says something offensive about someone. Free speech kinda negates freedom from offense.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Oh come on...
The electorate is so stupid about some things.
McCain doesn't plan to be or want to be in Iraq for 100 years. But, he plans to be there until the job is done. Why can't we recognize this as the only honest answer to the question? Not "We must leave Iraq immediately no matter what!" but "We will leave Iraq when it makes sense to leave Iraq."
Now, I'm still a fan of getting the hell out of Iraq, but I'm suspicious of anyone who promises to do so no matter what.
On the pastor front, who the hell cares what Obama's pastor says? That makes about as much sense as caring what McCain's mom says, or what Hillary's husband says, you know, the one who got his pole smoked while his wife was in the same building. EVERYBODY knows people who are even good friends of yours who say stuff that you absolutely don't agree with, or that is just downright stupid. If we all refused to associate with people who sometimes said things we didn't like, we'd have a pretty hard time talking to anyone!
If you videotape what someone says for years, you're going to have some tape of somebody saying something stupid.
And in this specific case, I think Obama understands, and tried to communicate, that while he doesn't personally agree with his pastor's decision, he understands why his pastor feels that way, and why a lot of Americans feel that way. It's not that these Americans hate America, it's that they feel that America has not treated them well. Some of their feeling is justified, and some of it is blame transference, but it's important to understand that. Justified or not, it's going to be difficult to resolve what causes opinions like Obama's Pastor's opinion if you don't even understand it.
Anyway, this pastor stuff is going to blow over. McCain doesn't even care about it - as he's an upstanding candidate who wants to campaign on the issues. It's only totally-desperate-Hillary who cares.
paintball
McCain is against net neutrality (and I sense he doesn't understand the issue either) while Obama is for protecting net neutrality and - judging by the way his campaign is ran - is a lot more tech savvy than the other remaining candidates.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Well, he did run the tap at that awesome kegger...
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
-- Ford Prefect. Apart from that, why even bother differentiating the IT worker vote from any other demographic? We only have tenuous influence on management most of the time, let alone government. We are not special.
Ice Cream has no bones.
Maybe for some people, jobs aren't the #1 issue, and we are voting on other issues. Perhaps to someone, what is important is different from what is important to you. So, with that said, I will be voting neither as a geek nor as a working class schmoe. Instead, I'll be voting as a lover of freedom interested in preserving my personal liberties. Other people will be voting as lovers of safety and the status quo interested in having their life led for them. Yet others will be voting on issues such as abortion, etc.
But no, I will not vote as you tell me to either way. I will vote the way *I* feel is important because it isn't your decision to decide what is the matter with my vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(disambiguation)
That's about as far as any reasonable Internet research would get, if no further context were provided.
Aside from all the plain-english uses of that phrase in other groups (such as Focus On The Family), there are at least three religious and political groups out there calling themselves 'the family' or some variation thereof. If you count apocryphal stories from conspiracy theorists, there may be dozens more.
Man oh man is this group creepy though.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
If McCain had associated with a minister who was a white supremacist and KKK supporter, he would have been kicked out, just like that.
Exactly -- that's why Strom Thurmond had such a short political career.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
...furthermore has declared that earmarks need to be eliminated.
All of them? I think not. And he's all for the biggest earmark of them all... for maybe another 100 years at least. Feel free to nit-pick.
Free the Keating Five!... oh, wait
What?
He's consistent, transparent, follows the rules, supports strong currency, fair and free trade, reduced government and taxes, and no lame wars based on BS. Of the politicians running, he's the least of a politician and the most of just an honest dude. that's the impression I got, I forget now, 8 terms as a Rep, no hint of scandal or taking bribe money or anything like that. No FUD, and IT people can see FUD, so maybe that is why they like him.
I don't agree totally with all of his platform or personal views, but dang most of it and them, and I will be writing him in, after voting for him in the primary, I don't care what the official neocon party nominates. He's an old fashioned nice guy and statesman, one who has real constructive change at heart. You look how he votes, never one time voted for anything that would contradict the constitution or waste money or expand the powers of the federal government beyond what they were designed for.
Any of the rest, including the top three still running..meh...same old politicians.
First, like many on Slashdot, I'm a democrat with strong leftward leanings.
But second, this "hundred years in Iraq" business has to stop. If you read the quote in context, what he was saying was that Americans (by and large) do not care about overseas military deployments or peacekeeping operations, they care when they see the cost in terms of lives, injuries, or cash.
I don't agree with the assessment that we will ever really get to the point (with a military solution) where we can set up a low-profile military peacekeeping operation, but that doesn't mean I can't see the wisdom and truth in McCain's statement. He's right. For the most part, Americans don't care about overseas military deployment, they care about military injuries or deaths.
We have bases in Germany, Italy, Greenland, Guam, The Netherlands, and Spain - there are no serious protests of these military installations by the general public (perhaps by a very fringe minority).
McCain's point was not that he wants to be in Iraq 100 years. His point was that if he can get to the point where the cost in lives and injuries is next to 0, he would support 100 years of military presence.
I've read his speech, and I can say, without a doubt that I will not vote for him. He is a politician pretending to be a movement--equating his grandmother and geraldine ferraro with an antiquated minister. And lets be clear that minister is a serious outlier--he does a disservice to black churches and the UCC to let people think otherwise.
Personally, I would have privately commented on and then separated from my mother's church if such a situation continued--in any situation where there was repeated racism, sexism, homophobia, divisiveness. And you can bet that people (lay leaders) talked about such issues. I cannot support Obama for that huge failure of judgment, for his campaigns racebaiting of bill clinton (they even circulated a memo implying he was racist for saying he wanted hillary by his side, despite knowing people like mandela, and pressured the media to take racialized views of soundbites). And because he has basically the same ratings by the NAACP, ACLU, and national criminal justice folks as Hillary Clinton. The campaign has always been about racism, sexism, and blind optimism vs pragmatism.
So how can I support a man that perpetuates antiquated notions of race (that black churches like wright's are common)? How can I support a man that exploits and expands the racial divide to push a 40+% grab of clinton's black vote (which was earned through a record of service and speeches on black and low income issues)? How can I support a man who uses rhetoric and topic-changing in a campaign about "change"?
On character, I cannot vote barack obama. And yes, part of that can be blamed on the media racializing issues and the 24 hr news cycle, but his campaign and its affiliated leaders were heavily involved in branding the clintons racist.
Also, my view of democracy requires an educated public, not an elitist system, and Obama's faith/hope/unity is a slip backwards from the details of clinton and edwards. Where is the sacrifice? Where is the dissent that occurs when allocating limited resources? Clinton is a politician, as is mccain, why is obama pretending to be better when he must ultimately act like one (and already has).
On philosophy I cannot vote barack obama...though I admire his campaign, the movement is a wee bit weak on substance. If he'd thrown in empowering an educated democracy and cut some of the fluff (conceit), he might have had my vote.
And on electability? I said last month that all he had was a downside--high numbers for speeches but no vetting. So I don't know if he's hit bottom yet, but he's a hell of a risk--especially since the media has been playing the race issue exclusively for his side since early january. All clinton has is an upside -- her record can regain the black vote and I think some of the sexism sent her way will dissipate, and she can stand toe to toe with mccain.
I'm voting for Hillary, or not voting for Obama. I cannot elect someone to office that builds a campaign on racial FUD and that is a politician pretending to be a movement.
For crying out loud Bush *endorsed* McCain. To make it even clearer, McCain voted against the senate
anti-torture bill --1E6 hypocrite points-- and supports retroactive immunity for telecoms -- basically
indicating he's for the blatant and outrageous violation of the 4th amendment by Herr Bush even
though in public he disagrees with the policy - another 1E6 hypocrite points. If you still don't
believe me, he says that the U.S. needs the military option to deal with Iran. I rest my case.
jdb2
Related to my previous post, the reason many people may feel like voting for him is because he's hated by Republicans and Democrats alike, and has taken actions that were against the wishes of his party. Hillary and Obama are much more likely to toe the party line.
Also McCain has declined to support any pork for the past year. Obama at least has offered to open up his votes on earmarks. Clinton has been one of the worse offenders in that regard, so those of us advocating fiscal responsibility as one of the most important qualities for the next president find McCain more favorable from that standpoint as well.
I've also talked to Democrats (I'm an independent) who feel the same way - not just IT workers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What could possibly make an IT person vote for McCain? He doesn't seem likely to even have a cellphone, let alone relate at all to anything IT people have to deal with. He's confessed he doesn't understand the economy. His Republican anti-immigration policies don't protect any IT jobs. What makes him seem like he could possibly represent their interests as president?
--
make install -not war
I'm a bit surprised IT workers are split. While I voted for McCain for Senate while living in Phoenix, I feel Obama is much stronger on tech issues. Here's what really sold me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Between "outsourcing" and "downsizing" a lot of American IT workers have lost their jobs. They're looking for work, but there's not enough openings to employ them all (not by a long shot).
Every time the call for more and more H1B workers goes out it further drives home the blatant fact that our government doesn't care about the citizens that it supposedly represents. All their actions do is further enrich their corporate masters.
But while this evil is transpiring, the simple fact that corporations need customers with money to spend seems to elude everyone. If your population is unemployed and unable to purchase your products, how can you continue to post increasing profits and make your shareholders happy?
Sure, it's cheaper to produce it in China or support it in India. But who is going to buy it? Those American workers you laid off were the customers you were selling your products to.
These corporations are very short-sighted. When their market contracts (due to fewer customers) their profits will decrease. Will they try to make up the difference by hiring even more cheap foreign labor and further erode their customer base? Will our corporate masters continue to believe that their actions have no repercussions? Sometimes I wonder...
McCain is actually not too bad of a candidate. What irks at me though is that I believe that a large majority of people voting for him will do so because of some perceived international experience, when he has trouble keeping track of who is Shiite and who is Sunni.
The main sealer of the deal for me with Obama though is his understanding of the importance of investing in technology. Nearly all of his plans call for setting up open databases to increase government transparency, and facilitate better and faster communication. None of the other candidates have mentioned anything about investing in out technological infrastructure, and have never mentioned anything about such issues as net neutrality.
I actually saw Richardson's endorsement last Friday in Portland, and the moment I heard his name announced, I realized what a great VP he would be. He was the US ambassador to the UN though many of the middle east conflicts in 1997-1998, and then he became the Secretary of Energy until Clinton left, which would be very useful experience dealing with these oil issues.
Also, does the McCain/Lieberman ticket scare anyone else? First he gets defeated handily by a democrat in his own state, and had to re run as an independent. Then he gives up his seat at the DNC, and his super delegate vote, so he can endorse McCain. Is that something that pleases independents? It is shocking how quickly he turned on his own party (he was Al Gore's running mate in 2000).
IT people tend to think for themselves, rather than swallowing the rhetoric fed them by the "Big 2". Likewise Libertarians... they tend to think for themselves, and seek solutions, rather than swallowing the pap crap produced for the masses. I see a parallel here, and I do not think I would be out of place to say that IT workers and Libertarians tend to think more alike than the majority of the population.
yikes, sorry for the lack of sources (tired)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/18/2008-03-18_john_mccain_in_shiitesunni_snafu_during_.html
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_richardson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
Just thought I should point out that your somewhat irrational thinking of Obama is completely unfounded. He is a Christian man. Considering what he is going through now with Reverend Wright's sermons, and Barack's recent unwillingness to distance himself from his, but condemning the politics of them is quite telling.
Even so, personally, I am hoping for a good 3rd party candidate.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
His quote went on to say that he did not think it would be a waste if we were there for ten thousand years.
anata sekai o kakumei surush ga nai deshou? Anata no susumu michi wa yoi shite arimasu.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ38N8OUg3Q
I think that this should give you plenty of context.
I especially like the part about the government inventing HIV in order to commit genocide against blacks.
C'mon, the guy is a nutjob.
Cronus
enough delegates have been selected for other candidates that even if every remaining delegate went to paul he would still lose.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
And Change to what? He is just another politician and that is the lesson learned from his response concerning pastor Wright. Obama pandered and he threw his grandmother under the bus to do it.
Let's give McCain credit, he isn't afraid to buck his party to stick with what he believes in.
Is there an IT Policy matrix to compare the candidates? I know that both Clinton and Obama are in favour of net neutrality, and McCain opposes it, but what of the other issues? I know Ralph Nader is against software patents, but I don't have a clue about the other candidates stance on that.
Go away, I won't have your infernal logic sullying this discussion any longer.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Yes, I know the odds of Obama declaring himself a muslim are low...
But there's always that haunting feeling in your head. I believe him when he speaks, I know he's an honest man. But even honest men can have a change of heart... Still, I have to admit it's not really relevant in the end, because I don't even think he could do any damage, and if he tried to he'd get the boot.
read the whole sermon.
A lot of what you've heard him say was stuff he said quoting someone else. Those video clips take stuff so far out of context it's disgusting.
You fucker, I didn't need that image. Oh well, I'd wanted an excuse to have some Macallan.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
There is no way in hell that "IT" workers are going to be on the bottom of the heap anytime in the near future. They are too important to the overall scheme of things. True, the "traditional" duties of your average IT worker have been changing, but then a lot of IT workers have failed to keep up with progress. Most companies, even large companies, are not just "big mainframe" houses anymore. People doing COBOL on big IBM boxes are going to have to change their outlook or suffer the consequences.
In any case, IT as a whole is hardly in any danger.
And I must say, I disagree with your final statement as well. Do NOT vote according to who you think will benefit your own little group the most. Vote for who you think will do this nation the most good! The former is the kind of behavior that has gotten us into the political trouble we are in now. The latter is what we need. So ask not what your country can do for you... ask what that politician can do for your country. And THINK about it! Don't believe everything you are told on the 11:00 news! Especially if it's Fox!
Hell yes Bush did. He looked GREAT on paper:
My point is that resume bullets look good when you don't have to give the details; i.e. rejected by law school and daddy got him into the Guard to duck combat service, CEO of several failed companies, ripped off tax payers of Houston on the stadium deal then turned around and sold team to reap profit from stadium tax, only got into Yale because of legacy, etc.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Outside of science, technology, HB-1s, education, and a few other issues, IT workers don't have enough common interests to be a "voting block."
Your social class, religion/world view, general political leaning left or right, and to a lesser extent, gender, sexual orientation, are stronger "block identifiers" than your career choice.
On many big issues, including abortion, the war in Iraq, gay rights, the economy, etc. IT workers are just as divided as the rest of the country.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
While I do like a good bit of what Obama says....and I liked what I read on his website on his views on "Tech".....I'm really afraid one of the biggest changes he will make....is to raise our taxes, and institute even more govt. spending than we do already. I pay enough taxes, SS and medicare now as it is, and I just don't want the govt. digging into my wallet even more.
I also don't like what any of the candidates are saying about closing and securing the damned US borders, and what to do about the illegal immigrant system...and reforming the system so that it is easier for people to come into the US in a regulated and fair and reasonably streamlined system.
I like bits and pieces of what Obama and McCain say on other subjects.....but, neither of them excites me that much overall.
I would vote for a trailer hitch before I'd vote for Hillary...so, guessing I hope it is at least a choice of the lesser of two evils come election time between O and M.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
>Personally, I think these types of attack vectors are silly. People make all kinds of friendships and relationships
>throughout their lives, and to be held responsible for all the beliefs and actions of those friends or associates is just ridiculous.
Certainly, a candidate shouldn't be judged on their friendships alone, nor should those friendships be evaluated out of context. But McCain has publicly accepted the endorsements from Hagee, Parsley, and other unsavoury characters. These are not simply business associates or friends, whose political views he happens to disagree with. McCain publicly calls them his "spiritual guides". That seems like poor judgment at best, and hints that he might have some private views which voters should get to know more about before granting him control of the most powerful military on the planet.
The same standard should apply to all candidates, not just McCain and Obama, but also Hillary Clinton, whose connections with "The Family", a church group from the rightwing Dominionist movement, deserve similar scrutiny.
Have you checked out the trade imbalance lately? We make very little these days. We do each other's nails at the spa is about all. We need to improve our manufacturing again and at least get back to neutral trade. Shoot, I think we even ran short of bullets during our little iraq war and had to get some from britain.
It was irresponsible to say, given that he has no evidence. It's a bare assertion and one that I find extremely implausible. To say the least.
But labeling him a "nutjob" for it, or saying it is "anti-American", is a bridge too far. This is a man that came home from serving in Vietnam to discover that the United States government was intentionally spreading untreated syphilis in the black community in a 40-year experiment worth of Mengela.
So, the government spreading a largely sexually-transmitted virus around the black community with no regard for the consequences? Historic fact, not nutjobbery. Don't blame until you know the facts and have been in another person's shoes.
Taxes must be raised or spending must be cut. The current economic situation demonstrates that stimulus policies based on debt spending do not work in the long term. Sure, it worked sort of well for a few years, but the bubble just burst and now we're all paying the price for it.
I find it interesting that Obama's greatest political scandal during the race is based on someone else's actions. It made me want to vote for him more, actually - his opponents couldn't dig anything particularly scandalous up on him, so they found someone else to blame him with by association.
Also, the pastor's speech was taken out of context (not that there really is a good reason to be saying the stuff he was saying). The full thing's up on YouTube.
I don't like what Obama did either, but for a different reason. Check out the extended versions of Jeremiah Wright's sermons on Youtube. The media picked out parts that would sound inflammatory on their own, but in context they don't sound completely unreasonable. His 9/11 sermon is particularly moving. It actually includes examples of racial discrimination against non-blacks. The point of the sermon is to urge people to a greater self examination in the aftermath of the attacks. In other words, look at what you've done before you start getting mad at others. IIRC that is straight out of the Gospels, and even though I am not a religious person, I think it is still sound advice. Moreover, much of the sermon is devoted to Wright telling people not to get so mad that they end up supporting any sort of brutish vengeance in response. Again, I think in light of events since, we probably would have been better off listening to the Reverend.
Similarly, the "God Damn America" is not unreasonable viewed in its proper context. Wright argues (oddly enough for a preacher) that the law of God is inerrant, whereas the laws of men are not. In other words, he thinks we should not take the law of any particular nation above the law of God (or morality for that matter) and that any country which violates God's laws will be damned. In the speech he makes the same point about other states, particularly the British Empire. I don't think asking people not to submit blindly to the state is an unreasonable thing to ask. The "God Damn America" comment is made in this context, specifically with reference to the idea that the Biblical prophets rail against the injustices of the state in the name of a higher morality. Both are pretty damn good sermons as Wright is an exceptionally gifted preacher. I'm an atheist, but listening to them made me want to attend Wright's church, and I am not the only person who ended up thinking that way.
Please take time to watch the comments in context. You can find the extended sermons on Youtube. While I might not agree with everything that Wright says, I feel he has been the victim of an electronic lynching by the mass media choosing to deliberately misrepresent his comments. It realy is depressing, whether or not you agree with Wright. Obama didn't help by giving the impression that the Reverend was accurately presented in the media.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
"IT Workers Strip For McCain, Obama"
The mounds of ghostly pale cubicle flesh, bruised by flying chairs, monitor-burned faces with sunken eyes dead to anything that isn't composed of pixels, fingers continually spasming in the 3-fingered salute, skin courtesy of a diet of twinkies and cola ... ugh!
The entire text of the sermon can be read here. The worst bits, the ones that get all the play, are essentially Wright quoting someone else, inside a parenthetical aside from his main disquisition, using an essentially "devil's advocate" voice. Jerry Falwell's comments, even in context, on the same topic were far worse.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
2) It's common practice in the run-up to elections to float bills that a candidate couldn't possibly support but which are crafted to make the candidate look bad when he votes against it. The bill in question did NOT simply ban waterboarding, though that would have resulted from the bill. The bill legally restricted the CIA to a set of 16 interogation rules set up for US Army field interogations. The guidelines for interogations conducted by largely unspecialized and untrained hordes of soldiers in remote locations can and should be different than those for trained intelligence operatives. If you must attack the man, please do so on substance.
3) To support retroactive immunity for telcoms, while debatable in value, is hardly a BLATANT and OUTRAGEOUS violation of the 4th amendment. Making it nonpunishable for a company to comply with what the government tells it to do is different than supporting the Government's ability to make illegal requests on companies. If he voted for warrant-free wiretaps, that'd be one thing, and I'd strongly dislike him for it, but voting to exempt companies from being sued for a government's mis-step is hardly rage-inducing.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Laying aside the fact that I vehemently disagree with her on just about everything, Clinton is far too divisive and polarizing. The presidency is the last place you want someone who is hated by half the country--witness GWB right now.
Second, just because times were generally good while Clinton was in office doesn't make it his doing by any means. He didn't really do much of anything.
Personally, I don't care how much light a given politician reflects, or what plumbing fixtures are installed. They're politicians, they all suck. Especially when we're entrenched with the current two-party system which insists that belief in A implies belief in B, C, D, E, F, and Q; and party2 essentially believes !party1.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
I think that's correct. The best stuff isn't on the Internet. And Dominionists in particular are not on the Internet. In 20 years, there will be a crop of Dominionist politicians who are inscrutable to the vast majority who rely on the Internet for all their information. Young students, even down into the grade school level, are strictly cautioned against appearing on the Internet at all under their real names. The Dominionists are savvy and dangerous, and they are well aware that everything online can be tracked. Their goal is to produce a group of young politicians who are able to survive and avoid the sort of attacks that ordinary children who have had every misstep documented on MySpace and Facebook will fall to.
The Dominionists are to ordinary Christians as the Taliban is to ordinary Muslims.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
But as for the McCain being too old bit, I quote from a history teacher: "Date: 1940 Event: Winston Churchill becomes Prime Minister Age: 65 Date: 1945 Event: World War II ends in Europe, Churchill at the helm. Age: 70 Date: 1949 Event: Konrad Adenauer begins to lead postwar West Germany as Chancellor Age: 73 Date: 1951 Event: Churchill gets re-elected Prime Minister Age: 76 Date: 1955 Event: Churchill retires as PM Age: 80 Date: 1958 Event: Charles de Gaulle becomes President of France Age: 68 Date: 1963 Event: Adenauer retires as Chancellor after enduring three crises over Berlin, each registering fears of World War III. (Not to mention the Cuban Missile Crisis intervening...) Age: 87 Date: 1969 Event: Golda Meir becomes Israel's PM Age: 72 Date: 1969 Event: Charles de Gaulle retires as President Age: 78 Date: 1972 Event: Munich Olympics hostage crisis resolved with Meir at the helm. Age: 75 Date: 1973 Event: Meir presides over Yom Kippur War Age: 76 Date: 1981 Event: Reagan becomes President Age: 69 Date: 1994 Event: Nelson Mandela becomes President of South Africa after 27 years in prison. Age: 75"
Keep grubby federal laws off my computers and out of my life. Ron Paul 2008.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
"USA seems to now stand for war,torture, xenophobia, racism, corruption and financial mismanagement"
Reading your statement saddens me greatly. Not only because you're right, but because this was forseen and warned.
During the 2004 campaign, after he had dropped out and started campaigning for Kerry against Bush, Wes Clark explained that he has traveled the globe as a soldier, and currently travels internationally on business trips. So he has a wider international exposure than most Americans. In his travels, he found that although Bush was seen negatively by the world, the people he met still admired and loved America and the American people, no matter how much they despised the Bush government.
Clark explained that the foreigners held a distinction between "Bush" and "America" in part due to the disputed election of 2000. But if Bush was re-elected, this distinction would fade in the minds of others.
Clark said that the negative stuff Bush has done and what Bush represents (torture, manipulating intelligence to get us into war, suspending habeaus corpus, warrantless wiretaps, etc.) was not the policy or will of the American people. But that if Bush was reelected, at the end of 2008, all of that would BECOME the policy and will of the American people, and no longer associated only with the Bush Administration. Bush would have molded America into his image, carve his intentions (torture, holding people without trial, etc.) into the permanent law of the land. European allies and others would no longer recognize a distinction between the position Bush Administration and the position of the American people.
So when you say that ""USA seems to now stand for war,torture, xenophobia, racism, corruption and financial mismanagement" it grieves me to know how far we've fallen, exactly as Clark presciently predicted in 2004.
Why settle for the lesser evil.
[Insert pithy quote here]
One of the most eloquent and honest oratories about race (and his experiences of both sides) is "playing the race card"? Wow, you right wingers really need to meet some black folk...
I agree. Cut spending!!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
When Obama talks about "change," he is referring to what will be left in your bank account. His tax proposals are quite extreme.
Indeed. But lately the whole Republican party has been bucking true Republican beliefs. Listen to some Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, and ask your self if they would be for the Patriot Act, or the Invasion of Iraq. Check out this buck of the Republican party ideals from early 1990's to 2008.
So what happen? If you are a Republican I urge you to ask yourself if what McCain is spouting is actually Republican ideals.
Money is the root of all evil?
Texas Rangers.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
i heard a rumor that you bottom for him.
Jealousy is so ugly. Please keep your love triangles off of this family friendly forum.
He can't win the Republican nomination, no. But he can still win the general election, if he petitions for a spot on the ballot or gets enough write ins. It's highly unrealistic to thunk that would happen, however, and he's effectively out of the race.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
More seriously, there would be less trade imbalance if the Democrats would support a free trade agreement with Colombia so they could buy from us. How will the Democrats' policies of sky-high taxes and industry hostility bring any manufacturing back to the USA? If you were building a factory would YOU want to build in Hillary's Village?
The quote wasn't pulled out of thin air. It came straight from McCain's lips.
You are confused if you want to translate what McCain said into "We will leave Iraq when it makes sense to leave Iraq." McCain has made it clear that we will not leave so long as we are taking casualties on the ground. And he has also made it clear that we will not leave after we have stopped taking casualties on the ground. So, we will not leave ever. Not in a hundred years, not in a thousand years, not in a million years. That is what McCain said in all honesty.
Well McCain already has the amount of votes needed to win the nomination, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.
Did anyone hear Ron Paul's comments on earmarks on the House floor? (Yay for CSPAN) He had an interesting defense of the earmark.
An earmark is just Congress telling the government how to spend money, which, if you read the Constitution, is what they are supposed to do. Eliminating earmarks altogether gives control of spending to the Executive Branch. If you want to cut spending, cut spending, but don't further deteriorate the balance of powers by giving more Congressional power away.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
Have you tried all of the policy papers that every political candidate has on his or her web site?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
This election is like choosing between Pepsi and Coca-Cola.
Both parties have the same agenda. They will both cripple even more your liberties, both will keep pushing Real-ID and the Patriot Act. They'll maintain the war in Irak for at least 2 years or move it to Iran.
That, if Bush doesn't dissolve the congress first.
No matter which your candidate is, you'll regret it in 2 years from now.
I'll be pleased to be proven wrong.
Save this post for future reference.
Strom's not dead. He faked his death to live out his golden years in peace.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
When compared with a defense budget of $480 billion and $140 billion more for the war on terror, I'm not entirely sure earmarks are the most pressing case of fiscal irresponsibility. For the 2008 budget, they comprised only $17 billion out of $2.9 trillion. As far as the present discussion goes, it's worth considering that it is McCain who is most adamant about keeping us in Iraq, a war which has cost half a trillion dollars already, and an estimated $3 trillion before it's all done.
I do sometimes wonder how we're going to pay for all of this...
Yup, as a Canadian I sincerely dislike NAFTA too, eh. All these American IT workers steal our jobs and we are forced to sell our oil for cheap to the USA, eh. We should be kick all these Yanks out, eh and we should charge them yankees CAD110 for oil, which is more like USD220 a barrel, eh...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Is that what you got from that speech? Because that was totally not the speech that I heard.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
Oh no, he got an endorsement from a kook.
He didn't associate with Hagee for twenty years. He didn't admit last year to running every major decision by Hagee. He didn't get married in Hagee's church, and Hagee hasn't worked for his campaign.
also, while Hagee has a negative opinion of Catholics, he has not said the horrible racist and conspiracy-theory-idiot things Jeremiah Wright has. I've seen video of the man claiming the government knew about 9/11, claiming Israel was involved in 9/11, and that the government lied about Pearl Harbor. In addition, he's apparently said HIV/AIDS is a government conspiracy to kill black people.
That's a whole hell of a lot more vicious and personal than "omg u catholics are teh suck." The Protestant/Catholic divide is pretty mean-spirited as is. The last thing this country needs, however, is a president in thrall to a racist lunatic. (I know someone will post something or another about how GWB is, but he's not on the ballot, and his term is coming to an end.)
Of course, all of the column inches are being devoted to Obama, but the McCain/Hagee thing is way, way creepier.
Obama is up for candidacy now. McCain already has it, so there's no point to smear him until it gets close to the real elections in November.
I assume we'll see all the smears the Democrats can muster, justified or not. We'll also see all the anti-Obama / anti-Clinton smears the Republicans can muster, justified or not. There's too much money and power at stake for either side to behave like decent human beings.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
"irrational thinking of Obama is completely unfounded. He is a Christian man." The problem is that religion is irrational by definition.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
It is an open secret in the State department and CIA that Richardson would have Spitzer type problems. On his many diplomatic travels as UN ambassador he would often ask Embassy personnel to provide him with female companionship.
Until you hear about her stance about the "relationship" between violence and video games.
Just another example of the kind of "judgment" that her "experience" has endowed her with.
I'm a skinhead. I am, however, not a Nazi, white-supremacist, anti-semite, or otherwise hateful or biased towards any race, religion, or sexual orientation. Many of my friends, however, are avowed white-supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and national socialists. Despite our conflicting views, I would never apologize to anyone for our friendship, because that's not the way friendship works. I protect and value my friends, and expect the same from them. Even if I might one day find myself on the opposite side of a battlefield from those men, I would never speak ill of them or our friendship.
I've been in the position of being associated with friends who have unpopular political views myself, and the way that Obama has reacted is something that I can respect.
Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I'm upset that the only issues that those surveyed brought up in large enough numbers to merit a percentage point were economy, war, immigration, and national security. I wish more people were concerned with the rapid and sanctioned erosion of civil rights and the due process of law in this country (United States).
They should be more concerned that the actions of the government have not been in line with one that is most concerned with the well-being of its citizens, regardless of economic strata.
I want to be able to look at Washington and actually believe that those politicians are doing the best they can to maintain a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
DOH! I knew that! can't believe I made *that* error ... Thank You. NAVY. Yes, McCain is NAVY. -But he has never been, nor will he ever be a Lawyer!
McCain co-sponsored every nasty evil domestic internet wiretap bill for the entire period of time between Congress' discovery of the Internet and the 911 "Patriot" act. He even tried to ban strong encryption like PGP.
Proven courage and loyalty under fire to whom? Not me! Not the America I would be proud to bleed for!
I'm still waiting for the apologies to come out about associating with Rummy.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
And you are a perfect example of why the electorate is at fault.
The quote wasn't pulled out of thin air. It came straight from McCain's lips.
So what? McCain has said MILLIONS of words in his campaign for office. The one quote is, what, 10 or 20 words?
So yeah, I blame the electorate for buying into one quote selected by political opponents out of MILLIONS of words, and hammered into them through the various media by those same political opponents, instead of looking at some of the other MILLIONS of words the candidate has said and understanding what the candidate was actually saying with the quote, instead of what the candidate's political opponents are trying to make you think he said.
And the fact that the electorate is too stupid to look past the 10-20 words selected by political opponents and then reinterpreted by those opponents and actually get grip on what the candidate actually stands for is EXACTLY the problem. Don't understand the issues, just believe the sound bites, right?
What we don't know is whether you are one of the members of the electorate who is gullible enough to blindly believe and repeat select quotes fed to you by people you've decided to blindly accept the opinions of, or whether you're just someone who is trying to foist isolated quotes onto the electorate knowing most of them will buy into them as an accurate reflection of a candidates entire position.
NOBODY says millions of words in the course of a political campaign, especially when millions of those are unscripted words, without having a few quotes whose meaning can be taken one way or another. Yes, McCain said he'd stay in Iraq 100 years if that's what it took to get the job done. But anybody with a brain cell should know that that is NOT the same as saying or believing it's actually going to take 100 years, or that he plans on being there 100 years - McCain is saying he would withdraw from Iraq when, and only when, withdrawal will make America better off than staying.
And you know what's 1,000 times MORE stupid than focusing on 15 words out of MILLIONS of words uttered by a candidate in a campaign?
Focusing on an excerpt from a speech made years ago that a candidate was not even at by someone a candidate knows. Or even knows well. Then you're talking about BILLIONS if not TRILLIONS of words. What Obama's pastor said three years ago - or even what he says most Sundays - doesn't mean anything. We just can't hold people responsible for what other people say. Even people they know well, even people in influential positions. Not people we'd elect for President anyway - I'd hope we're not voting for anyone for President who we don't think is capable of listening to bullshit, recognizing that it's bullshit, and forming their own opinion. Not after the past 8 years anyway.
We can play the "Somebody this candidate knows said something bad" game from now until November. Everybody can play. It's still a waste of everyone's time.
paintball
On top of that, to blame Obama for what someone else says? Ridiculous. And Obama's speech afterward? Amazingly good for a politician. That's the person you want answering the phone at 3am, not the whining candidate who was dumb enough to lie through her teeth about "running for cover under sniper fire" at the airport in Bosnia, only to have video footage appear on youtube 12 hours later showing her landing where she was greeted by the president and his daughter, who read her a poem right there on the tarmac.
A-Bomb
We may be geeks, but we are still citizens of this country and there are a lot more policies that will affect our every day lives long before things like Net Neutrality.
First and foremost our debt and economy need to be addressed. If this country countinues to spend and borrow money, it won't matter how much you have to pay for internet access.
I personally don't like either candidate for President. Obama sounds like the better guy when you listen to him, but in the end I don't see how he plans to accomplish any of his goals without taking a very socialist stance. That is not going to work in the American economy. Like it or not but big business is our bread and butter, and choking business will hurt our Economy. Either canidate might preach about hope and bringing change, but they can't do anything personally. Congress makes our laws and policies. We don't need a president that promises change. We need a president loyal to the constitution and has the balls to rip congress a new one when it is pandering to interest groups, We need a president who will use the Justice department for its intended purpose, not as a smoke screen for questionable activities.
McCain is saying he would withdraw from Iraq when, and only when, withdrawal will make America better off than staying.
You are projecting on McCain something he has never said.
Your reaction is exactly what the right-wing smear machine has counted on time and again.
What the right-wing smear machine wants, the right-wing smear machine gets. Witness:
- McCain having a black child out of wedlock in the 2000 primaries.
- Al Gore ridiculed for "inventing the internet".
- The introduction of a new verb in the 2004 campaign: swiftboating.
- In the 2008 primaries, the pastor Wright snippet, as if Obama had said it.
These carpet-bombing media campaigns have several things in common:
- They are distortions, fabrications or out-of-context shallow interpretations of reality.
- They intend to generate gut level reactions, as opposed to thoughtful analysis.
- They intend to generate images that stick, even as they are debunked in public, the meme kept alive until the end of the election cycle.
- Sadly, they keep alive PT Barnum's axiom: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the american people".
I was on the fence until last week, when Obama's speech on Tuesday nailed it for me. I watched the full thing three times, to assimilate and digest the trove of ideas in there.
IMO, Obama effectively condemned the words of pastor Wright, while acknowledging the deep sense of frustration felt by a wide range of the population that leads to expressions of damnation for a society that has failed your parents, you and your children.
Furthermore, Obama rightly expressed the fact that the United States is a self-correcting mechanism that has gradually tilted towards a better society for all of its' people.
But most importantly for this discussion, Obama spoke about a deeply entrenched, moneyed clique that runs the electoral process. Corporate interests have such a tight grip in Washington because they have the mechanism down to a tee:
1. Unfurl the corporate candidate or candidates.
2. Concentrate the largest amount of money on the key states (Florida, Ohio, etc).
3. Make the candidate go throw the well-established motions.
4. Smear, ignore or offhandedly dismiss the oponent via the mass media.
5. Win the election, by hook or by crook.
6. Profit!!!
7. Rinse and repeat.
What makes corporate influence so powerful is point 2. Under the current paradigm, the campaign contribution investment/return ratio is enormous. If the United States population can bust this cycle, the consequences will be HUGE, as corporate influence will wane in Washington. Grotesque saturation campaigns in Iowa-Florida-Ohio will not do anymore. Would corporations be willing to throw triple or quadruple the money into campaigns with an uncertain outcome? Lobbyists will still be there, but they won't be the deciding influence in election victories anymore. Imagine that!
If just to bust the cycle, Obama should win. But also, by virtue of his speech, which had brains, balls and heart, during a time when Obama was under fire, he showed that he is as cool as they come when that 3 am phone call happens. Furthermore, it's apparent to me that if and when Obama sits in the Oval Office, he will surround himself with tough-minded and extremely capable individuals who will be free to generate heated discussions with The President, as opposed to corporate "yes men" or consiglieris. No Chertoffs, Gonzalezes or Brownies, thank you VERY MUCH. Obama will roll up his sleeves and truly earn his salary, and not behind closed doors with Exxon and Mobil.
Finally, much of the world will be shocked into an more open attitude towards the United States if it elects a man named Barack Hussein Obama into the presidency. The prestige of this great nation will be salvaged from eight years of atrocities committed in its' name.
Can this possibly happen? Here is where the words "Hope" and "Change" come into play. With the other candidates, there will be neither.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
It really should be no surprise. The extreme fundamentalists see any sort of educated clergy as their enemy. The anti-evolution stuff is just the soft target in the next step of seeing the educated as their enemy. Most of what we are told is religeon is really just politics and these are really just political movements that happen to be led by lay preachers. The extremes of morality they call for have led to extremes in hypocracy.
I would consider Clinton to be the worst candidate of the three at the moment, for a couple of reasons:
I consider McCain a bad candidate purely because he comes from the Republican party (admittedly his affiliation is looser than the average Republican though):
I understand there are other issues like healthcare, the sub-prime crisis, the economy etc., but the war is just so much bigger. I'd make a case that if we hadn't bled over 500 billion dollars (!!) on the war over 5 years, the economy/housing crisis/VA-issues/healthcare issues would be nowhere near as dire as they are right now. And we'd have a lot more allies in the world than we do now. And there would be a lot less anti-american resentment fuelling terrorist group recruitment.
The sad part for us is -- Iraq is truly reduced to rubble now. We cannot leave until we repair the damage. It's gonna cost more troops lives, and more than another 500 billion dollars most likely. But its our cross to bear now -- we broke it, and we gotta fix it.
Obama and McCain lead among IT workers with 29% each. Clinton follows with 13%, just ahead of Huckabee (11%) and Ron Paul (9%).
Those results just means that IT workers are naive about the political process.
Let's take McCain first. McCain is not much of a computer user. He doesn't grok technology and he doesn't really care to. It's not important to him. Reform in the political process is important to McCain. Winning the war in Iraq is important to McCain. The Internet? Not important to McCain.
McCain's political reality is that he has a problem with his political base. He needs to motivate the bible belt to come out on election day and vote for him. This means that every single issue about which he doesn't care is going to be handed off to a social conservative. You only -thought- you saw a censor the Internet movement under Bush.
Now let's talk about Obama. Obama is surrounded by the B-list democrats. Clinton had the A-list locked up a year and a half ago. Obama's team is tech savvy with very little real-world experience. Many have never worked outside politics. They're like that guy you know who is smart but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Will they screw the pooch? Count on it. Are they tech-savvy enough to be really destructive? Oh yeah.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
> and says that Catholics are apostates (non-believers).
Politics aside, isn't that pretty much SOP for most religions? I mean, if they agreed with each other, they probably wouldn't be separate. Any time you have two distinct religious groups, both of whom claim to be descended from the same original founder or have the same mandate, chances are they're going to be accusing each other of some type of heresy or apostasy.
The Vatican, along with most of the other major churches, typically doesn't rail against other Christian sects mostly because (IMO, anyway) they prefer to take a more understated, confident approach. However, their official doctrine is pretty clear on the points where they split. E.g., I believe the official position of the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day is that the "filioque clause" (part of the Nicene Creed) according to the Roman Catholic church is heretical, and the Catholic position is vice versa. You can find similar bones of contention between basically all of the various Christian denominations.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
He's the only one who's consistently opposed the expansion of government surveillance.
That's why I've always liked McCain. Unfortunately, I haven't really seen much of that in the past couple years. It's enough to make me wonder, but not enough to make me choose Clinton instead.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Absolutely agreed. I've seen some of the Reverend's comments, and they appear to come from a man genuinely disappointed in his country, and not flame-baiting or hate-mongering. Are we so blind by national pride that we cannot see the faults in our own government and our own people? Don't damn the reverend for daring to say what we're all thinking, damn the people who refuse to criticize themselves.
I get the feeling Obama waited as long as he did to distance himself from the Reverend because he knew the whole thing was blown out of proportion. But unfortunately he did cave to media pressure in the end. The power of the media to latch onto a message and be blind to all other interpretations.
Besides, since when did criticizing America become unpatriotic? I would think it's the most patriotic thing to do.
However, would the hard right Israeli government post-Sharon be considered Libertarian? If not what sort of examples are there? There most be more to it than the old joke of Libertarians being anarchists that want government protection from their slaves.
Well first of all, there is a big difference between a random supporter and your friend, mentor, and pastor. The better analog to Hagee would be Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama, which frankly I didn't think he had to renounce (or reject, for the Hillary Clintons of the world). While it can be slightly embarrassing, the fact that someone likes your politics does not mean you like their politics. In fact, it can be a testament to the broad appeal of your politics. Casting away everyone who disagrees with you is not generally considered a noble trait.
The main problem I had with the whole Wright controversy (not that I was inclined to vote Obama anyway) wasn't that it made me doubt Obama's judgment or values. It made me doubt his effectiveness. Much of his campaign is based on his supposed ability to bring people together, whether they be of different political parties or they are of different races (I guess he thinks he is a uniter, not a divider, though that sounds a bit familiar...). Well if his community back home has the opinions expressed during Wright's sermons, clearly he hasn't succeeded at that so far in his life.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Are we so blind by national pride that we cannot see the faults in our own government and our own people?
A large portion of the populace is, yes. They believe what they are told to believe - namely that what the government of this country does is good and in the best interest of the people and that the people who question that are working for the enemy at the gates which wants nothing more than to destroy our way of life.
Nevermind that the things this government is doing *are* destroying our way of life. Enemies at the gates! Barbarians! Terrorists! Godless Heathens! etc etc etc.
Don't question or we won't win.
Besides, since when did criticizing America become unpatriotic? I would think it's the most patriotic thing to do.
That happened a long time ago.
This country was founded in order to gain freedom from an oppressive monarchy. The last hundred years or so, it's been trying to work it's way to *becoming* an oppressive monarchy (of sorts).
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
It's all political theatre.
Nobody is actually afraid of Rev. Wright. He's not a threat to society, or to anybody individually. And nobody actually believes Barack Obama agrees with any of this after he's said he does not, and has never shown in any of his writings or speeches that he agrees.
Someone thought they could avoid the issues of the economy, foreign affairs, the future of America in this world, etc... and undermine Obama with this cheapshot.
That's what politics is all about. Nobody actually pays attention to the important issues. How did GW Bush get elected? He's a guy you want to have a beer with, even though he's a fucking moron who couldn't find America on a map.
Anyway, better to get this bullshit out now instead of waiting until October like they normally do.
If you call them socialists then I'll happily call McCain a fascist. (Note to any supporters of McCain that know what a socialist is--I'm just feeding the trolls.)
Ha, no, he was the owner of the Texas Rangers (baseball team, not law enforcement organization). The Houston Texans were started in 2002, at which time Bush was more interested in agitating for war against Iraq than he was making draft picks in the NFL.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Seems to me the reason we invaded Iraq was to eliminate the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'd say the job is done, given there were no WMDs.
I love the "job is done" line. It's a way of not having to take responsibility for fucking up and invading a country we didn't need to invade.
How can you be honest about leaving, when you can't be honest about how we got there?
Wars are cheaper than socialism. Compare the cost of the entire Department of Defense to that of Social Security alone.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
I find it astonishing that this McCain guy is even being talked about. Is everybody really so easily led by the nose?
That is, of course, a rhetorical question. American politics is like watching a bloody car accident in slow motion.
Not that any of it really matters. --With the totally ignored cries that the call girl agency which did Spitzer in was long known by U.S. Intelligence to be a Mossad front, and that he was fed to the lions to get a wall-street watchdog like Spitzer out of the way before the shenanigans with the Fed and JP Morgan and Bear Stearns which broke a week later, shows again that if you are clean, you aren't allowed to come to power of any sort. They must have some impressive dirt on Obama, (either that, or they'll just shoot him if Fox fails to do its job.) The Clintons are dirty as hell. But McCain? COME ON PEOPLE! That's just sick.
-FL
Well certainly not spending the money overseas in Iraq.
So you agree then that the Iraq War is a big money sinkhole and should have it's budget cut?
He did? I thought he was the dude passed out in the bedroom with that sorority chick. Of course I could be wrong, I don't remember much from that party.
I agree. Certainly a lot of people are unhappy about Bush, but no one has really said what they plan to do differently, but somehow it *will* be different. BTW, I'm pretty sure parent was being facetious and needs to be modded up.
who it was who said something about managing programmers being like herding cats, but it seems relevant here.
I'm all for the enfranchisement of our feline friends.
My mathematical voting analysis for November is McCain > Obama. I would hope that the honorable Senator from New York does not give up.
Who ever gets elected is going to face a lot of work ahead of them. The current administration has done some pretty weird things that need to be "Control-Z'd". I always thought that the war on global terrorism could easily be fought by America going to the Hydrogen Dollar, the present administration disagrees. When one considers the Dollar, has anybody realized that the currency of international terrorism appears to be the U.S.Dollar?
To say people have a reason for flawed beliefs is to excuse them.
I understand your reasons for saying that, but I do not excuse the ignorance they represent.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Funny, Paul's site says nothing to indicate that. To the contrary, he has encouraged his supporters to continue winning delegates for the national convention. Granted, the only way he can win is pulling an upset at the national convention; such things are not entirely unheard of, and McCain is so unpopular...
It honestly seems that over there, they kill each other based on what headdress the other one is wearing sometimes.
What a stupid statement. You must be a Yankees fan.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
I *don't* like McCain, but of the 3 choices we're being handed, he's the least likely to utterly bankrupt the country. Which is why he'll probably get my vote, come November. (I'd rather have Ron Paul, if only to put the brakes on Congress, but that doesn't look particularly realistic.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
But you havent got a democracy.
That's right, we have a republic, based in part on democracy. An entire branch of government is entirely undemocratic.
How many democratic countries do you know where "senior" and "junior" ruled? If everybody really had equal chances the possibility is near zero.
Democracy doesn't mean "everyone has equal chance to be a leader", it means "the popular vote has the power" (which is partially true in the US). There is no reason to think that popularity would be spread evenly among the people; quite the contrary.
You guys got a moneycracy.
If that were true, John Kerry would have won the 2004 election, or Edwards. There are many examples of someone with less money winning. I think there is a reasonable argument that you need some baseline of money to run for high office, but it certainly is not a matter of "the most money wins".
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
I'd be curious if the IT professionals they polled were even eligible to vote in the upcoming election. In the company I work for, at least 60% of the IT department are not US citizens.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
I think you're referring to Matthew 7:3-4:
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Um, people are talking about him because he's the presumptive Republican nominee. Why wouldn't people talk about him? We're stuck with talking about him until November!
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
Wright's most radical comments are laced with anger and hatred so they inflame anger and hatred in many who hear them. This is why Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and so many others teach that hatred and anger are not part of the path that will lead us to peace. The reason Obama needed to disavow Wright's words of hate is because they represent the wrong path. The problem is not the realities Wright exposed but the hate and anger he used in exposing them.
Obama's great strength comes from what I would describe as the spiritual balance of his campaign. He has eschewed the politics of hate and division. This gives him such power that the only way his opponents can stop him is to falsely attach to him a message of anger and hate. This is not Obama's message and this is why it was essential for Obama to disavow Wright's words of hate. The message Wright was giving in those sermons was exactly the opposite of Obama's message. This is why Wright's words were used to attack Obama and this is why Obama needed to make it clear that Wright's message of anger is not his message.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Overall I think this is working in Senator Obama's favour. As long as he is publicly associated with a wacky Christian it is hard to accuse him of being a Muslim.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Right now the most pressing concern for the American people is no longer Iraq but the same issues that have always been on American's minds, the Economy, independent energy, infrastructure, medicine, and education. All of these things back up our war effort so improving our country in all these things will make America stronger.
How well the economy is doing is based almost always on unemployement. The best thing a government can do to curtail a depression is to create jobs. America currently has many ways to do that.
-Repair old infrastructure
-Build new infrastructure (roads, bridges, schools, etc)
-Make the United States independent from foreign energy by slowly starting to fund massive solar arrays in the desert.
We have to stop thinking about our plan as so massive that it will just deal itself automatically. The fact of the matter is our planet is like a giant space station we all share. Burning fossil fuels is a waste because we get enough solar energy from the sun everyday to power our entire civilization for a decade. If we cover just 3% of the land mass of Arizona with solar panels at a cost of 5-10 Trillion we will have totally independent, clean, energy for the next 25-30 years that will replace all of our other energy sources. We then use this energy to create clean hydrogen for cars. BMW already has a perfected solution for fueling up and using hydrogen which is kept in it's liquid state so there's no danger. The tech on the car front is there. In fact the range on one fill up is up to 300 miles in Sedan!!! Now I don't expect us to spend 5-10 trillion on it but we did spend 1 Trillion on a war which devalued our currency on the global market and made us spend a large amount of our treasure on it. In contrast building just a fifth of this entire project would pump enough research and development into the science of it and give enough people a job that our economy will come right back roaring! And, we'll be able to keep the whole thing in the country without devaluing the dollar by buying services and materials overseas.
Even if we don't start today, that is the future of our world because by 2015 with the current rate of R&D in battery technology, solar voltaic technology, and the price of oil the price of solar power will reach parity with oil. Spend just an hour reading wikipedia and you'll be able to confirm everything I just said.
Not to mention the fact that since the whole process is only bound to get cheaper and cheaper we're all looking at what the nuclear age promised us 50 years ago: energy that's too cheap to meter. Once we cover a certain amount of land with solar panels and as they get replaced with new ones that are more efficient the power output per square meter will only increase. With such cheap energy other issues currently plaguing humanity become a simple matter of manufacture.... Imagine providing water to millions with gigantic desalination plants that are totally power by solar power. Maybe I'm being naive but the economy is totally based on scarcity. If scarcity were eliminated or made extremely abundant what would there be to fight over?
The next president will have to understand technology, the internet, and the economy to be able to drive the United States into this new economy that will eventually come. It's not a matter of if anymore, but when. All technologies required for this have a predictable innovation curve (just like moore's law with computer chips) so anyone who bothers to look it up will see it.
With that said, I urge everyone to please vote for the candidate that will support these fledgling economies and not just sit idly by waiting for them to do it on their own. The countries that support these initiatives now will be the ones controlling the world economy in the next century. So please, stop discussing this election in terms of who said what but in terms of what the candidates are attempting to do about our current situation.
Reading the following is the best way to make the correct decision. Not doing
It's all political theatre. Nobody is actually afraid of Rev. Wright. He's not a threat to society, or to anybody individually. And nobody actually believes Barack Obama agrees with any of this after he's said he does not, and has never shown in any of his writings or speeches that he agrees.
It is naive to think it is simply a cheap shot. During the primary the choice between Obama and Clinton was easy, Obama. This nutcase reverend thing is a real issue though, and it is not because anyone seriously believes Obama shares the reverend's opinions. The really issue is that Obama is either lying or easily fooled. If the former then he's really nothing new and different, same old style politician but better at speeches. If the latter then his entire "vote for me I have better judgment" pitch evaporates. This nutcase reverend has been saying things for years, this stuff is on the DVDs the church is selling, and Obama had no clue this was going on? Come on, he had to know (occam's razor, uninvited the reverend from campaign launch), and it was monumental bad judgment not to distance himself from this reverend long ago, not when the issue blows up in the media.
Someone thought they could avoid the issues of the economy, foreign affairs, the future of America in this world, etc... and undermine Obama with this cheapshot.
You are mistaken, foreign affairs and other issues are heavily intertwined with his "better judgment" pitch. Discredit his judgment and a lot of Democrats suddenly feel Clinton is better positioned to take on McCain.
I would think IT workers would somewhat follow the video games industry. I haven't done any official polling, but my more-than-general sense is that the video game industry majority is behind Barack Obama. Hillary is on the air, along with the rest of the religious right (remember that John McCain is now their first choice), blaming the gaming industry for all the ills of society, any time it is politically expedient. It makes sense, because the general lack of parenting skills today are caused by those same lax tendencies, that their own generations helped to foster.
The worst thing I've ever heard Barack Obama say about video games is that *parents should learn when to tell their kids to put them down*. He dared to say that other priorities, like school, should come first! A lot of knee-jerk reactionaries in game politics, who still support Obama mind you, try to take offense to some hidden "association between video games and slacking". But let's be honest here -- what he said was no worse than prior generations telling parents to "turn the television off until the homework is done". Yes, that seems rather obvious minimal parenting skills now, but it was a big deal for a time. Video games are the new primary form of entertainment for children, and thus should be considered secondary to priorities like education. He dared to blame lax parenting, instead of an easily targeted "evil new media" industry! In my mind, that makes him the only candidate worth supporting, for IT, gamers... or anyone who isn't an idiotic, "blame everyone else first", negligent parent.
Unfortunately, idiot parents are probably a much bigger constituency than we are. If anecdotal evidence in the movie theaters holds (who the heck in their right mind brings their pre-teen to a horror movie in a public theater??), they have us beat in numbers, by far.
The current wars (occupations) are already going to be costing the US upwards of $2 Trillion when all is said and done, and McCain wants to increase the number of fronts we will be fighting on, and you think he somehow will reign in spending?
Heck, his current campaign is already over the legal spending limits of a law he helped write . If he can't control his own campaign spending, how do well do you think he will handle the finances of an entire country?
Wright's comments were taken out of context, and Obama acknowledged that.
Wright knows that parts of his sermons are shocking and provocative. He successfully provoked the media and got his name out. yay.
All that proves about John McCain is that he is MORE likely swayed by false politics, not grounded in the reality of an existing legal framework. I think a Civil Law and Constitutional Law expert is much more likely to do exactly what I want in office -- to protect the existing rights of ALL Americans, even at the expense of political expediency. That makes Barack Obama the ONLY candidate with qualified experience, in my book. Warmongering, Senate back-rubbing, or Lobby appeal experience are all counter to the main experiences I want in the White House.
I find it useful to define words precisely. Therefore, I suggest that libertarianism has two strands: capitalistic and socialistic. Find out which kind YOU are at http://www.politicalcompass.org/. There's a fun little quiz there that will place you on the political grid. For, you see, there is not just economic "left" and "right". Another axis exists: authoritarianism and libertarianism. In other words, for math geeks, two political axes exist, not just one. I am located in the very lower left corner of the grid :) It's a nice place chock full of gentle, humble, brilliant, sociable poeple.
Peace,
Debocracy
*~*~*~*~*~* Love doesn't just sit there, like a stone, it has to be made, like bread, re-made all the time, made new.
whoever gets elected, will have NO money to spend. America will feel the effects of the failing dollar and the rising price of oil more and more.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
When America attacks Iran, it will LOSE all Allies.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
He said exactly that -- that the bitter racism, from either side, is not productive. He just pointed out that entirely *ignoring* existing resentment isn't productive either. It's useful to examine the roots of all resentment, on all sides, and to work on the core issues that cause those resentments. That's the only way we will ever really solve the core problems, that underlie these false (but not baseless) resentments.
He also happened to point out how the politicians of the last few decades, Repubican neo-cons in particular, have exploited racism on both ends to accomplish their real goals -- which can be summarized as setting the Corporation above the Worker, in all senses. They channeled all that racist fear, hostility, and knee-jerk reaction into votes. Yes, they are an equal opportunity exploiter, but that's not to say that they're not also racist. The Republican majority today is all based on the "Southern Strategy", from Nixon on. It was continued by sustaining the same fears that the white majority had back then -- that somehow a gain in the black community is automatically a loss for the white community. That has never been true.
The politics of fear all fail to acknowledge an important truth: that helping your neighbor -- by whatever label of race, creed, or color -- is almost always a help to yourself. When you raise the bottom of society, all of society rises with it. The main failing of Republican politics, in the past few decades, has been to overlook that truth, and to exploit their more ignorant constituents, who never had any opportunity to learn that truth in their lifetimes. I think in that speech, Barack Obama proved that he is the one candidate who can raise America out of its long ignorance. John McCain, in his appeals to the religious right, the neo-cons, and the old Republican guard of Southern Strategists, has already proven to be the exact opposite kind of politician -- he is much more likely to keep us in ignorance, as long as it is politically expedient.
Barack Obama is the one candidate with the guts to come out and say what we were all already thinking, and even provided some hints, on how to escape our long-held ignorance. OTOH if Obama manages to get gov. Richardson as his vp., candidate, that would definitely make it a tougher choice. Then does Richardson's recent announcement, of his endorsement for Barack Obama, sway you yet?
http://news.google.com/news?q=Bill+Richardson+endorses+Barack+Obama&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title
you must be new around here!
----
Fellow Senior Brother-in-Alms,
How does being a well informed individual, who doest thy keep thy lusers in check and thy LARTs in plenty, exclude thee from Class Struggle?
PS: Beer! Beer good!
----
IT workers favor McCain, I guess there are a lot of stupid people in IT then.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
"McCain publicly calls them his "spiritual guides"."
No, he called Parsley "a spiritual guide". No "his". McCain himself is not part of that church, in fact he really can't be as he lives in Arizona, which is a pretty long drive from Ohio. And he clearly is a spiritual guide for many people. And he never made any sort of "spiritual guide" comment about Hagee.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
McCain is on the record for anything you want -- anti-torture, pro-torture, anti-abortion, pro-abortion. McCain is simply on the record for everything, because he says anything for money -- how attractive is that really?
Sitting here in Europe,an US libertarian sounds like yet another type of right wing nut job that should not be in any position of power.
Of course most folks in the US think Europe is some kind of Socialist paradise, in spite that market economy has been alive and well for the best part of 200 years, bar the wastelands of the Soviet Empire, that are just now recovering from the onslaught.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Star Trek does not worry itself with such issues.
The most we know is that they are a Federation of planets of some sort (i.e. some degree of free association exists). There is precious little about the economic system in the series.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I agree, people should watch the speeches and get the quotations in context. If they do, they will find that Wright is every bit as racist and paranoid as people have made him out to be. You can pretend that it sounds reasonable in some "context," but just because Wright claims he is preaching from the Bible doesn't make his words any less offensive.
Sincerely, Derek
A curious little blog
... stop the war on drugs.
You may find some money there to attend to the needs of US citizens.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Spending eternity in heaven with those type of people will surely make it feel like hell.
Can I bum a sig?
The Republican Party has for years been trapped in a contradiction between sacrificial Christian ethics and liberating capitalist ethics. That contradiction started to unravel the party under Nixon and Reagan, and finally worked itself out in the form of Bush and his applications of neo-conservative principles. The Patriot Act and the Iraq War aren't perversions of the Republican Party; they're just the chickens coming home to roost.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Debating eliminating or not eliminating earmarks is like debating whether or not to take a shot of NyQuil to treat your SARS. While the idea of using my money to build highways to nowhere is somewhat disturbing, the real enemy is the idea that the government, by right, has an absolute claim to the wealth we create. Certainly there are functions of government that aid us in being a free society, and these functions have a cost. But does that justify them in taking what is ours under the threat of force?
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Iraq is our cross to bear now -- we broke it, and we gotta fix it.
In the 2008 election cycle, Clinton and McCain's cross should be getting sent back to their respective Senate seats, presidential hopes dashed forever. Nobody who is duped or pretends to be duped into enabling a warmonger conduct an invasion based on fabricated arguments, should be rewarded with the presidency of any country.
The war is just so much bigger.
Wouldn't it be a great thing if 2008 becomes, among other things, a clear warning to future politicos: March in lockstep like a lemming to further your own political career, fall into the political precipice of your own disgrace. Which is nowhere near as tragic as each and every one of the countless lives lost, maimed and displaced. Nor as tragic as the countless minds in the Middle East newly radicalized with a burning hatred of everything western.
We cannot leave until we repair the damage.
The military is in a no-win scenario, not only caught in the crossfire of a civil war, but is also an invading foreign army in somebody else's homeland. The sad fact is that Iraq is an artificial political entity, drawn up by the British in the 1920's, and will splinter into three separate countries, according to ethnicity. US presence is only prolonging the inevitable, at an incredible cost and with dwindling allies.
Factor in the second front that is Afghanistan and the fact that the Bush regime has armed both sides of the Iraqi civil war, and you've got one huge shit sandwich of blind incompetence.
Add McCain's gleeful attitude of "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", and you've got the terrifying potential stupidity of adding further fuel to the fire by 2009, and we haven't even talked about Pakistan's volatile situation and iffy allegiance.
Finally, there is a very real possibility that the United States could bankrupt itself if it "stays the course". The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina should have been a gigantic red flag to that effect.
Could it possibly be any worse?
The United States must get out to go in again, in a different capacity. Leave with a timetable, then contribute to the cause of rebuilding the region through an international body, the UN most likely. Don't forsake the region the way Afghanistan was when the USSR retreated back in the days of Reagan and Papa Bush, as well all now bloody well know how that turned out, don't we?
And please, once and for all, get the Halliburton mafia the hell out of there!
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
The wikipedia article makes sense to me.* Your paragraph above, however, makes it sound like a masonic club. Do you have any articles you have bookmarked that I can read further? It sounds like a conspiracy theory to me so I was hoping you have some further evidence.
* I don't agree with the matter of thinking. I think beliefs are a personal thing and should be left as personal. Assuming you believe in God, he gave us a free will so it's extreme arrogance to assume that we can do any better. I'll stop there, else I'm likely to not stop.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
The Shiite-Sunni thing was a stupid gaff, but a lot of people seem to treat it as an absolute and ignore the fact that Iran has in fact given support to Sunni movements in the past (Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led by current al-Qaeda majordomo al-Zawahari is the obvious one, not to mention their support of Syria (although that one's more of secular state in the Baathist mold)). When the party hacks in Washington, Dem and Rep alike, pull their heads out of their asses, realize what is going on and who is fighting us and why, war with Iran may become a necessity. Until then, it's just an excuse to spill more blood in the name of "nation-building".
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Only if money is the only unit of measurement for value you use. There is such a thing as non-economic cost.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
1) Unemployment is historically low.
This is correct, but it is no good enough if your home is going to be repossessed.
2) Self defense is not war mongering. Even if you think Iraq was no threat, they've
gone from 50,000 killed per year under Saddam to 50,000 killed in the time since.
It may be the lesser of two evils, but this evil is a LOT less. Don't forget that all
the Democrats WANTED the war in Iraq. They just don't want to stick around and WIN it.
What did ever Iraq do to the US?
You know, to defend yourself first you have to be attacked or threatened.
Then you bring as part of your "self defense" strategy the plight of the Iraqi people.
Look, that is great, now we know you are truly generous and we will send you a medal for that. But the plight of the Iraqi people was not the reason for the Iraq invasion. You were lied to but here you are, matching the unintended consequences (that would need checking, mind you, I don't know where you are pulling those numbers of Iraqis killed by Hussein from) to cover thsi sameful invasion failures.
3) Wanting free trade with other nations is not a sign of xenophobia or racism nor
is appointing the first two black Sec's of State.
4) 3 Documented cases of waterboarding in the GWT is not a pattern of Communist style torture. Overall, enemy combatants have been given better treatment than domestic felons.
Sorry, any shreds of credibility you had as an interlocutor were burned in the above paragraph.
All serious human rights organizations have found the shambles of Guantanamo as one of the most egregious violations of human rights by a liberal democracy (of course if you compare this with other countries, like your allies Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, then you are doing fine).
The Bush administration has broken pretty much any moral and legal precedence by setting up this concentration camp (honestly, I can't think of a better description) and as an aside, has created precedence that even US citizens can be denied funddamental rights if the terrorism word is involved in there somewhere.
Although Bush did not achieve this alone (to the eternal shame od Democratic and genuine Conservative politicians) he was the engine pushing for this quasi fascist situations. How somebody can still excuse this, is beyond any logical comprehension.
5) People have more stuff than they ever have. The NY Times, which is NOT GOP
friendly, ran an op-ed explaining that consumption by the top fifth of the
population by income is only twice that of the bottom fifth. How many other
countries can come close to that?? Yes, there's a big mortgage problem out there, but before lending homes to poor people was "predatory lending" the Dems were pushing the banks to give those loans.
6) We've even cut greenhouse gas emissions for hippies who still believe in that crap.
Yes, the GOP should cut government spending and get rid of dumb-ass shit like
Social Security and Medicare but they don't have the votes to make it happen.
Uncle Sam collects about $17,000 per worker, most of which goes to social
programs that no one would ever need if their taxes were less. It won't stop
no matter who is in power until the public realizes the true cost.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Holy crap, if I could give you a +10 for this I would. It pretty much sums up my reality in politics to the letter.
- Vincit qui patitur.
CompTIA's a bunch of weasels. They're a lobbying group who represent big business, not individual programmers/techies. These folks lobbied for us not getting overtime, for instance.
They're also the mouth-breathers who came up with the Network+ cert.
I suspect that this survey is as crooked as they could figure out how to make it, to support their causes.
Look, first of all I am a foreigner working in a country that is not mine, so there is one of my biases for you.
But unlike other people I came here and applied for jobs as a local, given the vaguearies of EU and British Law.
And now I lost my job.
So, you know who is doing the stuff I was doing? Three chaps in India, connecting remotely to computers in the EU, earning far less than I do, being obviously exploited (12 hour shifts are not uncommon), and shitting their pants when faced with the task at hand (honestly, I pity them). My expertise in the industry is more than all of theirs added up together...
The people that actually emigrate are doing so because there is a real shortage of skills (I am sure I will find a job as soon as I apply for one, and in my now gone job I interviewed people to fill technical positions, and believe me, the shortage is there), and the people emigrating actually pay taxes locally, spend their money locally and in general make a contribution to the local economy while they are in their host country (sometimes for ever, which is also important, the host country did not invest a single penny on the education of the immigrants and are reaping all the rewards).
Remote workers in the other hand contribute nothing to the local economy (bar making it more efficient, I have noticed salaries are not as high as they used to be, but this is all anecdotal). No taxes, no direct spending, putting downwards pressure in local salaries (which may be a a good thing to be frank, the conspicuous consumerism in the West just can't continue unabated) and sometimes benefiting from infrastructure that at some point was meant to benefit the local populace. This is the real problem for IT worker in the West.
I am not whining mind you. I enjoyed the times of plenty, if now come the difficult years so be it, but if people out there are looking at the causes for the current situation at the very least they should have clear what is affecting their situation without going for the obvious target.
The chap connecting to machines in your locality bypassing all controls (with the complacency of your local government) is who is undermining your position (rightly or wrongly, you decide). Some governments actually are doing something about this, but the US and UK seem oblivious to this, maybe because foolishly IT workers in these countries really believed that class struggle was dead and believed that by contracting at high rates they really were businessmen, when in reality continued to be salaried people by another name. By drinking that Kool-Aid we have failed to organize to apply political pressure to defend our interests.
Yes, there should be more remote workers because they are cheaper, but Western governments should ensure there is no exploitation so competition is fairer and perhaps tax companies doing this (if they threaten to leave the country governments should ask themselves if they are not doing this anyway by locating jobs elsewhere).
Lack of class conscience in the IT workers everywhere has given an enormous advantage to other people: how many CEOs or senior management positions you have seen been moved in a similar way? No chappies, wealthy people protect each other, they are very conscious about the class struggle, and their greatest achievement has been to convince salaried people that such a thing does not exist (while relocating many jobs using technology without paying the economic penalties that they would pay in any other situation).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
But if you go to Obama's website and read his official position on the whole issue, you will see that he is just rewarming rotten old Johnson policies. He wants more quotas and other infringements on the Right of Association.
If you elect Obama he will appoint people that think like Wright, Jackson, Farrakhan, etc.
Enjoy PC on steroids!
So is that worse than spending in killing people in a foreign country that did nothing to you?
Well, sure as hell I would support a government looking after their own people than one killing other people based on blatant lies.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Any one of the three biggies remaining (McCain, Obama, Hillary) would be an absolute disaster for America as far as I'm concerned.
Constitutionally Correct
As far as I know, Presidents can only be elected for two four year terms. Regardless of what he says about being in Iraq for "100 years", I doubt that's really the case. I think he's just being realistic. Outside of Ron Paul, who last I saw was actually still in the race - None of the remaining canidates will have troops out of Iraq until AT LEAST their second term, if that.
The Pearl Harbor thing, if it's what I think he said (that we knew/provoked it) then it's true. FDR wanted to get into WW2 so bad he circumvented congress and antagonized the japanese into thinking they HAD to attack us or be strangled to death.
The other honest answer would be "The job is not feasible and it's time get out and cut our losses". I think that's Hilary's current line, though I don't believe she'd actually do it.
Guess what: If your home is going to be repossessed and you're still employed and didn't have any other high, unpredictable expenses since you bought it, it's most likely because YOU were an idiot. Your lender was also an idiot, but that doesn't lessen your idiocy.
secondly, it has been proven time and time again that the way to improve an economy is to support innovation and fund education in order to increase the gdp and make the general economy competitive- that is how you raise the bar for the workers vs. the employers and allow for personal spending which pushes more $ in the economy and allows it to flow. I am not saying that the dems are perfect, but the republican policy which favors corporations and the rich does the opposite, driving down salaries in order to put more $ in the pockets of those who already have $ which leads to pooling of dollars- that means that the majority of the population has less to spend, less money is spent and more money is being pressed- leading to a devaluation of the $ on hand- leading to a devaluation of the dollar.
The thing is that the government should be spending a lot of money, but should be able to retrive that money that it is spending from where it is pooling and have some sort of return value on that money, because when the government is spending it is helping either the local or national economy by putting $ back in the system, either by putting it in the pockets of those who are employed by the gov't or local economies or gov't contracts. That means that the $ gets respent, retaxed and respent again.
>>1) Unemployment is historically low.
>This is correct, but it is no good enough if your home is going to be repossessed.
What prevents home foreclosure like employment??
>What did ever Iraq do to the US?
THEY WERE SHOOTING AT OUR PILOTS DAILY!! Just because they weren't very good at it
doesn't make it all better.
>You were lied to...
Is it the President Bush's fault he believed all the Democrats telling him that Iraq had WMD's?
>...Guantanamo as one of the most egregious violations of human rights by a liberal democracy...
You never heard of the Japanese internment in WWII? Those were not people picked up after trying to
kill US Soldiers or Afghan civilians like the Guantanamo residents. Why can't we hold enemy combatants
until the war on terror is over? In WWII did we release captured Germans, hand them a rifle and tell them good
luck in their next battle?
I did that yesterday. I also did it six months ago, but quite quickly and without really thinking too hard. I decided that if I did it again and really thought about each question I'd probably appear less radical than before. I was very wrong, I was placed at (-9½, -9).
Funny stuff, but we ALREADY import enough cocaine to ski on without the trade agreement. We need to treat Colombia well. They have been one of our best allies and all they are asking for is an open market.
Whatever happened to keeping church and state separate?
--
http://www.emp-online.com/bin/shop.php?prog=shop&mid=&article=805314&funktion=PRODUCTINFO&bildrub=search
I'm searching youtube, but it's just full of sound bytes and clips. Got the links to the full sermons?
While agree with reasons to go IN to Iraq, I think it has been horribly mismanaged, and that we should work to tie up loose ends over there, and get out as soon as possible and quit spending money over there.....yes.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"i cannot understand"
I believe you, based on your post, you can't be very smart, so yo not understanding things makes perfect sense.
"All serious human rights organizations have found..."
Something to complain about in every location they've ever been asked to review.
It's what they do guy, you assigning credibility to their opinions doesn't make them valid.
I don't live in the US, but I am currently here on a business trip.
I spent yesterday in NYC, as a sort of small holiday before travelling on to Connecticut where I've got my meeting.
In NYC, I took one of those tour bus things to take a look around as I didn't have much time or knowledge of the city to really spend it looking around on my own. One thing that sticks in my mind is a statement that the tour guide guy said. "The average income of a person in Manhattan is $1500 a month". He went on to clarify that that is of course taking in to account the millionaires as well as the dirt poor, however I think it may still be a fairly representative figure, but was clearly attempting to say that $1500 a month is a lot of money (basically attempting to impress the tourists about how wealthy Manhattan is). That surprised me a lot - from what I saw, it's NOT a cheap city to live in at all, and $1500 USD a month is NOTHING compared to the average wage back home, which is also a much cheaper place to live. If the US dollar continues to fall, I can really imagine places like Manhattan very quickly becoming slums.
Note that this is just "first impression" and I could well be wrong, but as an outsider's perspective, it's pretty scary. Whoever you do, as a nation, vote in next, I really hope it's someone that is capable of doing something about your economy.
As a side note: I'd also hope it's someone that can do something about your security policies and free speech... I almost got arrested for "public disturbance" at the Statue of Liberty for arguing with a couple of Americans about the meaning of "Liberty" and how excessive security erodes it. I was ALMOST tempted to continue the argument and let them arrest me just for the irony of being arrested for a discussion about the meaning of the word Liberty when standing only metres away from that icon that is supposed to represent it. (I decided instead to apologise to the "nice officer", shut-up and leave, as it would REALLY not make a good impression on my company to miss the business meeting due to being arrested in New York City)
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
There are non-economic costs to socialism as well.
But that's beside the point, because you missed the post I was responding to:
Grandparent: McCain might help the economy...
Parent: I really wouldn't count on Mr. "Hundred Years in Iraq" to do that...
So, economic costs are the only costs at issue, in this thread.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
You're really that disturbed about the "God Damn America" comment? So what? How does associating with someone who has said something like that make Obama unfit to be president?
The Depublicans or the Remocrats? Btw. W received more votes in 2004 than in 2000.
People take issue with Obama supporting this man. I take issue with Obama not defending him in his time of need. You attend his church, and now that the heat is on, you're trying to disown your spiritual guide?
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Damn do I wish I had some mod points right now. You're completely spot on. If the words of an ASSOCIATE who is NOT running can destroy a very promising presidential run because of media spin and blog notes, then America truly does deserve the worst it can vote in.
From the looks of what I've seen, the Obama "racist" claims don't hold that much water. And as for "anti-american" and "socialist" - perhaps that's just what the US needs right now.
If by "anti-American", you mean he goes against the way things have been done in the US for so long now that everyone has become accustomed to it, perhaps it's worth examining what that line of thinking has done to the US, and why the whole country is beginning to show serious signs of weakening at the seams. A change away to some radically different ideas could make for a much better country.
As for "socialist", there are many great socialist democracies in Europe that are far more pleasant to live in (in many people's opinions) that the decidedly anti-socialist way that the US is run. While I doubt that any American politician (including Obama) would make America even half as socialist as these European countries, a slight move in that direction wouldn't hurt!
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
You said
"So, we will not leave ever. Not in a hundred years, not in a thousand years, not in a million years. That is what McCain said in all honesty."
Then you said
"You are projecting on McCain something he has never said."
it very much looks like it is YOU who are "projecting on McCain something he has never said". In all honesty.
The remarks of his that I've caught concerning 9/11 are spot on though. America had it coming. It's not surprising that something of that nature eventually happened. Does that make it right? Perhaps not, but people should stop acting as if it was an unwarranted and thoughtless attack. American isn't some nice, innocent little country that has never bothered anyone. If nothing else, the roots of the country are still soaking in the blood from that initial genocide of this continent's native race. Being bewildered by the hatred that much of the world has for the U.S. is naive at best.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
He's also the only candidate whose platform is 100% in agreement with slashdot group think.
You're trying to get us to vote against him, huh?
Lots of negative questions in that... rather frustrating actually!
Suffice to say, I came up -4.62 / -5.49, which is roughly where I expected to fall as a "typical European IT geek".
I also think the test could probably do with some more degrees of "agree/disagree", and clarification over some questions. The question "a significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.", I had to agree with, because it IS an advantage of that system, despite the fact that that system is unworkable and horrific to me on so many other levels. Nor do I think that the delay of progress in a democratic system is really a problem - because the cause of that delay is the checks and balances that make sure what's being done is truly right. Without this delay, a lot of very bad stuff could happen. But, I still had to agree with the statement as it was worded, because if there were a way to have checks and balances WITHOUT a delay, it would be better, and therefore the lack of delay in a one-party system is an advantage.
I'm not entirely sure that my answer "agree" accurately reflected my belief though.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Obama will bring change. Change will bring hope. Hope will bring change. And change is not staying where we are but moving forward with hope. Hope is not hopeless, because hope is hopeful. And it brings change, which is not hopeless because it brings hope.
But McCain didn't attend his church for 20 years (20!) and then not know about any of his beliefs.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
This reminds me of a joke. It's few years old, but still funny and supports your point in a frightening way:
A guy walks into a bar and looks over and sees Bush, Collin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld having some drinks and pouring over some documents. The guys asks the bar tender: "Hey, is that Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld? What are they doing here?" Bartenders says he doesn't know. After a few beers the guy gets up a the courage and walks over and asks them: "Hey fellas. What are you working on there?".
Bush repsonds: "Well, I probably shouldn't tell you this, but we're planning World War III".
"Really?", the guy says. "What's going to happen?"
"Well, we're going to kill 200 million muslims, and a blonde with big tits."
The guy thinks for a second and asks, "Why are you going to kill a blonde with big tits?"
Rumsfeld turns to Bush and smiles, "See, I told you no one would care about the 200 million muslims."
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
Okay, so you (as a nation, not you personally), screwed up and sent troops in when it wasn't necessary. And now, you plan on staying until you decide that you've cleaned up your mistake (which, by leaving troops there, may never actually happen)?
How about simply getting the hell out of there, apologising profusely (money would help) and then leaving them to it. Should they destroy themselves, that's regrettable, but NOT YOUR CONCERN. America has no right to control the affairs of other countries. If America were threatened, then you'd have some say in the matter, but you (personally, not as a nation) just said that you (as a nation, not personally) aren't there to "protect America" - so, GET OUT!
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
I agree actually. I'd love to know the religious breakdown of Slashdotters, even more than the political leanings (mostly because I don't live in the US and therefore the political leanings with regard to the US elections are mostly of an academic interest only (except in those cases where the US govt may have strong negative effects on the rest of the world (which can easily happen given the size and power of the US)))
Anyway... as far as religion goes, that might make an interesting Slashdot poll.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
It was the Texas Rangers in Dallas (well, Arlington). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush
So you don't think he may have picked up a thing or two about law during the course of two terms in the House of Representatives and four terms as a Senator?
By the way, President is an executive position, not legislative.
Oooh, good argument. If I had mod points I'd totally mod you up as "+1 Insightful" for a gem like that.
I find your message hopeful, but in your hopeful view of the future you forgot the importance of dreams. Dreams are what can also, hopefully, bring change. I know some cynics may think all this talk of dreams and hope is meaningless drivel, but I dream that someday, once hope has returned to this great land, it will be OK to dream again. The dream I see for America is something I...dream for and...hope to see. Hopefully.
Look, I'm not much of a fan of Hagee either, but it doesn't help you to spew crap like "he's trying to bring the Apocalypse!". He's doing no such thing. He simply believes the same thing that other Evangelicals do; that the end times will revolve around an attempted invasion of Israel. He'd tell you himself that trying to personally bring about the Second Coming is blasphemy, because it violates two Biblical principals. One, that "no man knows the time" of Christ's return, and thus can't personally bring it about, and "do not tempt the Lord thy God", ie don't attempt to force God's actions.
Try not to believe everything you read on Alternet or Crooks and Liars.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
hi xaxa. I guess that would make us the "lower" left.
*~*~*~*~*~* Love doesn't just sit there, like a stone, it has to be made, like bread, re-made all the time, made new.
"He did?"
Actually, yeah. Lets see. Son of a President. BA from Yale, MBA from Harvard, Governor of Texas, co-owner of the Texas Rangers MLB franchise. Admit it or not, the guy had a good resume.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"I hope you enjoy war with Iran and a never ending war on an intangible concept that can't technically be defeated. Real bright decision there, chief."
When we've beaten Al Qaeda, and they no longer exist... and that day is coming... I'll be sure and remember enlightened men like yourself and hoist a victory drink your way.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The average weekly wage in Manhattan is about $1500, not monthly.
Al Qaeda is not our enemy. Terror is, apparently. According to The War on Terror, that is. That was to what I was referring. We can defeat Al Qaeda, but that is kind of a "no shit" item there. They are a cell of people that don't like us. So instead of cheer leading for a pack of consumerist egocentric gas guzzling war mongering Luddites (AMERICA) how about you try to understand why they hate us and why they have some valid grievances, not to justify any of their reactions however.
There is no US and THEM anymore on a planet where we can communicate instantly with people throughout the globe, so stop living in the past.
Many pastors, priests, and rabbis think that homosexuality is a sin, that abortionists are murderers, and that those practicing other faiths will burn in hell. Do you have to go to every one of these beliefs to go to their church?
One of my aunts is racist. I love her, but that does not make me racist. I may denounce that way of thought, but I would never turn my back on those that I love, simply because they are wrong.
This is such bullshit. Getting the endorsement of wackjobs does not reflect on a candidate's character, they have no control over that. I don't disparage Ron Paul because he was endorsed by David Duke, for example.
But it is completely different to bring your children to church in order to listen to racist sermons for 20 years. The fact that he has not specifically denounced the victimization attitude of the reverend, means that he buys into it. All he has said is that he doesn't believe the reverend's more controversial views; he needs to specifically denounce the black victimization attitude that is prevalent in the black community; without denouncing it, then he is fostering this racism. Imagine the controversy if McCain went to a White church, that espoused White values where his pastor railed against black people for causing all the troubles in the world. Look how much the liberal press hassled Romney, just because he was a Mormon, and there wasn't any evidence of racial prejudice nor that he was controlled by his church. The fact that you try to cover up Obama's racism is very troubling and hypocritical.
I'm surprised that he is buying into the Clinton playbook of telling both sides what they want to hear and thought he was above that. He denounces some of the reverend's sermons but does not specifically state how his beliefs diverge the reverend. Thus, he is able to convince the black people that he is still on their side against Whitey, and the white people think he is denouncing the white racism. But it just shows that he is just another liberal politician, playing the same old game.
Do you really want a President that believes that Whitey is the cause of all their problems or that won't speak the truth to the Black people?
The Democrats really have no choice but to nominate Obama. If they select Hillary over Obama, then they just propagate the black belief that politics is just run by a bunch of rich white people. And blacks may actually consider the party that not only freed them as slaves, but also gave them significant power (like Colin and Condoleeza), instead of just token positions. All the racism and hate-mongering is coming from the Left; conservatives believe everybody is equally capable and don't need to be thought of as victims that need special rules to allow them to compete fairly.
I'm going to refrain on the rant about what candidate means what to me, although that's the vibe here.
I guess I never looked at Tech workers being a demographic. Frankly I don't look at my career choice as being part of a demographic, rather a means to the ends. I vote for a candidate, not based on what I do for a living, but how he/she will impact my family. Just one more meaningless statistic.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Somewhere else lies the truth.
Paul hasn't dropped out, although he can not win at this point.
"Seriously, whatever young John McCain, fighter pilot, may have done four decades ago, it's clear that old John McCain, politician, has no integrity left today"
Dvorkin, you're a complete and utter troll. I don't even like McCain much... I supported someone else in the primary.... but to say that John McCain has no principles is a sheer lie. Just out and out bullshit. This guy has bucked his own party so many times, he's infamous for it. A good chunk of the party base hates him for it, but he won't waver on big issues. Even when he took a beating on amnesty, he didn't fundamentally change his position. And he took one hell of a beating on that issue. To hit this guy on the issue of integrity is nothing but a Democratic Party talking point, and you're just being their parrot.
" He's a cowardly, self-serving, party-line Republican, and anyone who falls for his "straight talking maverick" act is a fool."
A coward? Are you kidding me? You are a piece of shit. You couldn't survive one tenth of what that man went through. It doesn't automatically qualify him to be President, but to call that man a coward is low, lower than I have words for. A sincere Fuck You is in order here.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
For the "IT workers" with their head up their ass ---> John McCain is unfit for duty. Hillary Rodham Clinton or "Billary", as they are known, is a loose cannon & self-serving, Obama is far and above the best for the job. Quoting: "the better to make a voting block whose views must be attended to" IS the reason WHY the U.S. is where it is now - In deep Shit, I mean REALLY DEEP SHIT. Selfish, greedy and short-sighted actions like "Lobbying" to get what they want is going to send the U.S. back to the dark ages, perhaps this is good anyway, as the U.S. isn't doing the WORLD any GOOD anyway. Cr0vv.
"This is correct, but it is no good enough if your home is going to be repossessed."
If your home is being repossessed, the likelihood is high that its no one's fault but yours, especially if you're a sub-prime borrower. This is a problem of people that couldn't really afford homes buying them at high interest rates from banks that lent money to said people that couldn't afford them. If you want to truly fix the problem, you'd let both parties suffer and the market would quickly fix things. However, it increasingly looks like Uncle Sugar will bail both parties out, in essence rewarding them for their bad choices. Meanwhile, people that followed a budget and bought houses they could actually afford must feel like utter chumps right now. Uncle Sugar could have got them a bigger house too.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"His Republican anti-immigration policies don't protect any IT jobs."
One, calling John McCain... a man absolutely roasted by his own party for his moderate immigration reform proposals... "anti-immigration" is sheer bullshit. But I suspect you know that already.
Two... why in the hell should anyone in government "protect" jobs? Just because I don't want to see the visa system abused to bring in cheap labor doesn't mean I want Uncle Sugar in the business of shielding jobs in the free market.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
You were modded funny, but seriously, I think you're absolutely right. It's astonishing how many people honestly believed he was a Muslim, and were afraid to vote for him for that reason. Telling them that he claims to be Christian and was baptized 20 years ago isn't enough to convince them, but a controversy about his crazy pastor might be enough to make them reconsider. Crazy pastor or not, if the mainstream media accepts that Obama's really a churchgoing Christian, he can no longer be a scary Muslim terrorist, so it's now OK to listen to what he has to say.
Damn, politics in this country makes me sad sometimes.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
"So instead of cheer leading for a pack of consumerist egocentric gas guzzling war mongering Luddites (AMERICA) how about you try to understand why they hate us and why they have some valid grievances, not to justify any of their reactions however."
You're either the biggest moonbat on Slashdot, or a really terrible troll. Either way, 1 - I'm proud to be American, and if you don't approve, tough shit, and 2 - get thee under the bridge.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
The tour operator seems to have his statistic completely wrong. The per capita income for New York County (which is the same thing as Manhattan) is $42,922 per year, according to 2000 census data. This works out to just under $3,577 per month. You are correct, $1,500 a month would be pitifully small, not too much above minimum wage, and an unlivably small amount for Manhattan,
Stupid like a fox!
Okay, glad to hear it... I couldn't really believe it could POSSIBLY have been that low.
Just to get a feel for how it compares to other places I'm more familiar with, is that $3577 before or after tax and other pretty much mandatory things that you pay out of your income (I assume private health care etc)? If it's before tax/etc (as I guess), what does that work out to after tax/etc? $2000? More? Less?
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Thank goodness somebody labeled you flamebait.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
"...consumption by the top fifth of the population by income is only twice that of the bottom fifth."
How many people are in the top fifth of the population by income, and how many in the bottom fifth by income?
emt 377 emt 4
"John McCain is the *ONLY Candidate* (of the three) who can claim "IANAL". "
I believe I speak for all of us when I say "ewww!"
how about you try to understand why they hate us and why they have some valid grievances, not to justify any of their reactions however.
I'm sorry. They have just grievances? What are they?
And how were they addressed and resolved by repeatedly bombing
our boats, buildings and then flying planes into those buildings when just using bombs didn't work?
America is by no means innocent, but when you have an extremist group instigate a non conventional war against us I'm not
even going to pretend they have a valid beef with us. Any position these folks have is an untenable need to impose
strict interpretations of Sharia and the obsessive need to wipe out anyone who does not follow their belief.
If they want to stop all this crap, turn in their ringleaders, and come to the negotiating table, then I might think about it.
I've been listening and watching through media outlets other than US mainstream media. Al Qaeda had a chance to voice
their opinion prior to slamming planes. I haven't heard anything other than missives for extremists to keep attacking
the US, Israel and any other allies.
There still is an US and THEM.
There's the old joke:
"St. Peter was giving some Protestants who had just arrived in heaven a tour. St. Peter pointed out the chapels where the Lutherans, the Baptists, and the Unitarians worship. Then as the group spied a huge stone cathedral, St. Peter cautioned the Protestants, "sshhh. That's where the Catholics pray. They think they're the only ones up here."
Hopefully, those of Hagee's worshippers who somehow manage to avoid winding up in hell for the sin of pride (among others) get treated with the same segregation so that they can be safely ignored by the rational people.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
That's OK. Since the bible is the result of the winning side of an inter-"church" conflict between Peter and Paul that (among other things) threw out the Gnostic Gospels, you can make valid claims that the same applies to all the mainstream "Christian" faiths. It's kind of like the Sunnis and Shias each claiming the other sect are not "real muslims". The mainstream Christian sects are just more popular combos on the menu than the UCC.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The data I found in the census isn't clear on whether that's before or after tax income, but my guess it that it would be before tax income. Assuming a person who makes exactly that median income, the the tax liability is $7,904 (using data from Wikipedia). Many states charge an additional income tax, and apparently some cities (including new York City as well). I live in a state without income tax, so I'm not sure how exactly this works, but it looks someone living in Manhattan would be liable for something like 10% of their income, so another $4,292 a year.
Health insurance for most workers at this level is actually provided by the employer, and almost certainly isn't accounted for in the income statistics. Lower-paid hourly worker (the bottom end of retail, fast food, etc.) are left to fend for themselves, but professional workers can expect a "benefits package" from their employer that includes things like health and dental insurance, some level of matching on retirement savings, and possibly life insurance. These benifits usually extends to the employees spouse and children, but the employee may have to pay a small amount for his dependents. The health insurance provided by an employer can range from excellent (will pay %100 of almost all medical expenses) to poor (will not pay for many procedures, will only pay 50% or so for many others). In my experience, Americans tend to just accept whatever health insurance is provided, and won't pay for additional health insurance. The average person probably have a several hundred dollar deductible per year for their health insurance, and will have to pay a capped "copay" to get a prescription filled. For example, it would cost me $40 for a month's supply of any name-brand drug my insurance is willing to pay for (which would be almost any medically necessary drug, but nothing like Viagra), and they insurance would pay the rest. Out of pocket medical expense for our average worker is probably on the order of $1000 a year. And that's a good deal more than I and many other people pay.
Other than health care, I don't really think there's anything other "mandatory" expensive that would be out of line with other countries. Certainly I can't think of anything off the top of my head.
So, ($42,922 - $7,904 - $4,292 - $1000) is $2,477 in take home pay a month, with health expenses accounted for. Those number jive with my salary vs. take home pay. Your impression of New York not being a cheap city is accurate, New York is a notoriously expensive city to live in, and Manhattan doubly so. I'm guessing our average Manhattanite wishes he had a lot more money, although he'd be fairly comfortable in most other cities in the US.
Anyway, this is all from my personal experience, and my cursory research, just since it seemed like an interested question. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to do my best to answer them.
Stupid like a fox!
Actually I'd say the phrase "But my guess is that you are just completely full of shit and vote republican because of your staunch, murderous, religious convictions" qualifies as either Troll or Flamebait. That's not even close to a civilized discussion.
True; I'd much rather see everyone so divided that nothing gets done, than for a strong majority of the extreme wing of either party to hold Congress and the Presidency (I'm a moderate "small-L" libertarian).
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
$2477 take home seems fairly respectable (not "good", but certainly reasonable). I can imagine it wouldn't go so far in Manhattan though, so I understand what you mean about the average Manhattanite likely wishing they had a bit more.
:)
The whole "employer benefits package" thing sounds fairly interesting, so I did some Google searching, and it does appear to be extremely common - that's something I'm not at all used to.
I recently (around 8 months ago) moved from Sydney, Australia to Hannover, Germany. Best move I ever made from a standard of living perspective. Sydney is notoriously expensive for pretty much everything, and the pay, while reasonable, wasn't great (I guess comparable to the cost/pay ratio in Manhattan from the looks of it). In Hannover, life costs me about half what it did in Sydney, and I get paid about one and a half times as much. Sure, Hannover's not a big city and hardly the most exciting city in Europe, but it's a fairly short drive (or train ride if you don't like European petrol prices) to anywhere else in Europe (especially after getting used to Australian distances). I assume there are comparable places in the US, where you get much better pay/cost ratios while still being able to travel to somewhere more "interesting" if you so desire. In Germany, from what I've seen, it's less worth it to live somewhere like Munich for example - the pay is similar to Hannover, and the cost of living is twice as much (so, err, Sydney costs).
Anyway, thanks for your feedback, my curiosity is now somewhat sated
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Do you honestly think these kinds of behaviors are stilted with little support of the population in the areas in which they operate? Although the populations of the middle east in general are not actively engaged in violence against the west, their sentiment is very hostile in general. Their anger and hostility existed BEFORE violence against the west began, we just ignored it. So now that they are a danger, instead of addressing the reasons for their hostility we are instead trying to address the symptoms of it which is extremist violence.
Maybe he's pulling a Ronald Reagan. "I didn't leave the party, the party left me.."
Lieberman is, and always has been a fierce pro-Israel war hawk. He'll go with whomever promises to send over the bombs.
Is that a biased comment? Of course it's biased. The world just suffered enormously under 8 years of bank-breaking war-hawk rule. I'm guessing you were living on the same planet as the rest of us, so I find it, yes, astonishing, that people of your nature still don't get it.
You're trying to pretend no one was talking about McCain in the middle of the Republican primaries.
I'm not trying to pretend anything. The tenor and emotional involvement of the population didn't include today's level of love and attention for the Republican senator. I don't know how to quantify this statistically, but that was certainly the impression I lived with day to day for the past year up until it changed in just the past couple of weeks. The fastest runner of a bunch of losers doesn't deserve the kind of attention he's been getting. It's insane, as are any who are demonstrating the ability to be swayed so effectively into considering him an actual, valid choice "Sane" would be a vast quiet, but actually seeing people consider and argue for this dangerous idiot is, well, the result of limited brain capabilities. But then, that's actually been demonstrated scientifically, hasn't it? Republicans are just as likely to pick an M as they are a W.
If enough people like you act like fools and willingly dive into more hell, then please remember, the rest of the world is going to have to pay for your extreme gullibility. Are you one of those who would like to see war with Iran? Are you one of those who thinks that Iran and Al Qaeda are linked despite their radical religious animosity?
I doubt they'd have been able to "feed him to the lions" if he wasn't paying for whores.
Yes, that was exactly my point. I'm not sure what you're objecting to.
What's really sick is that even in the face of your overwhelming bias and ignorance, you get the same vote I do. THAT is sick.
No, sick is voting for murder through ignorance. There is nothing more frightening than an adult with a machine gun who has a child's perception of the world and who is easily lied to.
-FL
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=4.00&soc=-3.49
right/libertarian, but not to the extreme of either.. Just where I expected to fall.
In her defense, the poem might have been so long and boring that she pretended there were snipers attacking just to get away from it. Afterwards? Well, she couldn't insult the President's daughter. Could you tell a little girl her poetry sucked?
Politics is such a trivial sick-humor/humorless subject much like M$ and U$.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
i hope the meta mods catch this, 2 obama fans modding a rebuttal flamebait/overrated.
but don't take my word for it, take the words of the leader of the NY civil rights commission:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-meyers20mar20,0,3898931.story
The article refers to quintiles of households by income, with the poorest spending $10,678/person/year and richest spending $22,536/person/year. The average household size is 1.7 for the lowest quintile and 3.1 for highest.
How does associating with someone who has said something like that make Obama unfit to be president?
I didn't say it did. But it's certainly not good, particularly when his wife is saying things like "for the first time in my life I'm proud of my country" (paraphrased).
If a white person was attending sermons with that level of hatred for 20 years, and donated $20k, that person's candidacy would be tanked. Obama is now relying on that double standard. And the whole time Obama was supposed to be above the race issue, which was why I originally respected him.
At absolute minimum, Obama had to know that associating so closely with Wright lent credibility to his hateful speech.
I still think he'd be better than Hillary.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Masonic club? I have no idea what that would mean. The Family is a dominionist organization, intent in enslaving everybody to the will of God and law of the Bible. That's a horrible thing, as I am sure you would agree. Go to a library and start digging. The Internet has a few things which can get you started. Just google for "dominionism family" and "dominionism" then dig from there.
As far as free will goes, read a book please. You don't have free will, just the illusion of a free will. Before you even argue with me, just try to come up with a satisfactory definition of free will. You're going to have trouble, I promise you. It's an indication that whereas you thought you had a good idea of what free will is, you're actually sorrily confused and need to spend some time thinking.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Even so, if the Republican party can't be counted on for conservative government, by that I mean the elimination of big government, reasonable spending and respect for individual rights, what the hell is going to happen to the US?
Let me guess your response... Who is John Galt?
Money is the root of all evil?
From an IT perspective, since all of the candidates some how think that there is a massive shortage of IT workers in the US and we should increase the number of H1-Bs to solve this problem, it really doesn't matter who is elected.
That's the power of the lobbyists at work, and that's why *our* democracy is under threat. Objective studies rarely show a real "shortage".
Table-ized A.I.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
I know what a mason is, being familiar with all the conspiracy theories and having enough knowlege to understand what a joke they are.
The difference is that dominionists are real, and you don't need theories to understand what they are about. Just listen to their words and read their books. The heresy is even treated with derision by mainstream entities such as several church denominations.
I'm starting to think that you're just a big jerk. Do you just want to have a contest to see who is the bigger jerk? You shall not win that one.
I'm not going to do your research for you. The dominionists are Christians. I am an atheist, and I see it as primarily YOUR responsibility to keep your crazier brethren in line. But, I don't see masses of Christians denouncing dominionists forcefully enough. Indeed, some of you take the idiotic calculus of siding with them just because they call themselves "Christians".
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Explain the thuggery that unionbusting has employed. Maybe there should be a look into it, as they'll move to IT when they get word of it. The only shame(to them) is that we already know their tactics and strategy. If you don't let them drag it out, they can't bring in their thugs(internally developed or externally developed).
You will not enslave myself or my office into a union, ever. I'm not handing a part of my paycheck over to a bunch of crooks. Screw that. Unions deserve to be not only busted, but smashed.
This is my sig.
He plans to pursue the same policies as Bush, Reagan and Bush - policies which, in case you hadn't noticed, have been a fiscal disaster for this country. http://doctor-frog.dailykos.com/
McCain was not the victim of drive-by endorsements. He actively sought out Hagee's endorsement.
Nice modding...
Obscured racism and sexism gets +5 Insightful.
Nice to see the stereotypes still live on in the SlashDot world as well. Anyone that asserts as fact that women or non-white Americans are automatically 'victim groups' is perpetuating both sexism and racism, and this oddly gets modded up?
Are the readers here really in agreement with this, or do they not 'get' what the person is saying, even though the poster didn't directly come out and use derogatory words beyond 'victim groups'?
I would have to agree. I watched the speech in its entirety and overall, it was basically saying that it sucks that people have problems with race, there may be some reasons for that that we need to deal with, and we need to make progress to get past race issues to get on to more important ones. In no way shape or form did he act like it was OK to talk crap about another race. He said he totally disagrees with the crazy pastor guy. Seriously, read or watch all the details on anything that might sway your opinion very much or sway other people's opinion very much. I'm a 30 something white dude from a small town in the deep south- been seeing racism against black people in overt and subtle ways since I was a child, and despite any negative racial beliefs I've been exposed to, Obama has definitely got my attention and very probably my vote. His being "black" doesn't matter from any logical (people are people) or ignorant (he's black, he's going to screw over white ppl!- let me be clear, I don't believe this for a minute anyway) angle that I am aware of... the rest of what makes up his shot at the president... his goals, his attitude toward the environment, his views on super big greedy companies, privacy and other internet related rights, what he generally believes in, his lack of being a typical slippery lying politician... all that leads me to want to vote for this guy. I'm sure he's got some usual politician flaws (I've heard of maybe two specific minor things), but his general atmosphere is 100 times greater than most I've ever seen. Strangely, the other two candidates don't seem terrible either. I think all the politicians got together and realized how bad the US feels towards Bush and got only candidates that were as different as Bush as possible. A good speaker. A black man. A woman. A renegade Republican. Not sure if I should be mad that they are "playing us" or be happy b/c they listened.
The reality is that we're doing such a bad job on that front that people who could be helping us restore law and order actually like us less than the types of people who blow up vegetable markets. How could we possibly have blown it that badly?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
When all you've got are extremists, it's best thing to keep them busy fighting each other. It felt good that the country seemed to have known what it was doing. I didn't like it when Bush got elected, but I thought he was too addled to do much harm in four years, then 9/11 happened and I knew the country had make a mistake with him. When he was re-elected, I lost a great deal of faith in my fellow citizens. (I'm ~2 parts liberal, ~4 parts libertarian)
Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
...If the latter then his entire "vote for me I have better judgment" pitch evaporates... it was monumental bad judgment not to distance himself from this reverend long ago, not when the issue blows up in the media."
Puh-leeze... failing to dissociate yourself from a logtime friend who occasionally says dumb stuff does not even remotely compare to supporting the Iraq war.
It is not the magnitude of the outcomes that matter here, it is the fact that there is a viable counterexample to demonstrate Obama's judgment is not as good as he claims. If you can't get the easy thing right, dumping a liability before beginning a no holds barred political campaign, how can you be trusted with the complicated things? People can now reasonably argue that his Iraq position was merely a guess that turned out correct, not the result of good judgment. Again, the embarrassment over the reverend is not the issue, it is evaporation of Obama's good judgment argument. Without this argument his differentiation from Clinton is merely better speeches, not judgment, not policy.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
A simple no is not sufficient for me to maintain the reputation which justifies my foul nickname! One thing that you may find helpful, which just came to mind, is to go to the google news page, then on the left create a news alert for the keywords "dominionism" "dominionism family" "dominionism clinton" "council for national policy" and so on. Google search on those terms too.
And do some reading on the Google search "chick-fil-a hobby lobby". Seriously. Really.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
The Tuskegee study was a prime example of ethical blunders of the early to mid 20th century. You could no doubt point out a dozen others involving minorities, children, and the disabled. However, I don't think that the denial of medication to 300 people over 40 years is quite worthy of Megele. Nor do I think that one could so easily make a leap to saying that "they" invented HIV to destroy the blacks based on that incident. The man has a right to be a tinfoil hat wearing "nutjob" if he would like. I, in turn, have the right to question the judgement of a presidential candidate that would sit in his church for 20 years.
Cronus
You should read a book on the subject:
In "The Age of Abundance", Brink Lindsey offers a bold reinterpretation of the latter half of the twentieth century. Readers will learn how and why the contemporary ideologies of left and right emerged in response to the novel challenges of mass prosperity -- and how a new, more libertarian consensus is forming that mixes the social freedom of the left with the economic freedom of the right.
It's a FASCINATING read!
http://www.brinklindsey.com/
Libertas in infinitum
Two words: defense contractors
Libertas in infinitum