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.
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
From the summary: "...done in late February and early March..."
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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.
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...
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
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
Go away, I won't have your infernal logic sullying this discussion any longer.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
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!
>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.
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 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
"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.
Blah Blah Blah sexism Blah BLah Blah.
Oh by the way... did I mention that if you don't vote for Obama you are automatically a grand wizard in the KKK and are evil racist scum?
See that's the problem with identity politics, the Dems were inconvenient enough to have candidates from two different victim groups so these lame arguments sound even sillier than normal.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Why settle for the lesser evil.
[Insert pithy quote here]
In some sense this is emblematic of the greater problem facing American politics these days: the inability of opposing sides to acknowledge the proper scope of disagreement. Instead, we get the sort of thing in the OP: accusations that some people want to "shred the Constitution" or "sell the USA to the lowest bidder". If Obama supports getting out of Iraq, it must be because he hates America and wants us to fail. If McCain wants to stay in Iraq, it must be because he's a crazy warmonger.
After all, it would be so much harder to start by acknowledging that all the candidates wants to preserve the Constitution but differ as to what it means. Similarly, how could we ever acknowledge that the candidates all want what's best for the US (gasp!) but differ on how to achieve it?
~Oren
* Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul and the principles of limited Federal government (but I can't unequivocally endorse some of his other policies).
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!
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.)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
Also interesting is how in the other big line of his, the "chickens coming back to roost" one the Reverend was actually paraphrasing a former US ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck, who was interviewed on Fox News after 9/11. Of course you would have no idea that the "racist" minister was actually referencing a very white American ambassador if you only saw the context free clips on the 24 hour news networks.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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.
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
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