Slashdot Mirror
McCain Asks Supporters To Campaign On Blogs
Vote McCain in 2000! writes "McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be. McCain is now asking supporters to stump for him on blogs. Republican Web 2.0 consultant David All was effluent with praise for this outreach, calling it 'smart' and 'unique.' McCain's blogger outreach section has a handy list of political blogs which might be interested in hearing about McCain, such as the DailyKos, Crooks and Liars, and Think Progress. You can even report your posts to the campaign and 'receive points for your success,' though the page doesn't say what exactly the points are good for." Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why.
Because /. is neither primarily political, nor a blog, while the mentioned sites are both? Because there aren't a lot of disgruntled Hillary supporters here?
C'mon, Taco, you have lived through the careers of Lee Atwater, James Carville, Bill Clinton, and Karl Rove. Have you learned nothing about political strategy from the best in the business?
Does anyone really believe that he came up with the idea himself?
to have bloggers write about you. It just happens. It's like trying to be cool. You either are, or you aren't. No amount of effort can change the fact your a nerd (or in this case, not a nerd).
He'll just end up coming across as creepy and forceful.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
The question is, how did this change occur? Did they put something in his tea?
Joking aside I'd really like to know how this dramatic change came about.
I can certainly help him blog and get his name out there and what he stands for:
John McCain is a 'miserable failure', much like George W Bush. (Google take note, please) McCain wants to continue tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations at a time of huge national debt and rising unemployment. He wants to continue giving $2 billion/week to Iraq instead of spending that money in the US to fix infrastructure or develop mass transit to reduce use of fossil fuel. He supports torture of terror suspects. He does NOT support a new GI bill to give money for college education to veterans. He stated that he wants terrorists to see him as "their worst nightmare" (stated in an interview on the Daily Show).
I'm happy to help him get his name out there. The more people understand what he's now running for (instead of 8 years ago), the better.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
No, he SAYS he's against torture. But when the rubber hits the road, he quietly backs down and votes against any restrictions on it. Remember the ban on waterboarding the Senate passed earlier this year? Well, guess who voted against it?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Then why, oh why, did he back down to the will of the Executive Branch, compromise his morals and integrity, and allow for "exceptions" to the definition of what torture is? It's all well and good to say you're against torture, but when you've redefined what the word "torture" means to specifically not include things that actually are torture, your credibility has left the building. I liked McCain until he agreed to compromise on the torture issue instead of holding to his guns and saying, "No, that's wrong, we're the USA for crying out loud and we will NOT do that."
I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Aren't you glad that the faker in 2000 who's got a new scam in 2008 didn't get all the power in 2000 that Bush got, and then showed everyone he's a fake in 2000, just like Bush did? OK, maybe you're not glad that Bush got those powers, but aren't you glad that McCain didn't lie his way into them the same way?
Does anyone think it's just a coincidence that both McCain and Bush have become wastefully spending warmongers, now that the 2000 election is over? Maybe you should think about how they're just spokesmodel puppets for a Republican Party that cannot be stopped from wasting American lives and money destroying our government that interferes with corporate rule.
--
make install -not war
You can't be "against torture" and be okay with it as long as it's the CIA doing it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So if they're issuing points for trolling lefty forums and keeping score, what score is necessary to earn an appointment to some position in some agency where I'm completely incompetent, yet responsible for nothing; I enjoy a very impressive title and $230,000 a year in salary as well as the best pension and benefits befitting the last remaining superpower nation?
Or is that on a different scale, like gold stars?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Experience - Obama's lack of experience is a PLUS. Look at what experience has gotten us the past 7 years. We need someone who KNOWS they can't do it on their own. The president's job is to listen to his advisers and those around him, and based on the information given make a decision...his job is NOT to decide things for himself because he thinks he knows best.
Corruption - in the grand scheme of things, the parts of Obama's past that could be considered corruption are no where even close to being on the same level as McCain (or, not that it matters at this point, Clinton.)
Crony Earmarks - This one I agree with you on.
Dishonest Politicking - You're kidding, right? You are trying to say that Obama is more inflammatory in his remarks than McCain? Have you ever watched side-by-side a comparison of how Obama talks about McCain and how McCain talks about Obama?
Living With a Nerd
Thank you. This whole experience argument has always seemed like FUD to me. GWB had "Executive Experience" -- how well did he work out again? Lincoln went from a single house term, to private practice to being one of the top three Presidents ever (according to most historical rankings).
I'd rather have a President that is willing to listen to all points of view (including the opposition) and make an informed decision then someone with "experience" who surrounds himself with yes men and lives in such a bubble that he didn't even realize that gasoline was approaching $4/gal.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
While the whole NASA thing with Obama pisses me off at the moment, I have to say that I agree with him.
NASA is VITAL in furthering our technology and advancing our knowledge. But what good is that technology and knowledge if we can't even keep our roads in working order or keep books in our schools?
NASA is extremely important...but if delaying a few programs that NASA has planned means we can pay teachers more and put money into infrastructure...given where our country is at the moment, I would say that is a smart thing to do.
I don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Living With a Nerd
And? So we should torture to?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How is 'rights for entrepreneurs' not 'redistribution of wealth?' I mean, if they are getting special rights the rest of us aren't, isn't that a form of redistribution of wealth?
Just pointing out, 'redistribution of wealth' is something both sides do. One side believes in distributing it to the poor, the other side to the rich. Ever heard of trickle down economics? Redistribution of wealth.
As for land, well, if 'disposing of it as one sees fit' means 'polluting the fuck out of it' or 'not paying taxes on it' then I can't support that. If it means that, barring reasonable special cases where your actions impact others, you can do what you like with your land, well, we already have that. It's hardly a rallying cry.
People can and do put up Christmas trees in public squares all the time. Where do you live that they don't allow that? Even San Francisco has Christmas trees.
Sorry if I'm sounding like a dick here, (yeah, yeah, it's my MO) because I agree with your sentiment, it's the specifics that gave me a bit of a pause.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires." - Lazarus Long, via Robert A. Heinlein
Bark less. Wag more.
I don't have an issue with $4 gas because supply isn't a problem...OPEC themselves said so yesterday.
I have a problem with $4 gass because Gas prices were fine even with all the strife going on in the middle east. Suddenly, an administration takes control whose top members have ALL worked with oil companies. Cheney has over $30 million of bonus money sitting in his pocket when he left Haliburton, yet is making our energy policy?
Republicans blocked an increase on taxes to oil companies profits, and ALSO blocked a TAX BREAK for companies investing in alternative energy?
I want Obama in the White House because he has no connection to this bullshit. That's why. His lack of experience also means a lack of connections.
Not to mention that Bush's administration is gone in months, and magically gas prices have increased nearly 90% in the last TWO YEARS? Yeah. That's not a coincidence at all.
Living With a Nerd
Considering throughout the primary season Obama survived attacks from both McCain AND the Clintons (who, if you forgot, were esentially the leaders of the Democratic party for over a decade) I would say he can handle it.
Not to mention that he was more or less unknown to most people until this year. Hell, I had never even HEARD of him until late 2007...while I wouldn't say I'm politics obsessed, I do tend to keep up with things on a daily basis.
Living With a Nerd
Like Wisconsin, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Connecticut, North Dakota, Kansas, Colorado....
Also quite useful would be McCain creating gridlock against a majority Democrat Congress. That is part of why we enjoyed a budget surplus during Clinton's lame duck second term - gridlock keeping spending down. I like him better than pandering Romney or foot-mouth speaker Huckabee. Although I think McCain will end up picking Romney as his VP to secure the hard-conservatives who dislike McCain as a moderate conservative. Who do you think will be the Repub VP pick?
There's already a word for faked grassroots movement: astroturfing. You know, after the brand of fake turf.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Which, to my mind, is what one has to do to get elected. This isn't McCain's fault, it's the fault of a shallow, lazy electorate that here's the word "issues" and flips the channel to watch Survivor.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think it's more of how you voice your opinion. I can't really explain it without giving examples.
Saying something like "Obama is terrible for this country and should not be running for president. He doesn't have any good policies and he sucks." is bad.
If you post with elegance then usually you are received a lot more intelligently.
"Barack Obama has been working hard on his campaign but I just simply can't find a lot of things I agree with. It's strange but a lot of his plans and policies seem to not be backed by previous experiences or history. I will be paying attention to his campaign as I long to see him reach some qualified examples but until then I will probably be more on the McCain side. Good luck to both"
Thus I'm basically saying I don't like anything about him but changed up my tone and made it a smooth read instead of brash with lots of absolutes.
http://www.mhall119.com
Not really. The reason you have low-quality teachers is you can't offer salaries that would attract good teachers.
Instead of phrasing it "pay teachers more", you should think "enable schools to hire better teachers who command higher salaries".
Of course, a lot of other things would have to change, too. Public school is full of political bullshit where if you don't follow asinine rules as a teacher, they fire you. I know a handful of excellent teachers who were willing to work for the low pay because they enjoyed teaching that were either crushed or fired. Now they do something else that pays more and won't return to education.
Which, to my mind, is what one has to do to get elected. This isn't McCain's fault, it's the fault of a shallow, lazy electorate that here's the word "issues" and flips the channel to watch Survivor. I was right up there with you until he voted against that torture bill. He was hardline against even our perceived use of torture up until then. If the guy's willing to change his mind on that in the name of politics, I can't trust him.
[insert witty quote here]
This post is misleading and, I suspect, factually incorrect.
/. crowd.
Barack Obama explicitly supports Net Neutrality ("I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to Network Neutrality"), media decentralization, and universal broadband access. He supports universal file/data formats ("we will put government data online in universally accessible formats"); and he understands the inherent risks to privacy created by our new technology ("Dramatic increases in computing power, decreases in storage costs and huge flows of information that characterize the digital age bring enormous benefits, but also create risk of abuse."). And if Obama advocates reducing the NASA budget (and I have no specific information about this, it would be nice if tjstork would provide a reference), such defunding would be a re-prioritization of spending only, as he "supports doubling federal funding for basic [scientific] research."
Furthermore, Barack Obama's policy regarding technology reflects a thorough and deep understanding of the underlying issues pertinent to technology and information. John McCain will never have any personal involvement in creating a technology policy promulgated by his administration; instead he will rely on his staff, who will inevitably rely on lobbyists. The fact is that John McCain knows very very little about these issues, and that he has also shown consistently that he has no problem giving industry lobbyists free reign in his campaign. Barack Obama understands technology, and won't compromise on the central issues.
Barack Obama's technology policy is located here on barackobama.com.
Another relevant link is a talk Obama gave at Googe, where he touches on many of these issues, here.
Finally, to conclude from the fact that Barack Obama has accepted money from the most consistently-Democratic industrial block in the US that he will necessarily back its most outrageous demands is logically spurious. tjstork writes that "he is a strong proponent of doing everything with IP that many slashdotters would virulently oppose." I do not have any information supporting such a claim, and I would ask tjstork to provide a reference. The fact is that slashdotters are very willing to balance the interests of IP "owners" against the interests of the general public and the interests of innovation. As long as Obama recognizes that there is a balance to be struck, and is willing to *act* knowing that things are currently out of balance, I am happy to support his positions on IP. If there is anything that Barack Obama is about, it is about creating a fair and informed balance between competing interests.
It seems to me that Barack Obama is almost, if not quite, the ideal candidate for the
I would disagree. The 16% who think Obama's a Muslim aren't some independent voting block who will be swayed from voting for him by the idea. They're die hard Repubs, who will vote Repub no matter what.
A better example of disinformation was the constant linking of Iraq to 9/11. 64% of Americans still believe (as of 2005) that Iraq had strong ties to Al Quaeda. It's shocking that anyone who can read could believe that Muslim extremists devoted to building a world based on fundamentalist Islam would have strong ties to a primarily secular dictator who happily executed fundamentalists, but there it is.
But their opinions differ from mine, and I'm the one with mod points.
That's as bad as not knowing how to use a telephone! That should say something about his attitude towards technology in general! The guy is literally COMPUTER-ILLITERATE! Just let that sink in. He is either too inept or too old to be doing anything as important as running a country, take your pick. A computer-illiterate person should not run a country in the year 2008! Hell, what jobs can you get nowadays without even some basic computer skills!?
That's my opinion, it's not a flame, it's just a very serious well-deserved dissing. Donate karma to this post, the neocon squad's on the way.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's impossible for it to be worse than Bush, and Obama and the Democrats will have plenty of material evidence of how incompetent and corrupt this administration has been to still be able to drag out examples in an election 4 years from now. While I'm sure there will be some examples of Democratic malfeasance as well by then, the So-Called Liberal Media will be hard pressed to make it seem comparable.
Even Carter, for all his faults, managed to get Israel, Jordan, and Egypt to sit at the same table and sign a peace treaty. I honestly can't think of *one* thing on that scale that Bush and Co. has managed not to fuck up. Obama's biggest problem will be rooting out all the incompetent/fundamentalist patronage/nepotist Republican appointments that have happened in the last 8 years, since they'll all be trying to sabotage him. Kind of like the way Reagan sabotaged Carter's attempts to negotiate the freedom of the Iran US embassy hostages (a taste of Iran-Contra shenanigans to come).
I think the difference is that Obama is a lot more politically savvy than Carter. While he downplays the racism that his candidacy has stirred up, I think he does it because he knows it's politically necessary, not because he underestimates it. Given his and his wife's upbringing, he can't be unaware that there will be people trying to sabotage him. That said, he is going to have to deal with the economic disaster caused by 8 years of Republican fiscal and governance incompetence, and the country isn't going to be happy about some of the medicine pills he's going to have to make them swallow. Whether he'll be able to sell to the USA that it's the Republican incompetence that made him do it is another question.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire