Slashdot Mirror
McCain vs. Obama on Tech Issues
eldavojohn writes "Ars is running a brief article that looks at stances from Chuck Fish of McCain's campaign and Daniel Weitzner from Obama's in regards to technical issues that may cause us geeks to vote one way or the other. From openness vs. bandwidth in the net neutrality issue to those pesky National Security Letters, there's some key differences that just might play at least a small part in your vote. You may also remember our discussions on who is best for geeks."
I thought the Dems haven't selected a candidate yet.
I doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues. They likely had aides poll and give them pat answers on tech. In other words, don't expect them to stick to any positions they might articulate now. Then again, that probably applies to all issues, not just tech.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
"Chuck Fish, an attorney for the McCain campaign and former Time Warner executive"
"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"
Who are you going to place more faith in there?
As usual republicans == corporate interests over technical or popular interests.
(BTW, before you accuse me of being a shill or a partisan or an idiot democrat, I'm not even USian and don't get to vote on this. I'm just calling it like I see it)
vociferous critics, and one of the Iraq wars biggest cheerleaders...nuff said.
Monstar L
not their campaign promises or who is working for them currently.
Granted Obama doesn't have as much time in the Senate as McCain, and Clinton doesn't compare favorably for time either but still beats out Obaman, but what does their voting record say?
Considering the fact we can look at how these people voted on many issues why would you believe their promises without comparing the two? Turning over a new leaf is more fairy tale than anything
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Do you have evidence for Obama being in corporate pockets? Or are you just parroting the Green and Libertarian lines?
I think you are just parroting.
True, all this Rep vs Dem stuff ought to be academic.
You a copyright infringer? They want you behind bars.
Pot smoker? Behind bars.
Violent video games? Banned.
Porn? Off the internets.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there more sold on the "lesser of two evils" doctrine, than are sold on the "don't give your mandate to someone that wants to put you in jail!".
Not voting for people with views like those should be an obvious choice. Unfortunately it seems not.
Technical skill is not even close to being on my radar of what I want in a president, nor necessarily even in his/her closest advisers. In fact, I worry when the ones at the top, be it a corporation or a government, think they know more than the underlings and specialists as regards any subject, including technology. In my mind, vision, scruples and the ability to see through BS are the leadership skills I look for in candidates. And as it happens, these are actually pretty easy to discern by simply examining their track records. The hardest way to determine these things is to listen to what they say.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Politics can get pretty shallow, but there's more to it than being a bitch for the polls. I think this little Q&A is a case in point. Not the answers themselves, but the people chosen to deliver them. McCain chose a lawyer with strong connections to a major media conglomerate that many of us have reason to loathe. Obama chose a computer scientist with connections to a university that played a big role in creating the Internet. That, by itself, should tell you where there respective priorities are.
Er...who, exactly, do you think gets technical stuff done? Martians? NGOs? Neighborhood watch associations?
Nope. Corporations. You know, like Amazon.com, Cisco, Google, Sun, and a thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about until the day you sure wish you'd bought stock early in 'em.
So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests." Seems to me the only way to really advance technical interests is to advance the corporate interests of technical corporations. Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?
As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want, and, guess what, they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies. They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests.
Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.
What that means in practice is that tech jobs in the US will be largely filled by foreigners because is is cheaper for companies to pay employees with green cards than with cash.
The main-stream candidates are also more committed to maintaining the status quo. This may sound like a bad thing, but changing a lot of things all at once is much, much worse. It is a testimant to the supreme arrogance of man that almost everyone on this message-board believes they are intellegent enough to make radical, sweeping changes to the government and the economy without killing everyone.
No one in their right mind should vote for somone who advocates that kind of change, no matter how much they think it's a good idea. The only approach that works it making small changes over time and working toward your eventual goal. Libertarians should vote for the republican candidate, since he advocates deregulation and reliance on markets. This is not the same as making drugs and porn legal, but it's a step in the right direction.
With regards to Senator Obama, do you have a citation for that? Everything that I've seen suggests that he is open to the idea of decriminalization. Every quote that I've heard suggests that he realizes the folly of putting people behind bars for non-violent drug offenses.
Obviously that's not as good as Gravel or Paul's positions on the issue, but I'm not going to base my vote on the single issue of pot smoking. Not when we have an ongoing war, climate change, a failing economy, nuclear proliferation and the rise of China, India and Russia to deal with. And yes, I am a regular pot smoker.
Besides which, even if you got Gravel or Paul in office what about the state laws against marijuana? Those are the ones that actually impact pot-smokers on a day to day basis. Other than the bullshit Federal raids against medical marijuana dispensaries I'm hard pressed to think of any meaningful impact that the Feds make against pot-smokers.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
if your a pot smoker you deserve to be in prison.
Both are pro rigged-trade globalists. Their loyalty is to the elite. To Joe Workingman American, it's tweedledee vs. tweedledum. Middle class has choice between
A) Lower Standard of Living and huge defecits (mccain)
and
B) Lower Standard of Living and huge taxes (obama).
Whatever.
The only reason that the government isn't the expert at tech, or at farming, or transportation, or medicine, etc, is that they don't hire experts. Or when they do, they don't listen to them, of give the experts they have hired any power. There's no reason why the government couldn't hire some technically oriented people or consult with people when drafting laws that affect the internet, or farming, or medical care. There's no excuse for the government coming up with bad laws. You can't just give them slack because they are just a bunch of lawyers.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Net Neutrality is very important and critical to preserving a free and open internet and we do badly need to make this a part of law. Barack Obama is more likely to do this. I am definitely a Obama supporter not only due to this but due to a wide spectrum of other issues as well.
The claims made by telcos are mostly lies and deception. The telcos always have been able to tier service based on overall speed, what they have not been allowed to do is effectively censor content by slowing down some sites or blocking access to them. They dont need any capability to censor content or to discriminate against certain content. The corporations agenda is simply a vieled attempt to control information flow over the internet and to block access to things they dont like and dont agree with.
Measures lesser than Net Nuetrality wont be enough to address this. Blocking access or making access more difficult to certain content is innately bad and has no place on what should be an open and democratic form of communication where everyone has equal opportunity to be heard, where things are not biased towards corporations and their content. There is no way to make discriminating against content an acceptable practice or tilting it in favour of powerful corporate interests.
It is little different from what is being done in china, It is different in name only, here we have corporations do the censorship, In china it is government, The US has a composite government consisting of corporations and the republican government which they elect and which represents their interests. The corporations are the republican constituents. When you here a republican talk about their constituents, they are usually referring to the wealthy corporate donors who got them elected and paid for their campaigns. Democrats while not always perfect are certainly have a greater propensity to represent the people and do what is in the best interests of the general population rather than of big corporations.
We complain about what China has done in censoring the internet however we would have the same situation here unless we do something to bolster the internet as a free and open medium where everyone which is open to everyone with no discrimination. The same sort of mentality and insidious objective behinds Chinas censorship and the desire of corporations to censor the internet springs from the same mindset. The corporations have been able to control the flow of information for so long, they have had a monopoly on the media and were the gatekeepers, they could control what people could see and hear and it was very difficult to reach a large number of people, very expensive, though traditional mediums, so it excluded many from being able to express their views. the internet is a democratic form of communication, it is the first time we have had anything approaching true positive free speech where anyone could broadcast their views to anyone else and everyone is on an equal footing, no matter if you are poor or are a millionaire. And if a you re a rich megalomaniac you just cant have a situation where the little people can express themselves and actually make their voice heard to millions, and where there is nothing you can do to stop this and where they basically are on an equally footing, yhou no longer have your built in advantage of traditional media which allows you to more effectively distribute your views. Thje rich hate this because they have been so long accustomed to setting the agenda and manipulating society for their own benefit. So the openness and democracy of the net scared them because they are losing power and the internet has moved us more in the direction of a democratic society, so they are now trying to find a way to desperately shut it down and turn it into some sort of corporate controlled outlet one way sort of medium just like television is, where only the corporations have any rights to express themselves and everyone else is a mindless consumer who pays their monthly satellite subscription bill to be brainwashed by c
I think people need to be careful about falling in love with politicians. To his credit, Obama is an excellent orator, but this can be dangerous as well. Just because he says things you want to here in such a way that makes you feel hopeful don't really mean much. You have to look at what people have done. Quite frankly, it worries me that he is running for the presidency at such a young age with such little experience on both a national and executive level. Ambition can be a good trait when kept in check, but dangerous when it is not.
That was my primary worry about Clinton since it appeared that she thought she deserved the nomination. I thought that Obama wouldn't be as bad, but at this point, I think that you can't afford to let your guard down.
The manned space program is a boondoggle. We've learned much more from unmanned missions, and they cost 10% as much. Since we don't need to compete with the USSR anymore and I don't think Al Qaeda will pull off a manned space flight any time soon, we don't need the prestige associated with it either.
The right question is:
"Why do we have to give a crap what the grizzled old fossil, the newly-minted career politician, or the shrieking banshee have to say about technology?"
The President of the US (as well as the Congress) should have zero effect on it. He or she has one main duty: to defend the borders of the US from foreign invasion. Everything else this government does is simply meddling in the private consensual affairs of citizens or usurping the powers of local governments to set policies best suited to local culture and tradition.
That said, practically speaking, if you vote your goal should be either (a) to elect the candidate who will do the least damage to your civil liberties, on the premise that the system is salvageable; or (b) to elect the candidate who will do the most damage, on the premise that the citizen-led equivalent of a reboot (aka a "revolution") is the only way to fix the system.
Until enough people figure out that trying to ram their own preferences down the throats of people living thousands of miles away is a bad idea, we will continue to be presented with nothing but bad choices.
[ home ]
I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside.
In other words, he's a real go-getter -- it doesn't matter what he decides to get done, just that he's got the connections, the can-do attitude, and the shark skills to get it done!
Look, I can take the point that execution skills matter. The problem with this is that what we're talking about here are policy advisors, and when it comes to understanding the potential of technology, Mr. Fish is quite likely going to be limited at *best* to its value as a corporate asset. And there's little evidence McCain has the ability to pick anybody better.
By contrast, Obama's selection shows that he knows where to start for picking people who understand the underlying knowledge domain. And there's definitely evidence to suggest that Obama has the ability to pick people and build an organization that can get things done to supplement to work of policy advisor that knows what's up.
Tweet, tweet.
The vast majority of people who work on the space program don't ride rockets, you do realize that don't you? Manned missions don't add that many more jobs to a mission, and they significantly increase the cost of those missions.
Also, we went years without manned space flights after the Challenger and Columbia accidents, and we're already planning on going many years between the time the Orbiter is decommissioned and the time the Orion project is ready.
http://www.mhall119.com
If the John McCain from 2000 was running he'd had a serious shot at my vote in spite of my support for Senator Obama.
The John McCain that we all know and loved seemed to have been replaced somewhere around the 2004 election. I stopped listening to him when he started kissing Jerry Falwell's ass and went on the campaign trail for the man that accused him of fathering an illegitimate black child to torpedo his chances in South Carolina.
(To be fair, I did start listening to him again when he stood against his party on torture -- but you don't hear him talking too much about that lately, do you?)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Look, a candidate who can write code obviously may not have an edge over one who can't -- in fact, given the aptness of Philip Greenspun's comparison of pilots vs programmers (see here: http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/aviation ), it's entirely possible programming skill isn't a great test of broad intellectual ability. :)
But tech issues absolutely underly quite a few other issues of economics and liberty, and those are certainly have a weight equal to other big issues like foreign policy.
But I think there's an even bigger reason why tech workers *definitely* should be looking at how candidates understand and address issues they understand. Because this is the arena where *you* may actually know enough, as a professional, to really gauge a candidates policy acumen. I doubt most slashdotters are experts in military tactics or nation building. Most of us have a shallow grasp of economics -- yes, even most of you Austrian school autodidacts. Same goes for health care, education, criminology, etc -- Slashdot readers may be smart laymen, but that's all most of us are in those fields.
But lots of us are IT pros. And if a candidate seems to really get it in the area where you can tell buzzspeak and platitudes from real knowledge, that tells you quite a bit about their ability to reach into an issue, understand it, and formulate a plan to do something about it.
It's worth paying attention to.
Tweet, tweet.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
Well -- identical twins have idential DNA -- or close to it. They aren't identical in their character, however.
The thing to remember is that while we might not have as much difference between candidates as we'd like, small differences make a big difference, if they're over something that's important enough. Lots of people have been complaining for a long time that the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike. They're probably right. It doesn't mean that things wouldn't have been different, for better or worse, if Al Gore had beeng granted Florida's electoral votes in 2000.
Many Democrats don't see much difference between McCain and Bush; many Republicans don't see much difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Some don't see much differnce between McCain and Obama. None of these people are wrong, except to the degree that they think the "small" differences between those individuals won't have big practical impacts on the life of the country.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That says something about you, not the candidates.
The best judgment would have been not invading the country in the first place. So how did McCain vote on the authorization for military force?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Analyzing what they actually have to say is good, however is helpful to understand a person's motivation. Consider the following situations:
1. A very knowledgeable sales person who recommends an extended warranty seems to want to protect you from expensive repairs/replacements.
2. A doctor recommends a change in diet to help you reach a healthier weight and reduce your risk of heart disease.
The sales person has his own interests in mind and the doctor has your interests in mind. If you follow the doctor's advice you'll actually need him less. On the surface both seem to have your interests mind. How do you avoid being swindled if you don't judge the messenger?
There was a poll done on black americans and the large majority said they didn't know anything that Obama stood for, except that he was black. I don't see how this is any different than the white bigot who votes against him only because he is black.
Now what would have been interesting is if someone like a Powell or Rice had run. Would black Americans have blindly voted for a black republican?
because the current administration either is unwilling or unable to capture him. plus, if we off OBL, who would the bogeyman be then?
I agree with Obama that open access trumps bandwidth. What's more, the loads of free content that open access naturally creates provide huge incentive to upgrade the network. Let's take the cell phone network vs. the Internet. The internet has gone from 2800 baud dial-up service on $2K+ 286 PCs accessing BBSs to Mbps service on sub $1000 computers with processing, graphics, and multi-media capabilities that far exceed what was available in professional video-editing houses just a few decades back. BBSs (much to some of our dismay) gave way to streaming video and interactive GUI applications. And not only have the prices of the devices dropped by huge amounts even in inflation-adjusted dollars, but I don't pay much more for broadband than I once did for dial-up. And today I can sign up without a contract and switch my service provider if I'm unhappy with the service (because we have competing technologies/infrastructure, cable modem and DSL, we have true competition). As for additional infrastructure upgrades, I predict people will start to ditch cable for on-demand TV via the internet. Content provides will innovate with interactive TV and targeted ads. Advertisers will get more for their money because consumers will be more willing to watch ads that they're actually interested in. These efficiencies will motivate and pay for infrastructure upgrades.
The cell phone network on the other hand started as basically your land line sans the wires and hasn't really come very far. Features added include caller ID, call waiting, text messaging, an address book and calendar on your phone that your forced to edit using the horrible UI of the phone itself. You're locked in to a contract, sometimes a multi-year contract. And your devices is tied to the service provider, so you can't take it with you. Where's the simple to implement and obvious features like being able to edit/sync/backup your address book, calendar, etc on a real computer with a full keyboard. Sure, there are better devices like the iPhone and crackberry, but they cost an arm and a leg. And you're still locked into a service provider, so why would I pay so much more for a better device when I have no control over the most important feature, namely coverage area and bandwidth. The cell-phone network is actually bunch of closed-access monopolies and though coverage area has become somewhat better, bandwidth and devices still suck eggs.
Imagine if you could just sign up for wireless access and connect any device you want to the network and switch providers any time you want to get the best performance. I think there would be a huge innovation in devices. Once more useful devices were available, content would follow. (Honestly, how many of you web developers bother with versions of your sites for mobile devices.) Once the content and devices where there, consumers would demand (and be willing to pay for) a better network.
I'm not saying the we shouldn't take caution on the legal definition of NN (I like the Limited Discrimination and Tiering one), but I think it's pretty clear that ensuring open access is the market-centric approach to this issue and letting ISPs get away with trying to exercise monopoly power by exploiting control of the infrastructure would be a huge step backwards.
But how many white Republicans would have voted for a black person? Carrying 13% of the national vote won't cut it (and that's assuming that every black person is eligible to vote (not true, esp. in Florida) and actually votes).
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
"Most liberal"? What does that even mean?
Hey, isn't National Journal the same magazine that rated John Kerry as the most liberal senator in 2004? Gee, what a coincidence!
It's bad enough when people mix their metaphors, but you're mixing your cliches. Neither spokesman is a "messenger" in the sense you mean. Neither is reading a script; each is considered by his boss to be an expert on technology. So it makes perfect sense to consider why they're considered experts.
All too true. What scares me is that the "maverick" label of McCain has stuck. He's no maverick. Look at how he accepted the endorsement of nutcase pastor Hagee until he was finally called out on it. And even then, he didn't actually address the comments Hagee made.
McCain scares me because people actually believe he will be different than Bush. Remember how Bush put forth the image of his "common man" lifestyle and "compassionate conservatism." Hmm...how well does that hold up against the track record of the corporate corruption and lawlessness actively supported by his administration?
McCain has one of the most conservative voting records of anyone in the Senate but somehow people think he's a moderate.
The point? Sometimes it ain't about the immediate scientific benefits. Sometimes it's about the long-term. We (the US) screwed ourselves royally in the 1970's literally throwing out a shitload of research and knowledge (e.g. Saturn V propulsion, etc) - all in the name of politics. We really need to stop doing that if we are to have any hope of eventually getting a sizeable portion of mankind off of this one fragile pandemic-and-asteroid-prone rock.
I agree, we (as in humanity overall) need a manned space program. The spin-off tech alone has historically paid for the entire space program, manned and unmanned, many many times over. There isn't nearly as much of a technical challenge (and thus rewards in spin-off tech) in sending some hardware flying off somewhere on a one-way trip than there is in keeping a living human crew alive, deliver them to their destination, and return them safely.
Never mind the advantages in scientific information gathering and on the spot evaluation and adaptability to changing information and situations possible with a human crew that's completely impossible for a machine to duplicate. This can be important even in relatively simple matters, for example the Mars probes can be crippled if too much dust accumulates on the solar panels, where a human crew could simply brush the dust off.
There's also the inspirational factor for all of humanity. How many kids in the '60s and '70s said "I wanna be an astronaut when I grow up!", and were inspired to behave and try hard in school, even if they never actually became astronauts? Anyone who grew up during the manned spaceflight heydays understands what an enormous benefit it was in research, engineering, medicine, and in giving inspiration and hope to all people for the future of mankind. Hopes and dreams are powerful things that can inspire leaps and gains in both technology and in the social fabric impossible by any other means, and without which there is little hope for humanities' future.
Of course, politicians will increasingly see it differently over time, especially as the possibility of people moving off this planet gains more feasibility. How do they exert their power and control over people increasingly scattered across multiple planets/bodies/self-sustaining habitats? That this would vastly increase the chances of humanities' survival means little to them, as they could not care less if humanity survives long-term if it means they might lose power and control.
If they allowed large groups of people to colonize, these people might get some crazy idea that they should govern themselves or something! I think that this is one factor playing into the disinterest for manned spaceflight among those who desire more government control in peoples' lives. Even just the hopes and dreams of one day peoples' children or even great-great-grandchildren might be able to slip the yoke of government control can be enough to seriously impede their plans to increase their grip over the populace.
I must put in a plug here for a long-time favorite book; "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. If you've never read it, put it on your "must read" list.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Second, you state that Eugene is one of the "highest per-capita marijuana abusing cities." I am guessing that you make no room for marijuana users as opposed to abusers. I guess everyone who unwinds with a beer is also an alcoholic, eh? There are millions of pot smokers who have steady jobs and contribute a lot to society. You don't hear much about them because they don't get caught very often (largely due, IMO, to racial profiling, but that's a rabbit trail I'd rather not go down here). Don't get me wrong there are exceptions to every rule... but exceptions are a small % of the people. Exactly right. And you seem to be mistaking the exception for the norm. There will be some people who do nothing but waste their lives smoking pot, just as there are some people who waste their lives drinking alcohol, or watching TV, or working nonstop. What you want is for Marijuana to become legal under the same classification. This is much different than changing Marijuana's classification. I can't comment on this because it doesn't make any sense. Were you high when you wrote it? Hence if you actually read my whole post instead of getting ADD from your POT and falling asleep you would have noticed the beginning part of the line you quoted:
"While I personally think Marijuana should be legalized with the same types of restrictions as alcohol" Due to the failure of text to indicate tone, I'm not sure what the spirit of the above quote was, especially due to the mixed content of your post. If you were poking fun at pot smokers, then it was kind of funny. If you intended to be insulting, then it's just kind of sad. I hope for the former. I am wondering though, since you seem to really dislike the drug and its purported effects on people in your city, why exactly you want it to be legalized? But that's okay... All illegal drug users can't do no wrong.. thats why they break into peoples houses and are the vast majority of criminals. That is why I own a handgun and can legally pack it around with me so I can shoot "Morons" like you when I "Fear for my life" due to you being high. Come now. Breaking into people's houses is the domain of meth heads and maybe crackheads. I have never, ever heard of a stoned guy doing anything like that. I've heard of criminals (thieves, gang members, etc.) who happen to use marijuana doing such things while sober or on a different drug. Believing that all or even most or even many pot smokers act this way is like believing the same thing of hip-hop fans or Pepsi drinkers.
As for them being the "vast majority of criminals," you're not far off the mark there. The catch is that they are criminals solely because of the drug laws - these are nonviolent offenders, guilty of nothing more than being in possession of a substance that can't harm anybody unless they ingest it. And here we are, with more than 1% of our population behind bars (about 1.5 million people), overcrowded, expensive prisons, and no signs of slowing.
Hell no, I won't vote for someone who supports that. I'm not a single-issue voter, but I dislike most of the republicrats' other policies as well. That leaves me the option of voting for a 3rd-party loser or a write in in order for my vote to be at all meaningful, so that's exactly what I am going to do.
Your brain is not a computer.
My tin foil hat has been telling me that this is actually why there is such a push for "every one to vote". When people have no idea who the candidates are, they will randomly pick from the names they have heard of. This will result in pretty much a wash for the two primary candidates, but will push the required number of votes up to make things more difficult for third party candidates. So, they are convincing the ignorant masses that they are doing something good, and helping democracy, when all they are really doing is acting as a spoiler for third party candidates.
This is why I try to convince people that don't have an opinion, or who are thinking of not voting out of protest, to vote third party. It doesn't matter who they are because they won't win anyway. BUT, if enough of the people who don't like either candidate where to vote 3rd party to even show up on the radar, whoever wins will behave in their interest.
Consider this. If you were running for president, would you try to woo the people that you knew would vote for you no matter what you do, or would you try to woo the people that are not mindlessly voting the party line, who also happen to be showing disdain for your primary opponent?
LOL, the scale has been pulled so far to the right we're calling politicians "liberal" when they are not even close from a historical or global perspective. If this trend continues, your "conservative" politician today will be a "liberal" by future standards. Life needs balance. Ying and Yang. With too much on either side it becomes a recipe for disaster.
Supreme Court Justice John Stevens is considered one of the more "liberal" justices today. But when he was appointed, he was considered a "conservative" member back then.
It's even worse than that -- don't forget GHW Bush was vice president for Reagan from 1980-88. Unless you're over 35, chances are you can't remember a country that didn't have a Bush or Clinton in the White House. And I agree, all other things being equal, I'll always vote against a political dynasty. Considering the next president could be in office for 8 years, Hillary would have to make an amazing argument for why only people considering early retirement should remember a non-bush/clinton America by the time she leaves office.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Wow, if that's the best dirt anyone has on Obama, he's cleaner than I thought!
:(
But I can't believe someone buys into that. Oh no! He can't find a magazine article that influenced him 20 years ago! What HORROR are we voting for!? He's trying to TRICK US! About ancient _MAGAZINE ARTICLES_! The EVIL DEMAGOGUE must be stopped! Won't someone PLEASE think of the MAGAZINE ARTICLES!?
Oh crap. I just hope there aren't any sarcasm terrorists to go with the cynical ones
How can you claim that someone who spoke out against the war when it was immensely popular (and when they were in the middle of a tough senate race) has no backbone? Someone who spent years as a community organizer, keeping at it when it wasn't easy and a cushy job as a lawyer was available for the taking?
If you think Obama doesn't love his country, I suggest you read The Audacity of Hope. Certainly, he isn't guilty of blind patriotism -- but intentional blindness of any kind is a flaw, not a qualification. The partial quote "My country, right or wrong" is woefully incomplete; its ending is this: "If wrong, to be set right; and if right, to be kept right".
A person wearing blinders such that they can't see when their country is doing wrong is in no place to set it right, and is no kind of patriot compared to the person who sees their country's faults and does what they can to set it right.
Unless the government controls all hospitals and doctors as government run facilities and employees, it can't properly assess and control costs. You now have stress between businesses trying to take advantage of government money and government trying to force business-end regulations down businesses' throats.
Most things (sociological cultures, individual businesses, the economy at large) act like bioforms: they self-manage to an optimal state via evolution and adaptation, and you shouldn't fuck with them. Any irritation is disease or predation, and as in any biological system can create balance but cannot force optimal development via over-application.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
1. It has been proven over and over again that reduced tax rates equal greater tax revenue. Less shackles equals more work.
2. Most of what McCain wants to do is keep the current tax rates the same.
3. Think progress is not an independent website.
"UNGH DECISION TOO HARD, USE IRRELEVANT FACTORS TO ADD WEIGHT RATHER THAN DOING MORE RESEARCH!"
Support my political activism on Patreon.
(To be fair, I did start listening to him again when he stood against his party on torture -- but you don't hear him talking too much about that lately, do you?)
I'm embarrassed to say I voted for McCain in 2000. Fool me once and all that.
McCain is good on two things: that the government spends too much money and that it shouldn't torture. However, he's the biggest socialist in the race, with plans to enslave all high school graduates for a period of one year in service of the government (. He's also against the first amendment, and has stated that he'd rather have a 'clean government' than the first amendment. Rah!, rah!, um, no, that's f-ing, Red China, not the USA.
Obama is only slightly to the right of McCain, hoping to engage in mass redistribution of wealth under threat of violence (paramilitary raids, imprisonment, possible death) for citizens who fair to offer up their dictated share of their personal property to the government and its 'mandatory charity' programs.
Who would have guessed a year ago that Hillary "Goldwater Girl" Clinton would be the rightmost candidate in '08?
None of the major candidates considers "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" a noble goal for a government. At least I can write in Ron Paul, but the odds are strong we'll have a real Socialist at the helm in 2009, which is astonishing. And deeply saddening to those who thought we might be able to undo some of Bush's policies in this go-around.
But to get back on topic, if anybody thinks the tech/internet sector has thrived based on government regulation, boy, there's gonna be some serious thriving ringing in the next decade.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Ah - No.
Most industrialized countries run a system more efficient that what we have here, and there are a number of different ways to do so.
There is a quite useful Frontline that went over the benefits and trade-offs of several countries - Japan, UK, Taiwan, Switzerland, and Germany.
All of them had lower total healthcare costs, all of them took different approaches, and different trade-offs (and Frontline went into the deficiences of each system as well).
But yes, it turns out that systems that save you money, turn out to be easy to pay for - a strange financial that I've noticed often seems counter-intuitive to libertarians and conservatives, although I concede to having never entirely understood why.
I would suggest doing some research. You look like a putz when you make statements that something is inconceivable and stupid when people can point to obvious examples.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
The "thriving free market" of insurance co's is raping us. Much like the "thriving free market" of multiple private highways, police departments, fire departments, armies etc. was also raping us, before we centralized them within state, local and fed governments. History itself contradicts the notion of free markets = always automatically awesome. That's because it's simply wrong, even if it's comfortable.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
And what the heck does it mean, anyway, to be the "most liberal?" Can you point out a conservative, so I can have a basis for comparison?
I want to: stop torturing, restore habeus corpus, get us out of Iraq, balance the budget, invest in alternative fuels, and invest some in our own infastructure. If advocating those things makes you "liberal" then sign me up for Obama. He isn't nearly liberal enough.
When "conservative" means torture, gutting habeus corpus, endless war, warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons, the largest deficit in US history, censoring scientific findings to meet political agendas, etc, then you guys don't have much to sell anymore.