Slashdot Mirror


McCain Releases Technology Platform

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "John McCain has finally released a technology platform. Most of it is the same old stuff; lower corporate taxes, protect children from porn, and avoid Internet regulation unless 'necessary.' Alas, in his view, helping the RIAA's War on Sharing is necessary to stop the 'global epidemic' of piracy, while Net Neutrality is something he 'does not believe in.' Ars Technica has a review of McCain's platform." A brief analysis is also available from Federal Computer Week. In addition to the technology policy, McCain has also released a paper describing his stance on security and privacy. We've previously contrasted his views with those of Barack Obama. Obama's technology policies are also available online.

479 comments

  1. RE: McCain Releases Technology Platform by thomasdz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh great. Yet another Linux distribution that www.distrowatch.org is going to have to track. "McCain-ix"
    Probably needs 1GB just to load. I'll stick with Obama-mama-ix thanks.

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
  2. Worthless ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sounds to me like McCain's "platform" is centered around trying save a sinking ship. That's too bad. He's lost my vote on that issue alone.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you are basing your vote solely on technological issues in a presidential election, you really need to get out more. There are much more important issues that the President should be considered about (economy, jobs, defense, etc).

    2. Re:Worthless ... by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And McCain is a big loser on all those fronts also. The economy is not his bag, man. Said so himself. Be ready to bail out another Lincoln Savings and Loan or three. And He's a warmonger. Not that the other guy is actually any better. Time to vote the party out.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Worthless ... by dangitman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You post on slashdot... That means you have a greater that 80% chance of thinking Obama isn't liberal enough, never mine McCain!

      Uhhh, please explain. Slashdot is generally pretty right-libertarian leaning. Hardly 80% strongly liberal.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Worthless ... by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      My Black and Latino friends told me that if Obama doesn't win they gonna start to ride White Trash trailer parks and White Rich neighborhoods, shooting at will with their Kalashnikovs.

      1) The Democrats selected Senator Obama as their candidate, so you're completely off base attacking the Republican party.

      2) You have friends that would engage in a race war? Man, that says a lot about you. The fact that you haven't brought this to the attention of the police shows you're a coward and an accomplice.

      Now, go back to you bridge. :)

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    5. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and any responsible leader would employ people who understand the technology they are about to regulate. McCain is another one of those who fall awe struck to bar codes..... He needs to be in a retirement home, not the Whitehouse.

    6. Re:Worthless ... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe I'm just reading different posts than you are but I can't recall the last time I saw a post supporting a conservative view point that didn't get flamed.

      I'm a registered Republican, so maybe I'm just focusing on the posts I agree with that get tarred and feathered, and the ones I strongly disagree with that keep getting modded +5 insightful.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    7. Re:Worthless ... by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's worth remembering that technology is a huge factor in the US economy, jobs, defence, (privacy/spying, civil rights, scientific progress...) etc. - so the topic is quite important.

    8. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll reply to this as an AC rather than moderating you then. The average political post seems to center around a few things...

      1. Protection of the little guy - stop allowing big corporations to use the law/lobbying to create an unfair environment. See DRM, Patent trolls, subsidies given without stipulation and no-bid contracts. Most think it's ridiculous you can patent a seed to which you found in a government vault, which they obtained from the wild. You can.

      Enforcing a free market is a conservative value.

      2. Government staying out of our personal lives. This would fall under the small government category/give us personal freedoms. These are views in keeping with the constitution/bill of rights. I'd say that the constitution has a Libertarian feel to it. This isn't the viewpoint of the Republican party, so you have us there.

      3. Most of us don't seem to be for most welfare in it's current state, view SS and medicade as a fiscal disaster in need of much revamping, etc. Conservative/Libertarian.

      I think in general we're all for a competent government, whatever form that may be, so long as it will stay competent/for the people. As a Republican you do realize that in the past 20 years, your party has changed drastically. Government debt goes up the most during your terms, often setting new records. Not fiscally conservative.

      In terms of the past 8 years, we're tired of the government being very competent at taking away the rights we're guaranteed to have in that "goddamned piece of paper". We're tired of how competent they are at lying, but incompetent they are at leading. They're experts at returning favors for those who gave them money or ran their political party, but they fail horribly of their ONLY responsibility, which is to uphold and defend that piece of paper. They spit on the hundreds of thousands who have died to defend this country and its ideals and the people who have given them the power in the first place.

      Maybe that's why we appear liberal. We cannot stand the current adminstration, and if your quote is any indication, you are a traditional republican. I suggest you check out the Libertarian party's main points, http://www.lp.org/platform, as they are more in line with traditional Republican viewpoints. The one main area you might disagree on is the US's role in the world.

    9. Re:Worthless ... by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He needs to be in a retirement home, not the Whitehouse

      Yes, we're much better off with a president who thinks we should have the UN Security Council issue Very Stern Words towards Russia over their actions in Georgia... you know, a president who doesn't understand that Russia has a veto-enabled seat there, and can simply shut such things down. It's that sort of clueless grasp on foreign relations and international issues that makes an inexperienced smoke-blower like Obama a non-starter. Compare their initial reactions to that turn of events. McCain spoke his mind immediately, and has not changed it. Obama started out with a "why can't we all just get along - they need to show restraint" comment, and complained that McCain was "shooting from the hip" and being too aggressive in criticizing Russia. A day later? Obama had "refined" his position to echo exactly what McCain (who actually understands what's going on and who the players are) had already articulated.

      Doesn't matter, right? Change! All we need is Change! Doesn't matter from what, or to what, of course. Just CHANGE! Change we can "believe in!" What a bunch of vague, useless, pandering crap. When forced to actually talk detailed substance, Obama has to give in face real issues realistically, and it annoys his leftist supporters who like him most when he's a blank slate that they think will do what they tell him to. If he actually gets the job, they're in for a real shock, because even though he's going to fall on is face learning as he goes, by the time he actually gets around to doing the job of C-in-C, he's going to have to do a lot of back pedaling on his vaporous campaign semi-promises.

      Being old enough to know how things work and what's actually at stake is bad as far as you're concerned? I'm sure you'd rather the office of president was available to college freshmen.

      the technology they are about to regulate

      Do you actually even understand what Congress does, and which party is running it? Maybe if you weren't so old, your mind would be clearer.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Worthless ... by Jorophose · · Score: 1

      No, he's not a big loser on every front.

      A lot of his positions are reasonable and are the best paths. However this is the last straw, imho, because the rest of his stances could be adopted by Obama. Namely listening to the generals in Iraq before withdrawing so quick, to see how many to remove and when to start the withdrawl. Of course that's within the few-months-of-being-elected window, not years.

      Mission will never be complete. "They"'ve already won with Europe cultural and the US's mind as their battlefield. As much as we hate to deny it this isn't even war, it was a fucking massacre in all the wrong ways.

    11. Re:Worthless ... by Das+Modell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slashdot is generally pretty right-libertarian leaning. Hardly 80% strongly liberal.

      I want to have whatever it is that you're smoking/injecting/snorting. If you say anything on Slashdot that does not strictly adhere to liberal-leftist religious dogma, you get modded down. Simple as that.

    12. Re:Worthless ... by smidget2k4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right, we need a President who is very concerned about the Iraq/Pakistan border. I'd also like him confuse Sudan and Somalia, after all, they are like the same thing, right?

      McCain, at one point, may have known his stuff. But he has lost it. There is already a very long list of these gaffes. Is this the kind of face you want America to have?

    13. Re:Worthless ... by fugue · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why is it not OK for a presidential candidate to admit that he doesn't know something? I'm sick to death of people who think they have to pretend to know everything all the time.

      Not that McCain is worth the electrons I just encoded his name with, but in my book he scored one point for being aware of his ignorance. Seems a nice change from Republican policy. And Democratic policy, for that matter, although they are on average approximately 23% less ignorant than Republicans...

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    14. Re:Worthless ... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I think you need to separate economic and social issues.

      From what I read, most /.ers are socially liberal for most stuff (free speech, right to protest, internet censorship etc) but not everything (there are always big arguments over gun control), but economic position seems much more dependent on nationality (c.f. the shit-flinging matches after the EU regulates/interferes with a company).

    15. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    16. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe that Georgia attacked South Ossetia first and the US did not decry that action. South Ossetia allegedly voted to seperate from Georgia. If the vote was in question then Georgia should be taking that up with the UN. My understanding is South Ossetians don't consider themselves Georgian at all and want nothing to do with Georgia. By the way, Stalin's father was Ossetian so they have stronger ties to Russia by far. Georgia is backed by Western arms and money and that makes it seem that the West is warring with Russia by proxy through Georgia. I'm not saying we are but that's a perception you have to contend with. Here check out this timeline and think it over this is not as one sided as anyone would have us believe. http://jotman.blogspot.com/2008/08/timeline-of-conflict-between-georgia.html

      Ask yourself this, if California voted to seperate from the US how do you think your government should respond? How do you think the rest of the world should respond? Now what about Quebec? What about Tibet? We keep saying we want democracy but it has a consequence and do you respect the democratic will of a group of people when they say "We don't want to be part of you."

      Really think about it.

    17. Re:Worthless ... by Wildclaw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is a huge presence of people on slashdot who value personal freedom and expression. These range mostly from economical libertarians to free thinking liberals.

      Slashdot libertarians will often find a very nice support when it comes to issues of personal freedom but will be surprised when they don't get the same support on their economical ideas.

      Democrats can do fine as long as they stay away from authoritarian baby sitting. Sure, libertarians will call any income redistribution authoritarian, but you can't please everyone.

      Republicans can do ok, as long as they actually strive for a smaller goverment and don't promote war and other actions that are seen as authoritarian.

      You can probably even get modded up promoting far left economics as long as you actually talk intelligently, like including suggestions on how to exploit the best part of the free market (scarce resource distribution efficency). However, if you want to promote authoritarian ruling you will get modded down pretty quickly. Which is why neither communism nor facism is popular here as both have come to symbolise authoritarian rule.

    18. Re:Worthless ... by kaiser423 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because he knows so little that he hired Carly Fiorna as one of his chief economic advisers? Does not bode well...

      Doesn't need to be an expert on everything, but it would help if he could actually identify proper experts to hire.

    19. Re:Worthless ... by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is this the kind of face you want America to have?

      Actually, I want that "face" to be driven by actual principles. Obama avoids showing his at all costs, and when they do show, they're contradictory, or imply a very shaky house-of-cards case of mixed premises. Whatever intellectual horsepower or rhetorical elegance he posesses is being applied to and is in the service of a very patch-work, self-defeating, confused set of principles. THAT is not the face I want America to have. He doesn't know himself, and is very careful to hide how he actually feels about a lot of things, because he knows that he has to tap-dance around issues like his crazy, race-baiting friend the preacher and what tolerating/encouraging him for 20 years (including his children's formative years, listening to him blather every week) says about his world view.

      Are you really looking for a gotcha contest on mispoken names or recollections? Is that how you'll evaluate the deliberative decision-making perspective that a person brings to being the C-in-C? We're not hiring a spokesmodel (though that seems to be what a lot of people think the job is about - how embarassing). People don't need an inspirational president, they need a competent one who actually knows who he is and what he stands for. Leave it to the lefties to imply that it's the government's job to be the source of inspiration and cultural guidance lacking in homes that use their Wii and the Cartoon Network to raise their children. No, I'd rather leave the cultural polishing to the people IN the culture, and have them hire someone as president because he's been around the block enough to do the job right.

      Someone like Obama, who claims to be "post partisan" while in the same breath saying that his political counterparts are idealogically unseparable from "failed ideas" is just plain funny. He's far MORE partisan than his opponent, and utterly slavish to a very loud, far left minority. Is THAT the face you want for America? A poll-following pretty boy who hates to be asked what he really thinks lest he have to actually get pinned down on specifics? No thanks.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    20. Re:Worthless ... by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ask yourself this, if California voted to seperate from the US how do you think your government should respond?

      You seem to be something of a student of history. How is it that you missed what happened when separtists in numerous states in the US tried seceding? Why ask about just a hypothetical California case when you can look up what actually happened last time that issue really came up? Essentially, the US did exactly what Georgia just did... they went after the violent sepratists to put them out of business. We had a years-long civil war over just that issue, and the separists that tried to pry the country apart lost in their efforts.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    21. Re:Worthless ... by KGIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have been having this discussion with people older and wiser than I IRL for a while now.

      When I was younger I was able to vote FOR something or FOR someone, that seems to have gone away but it is likely that my blinders have been removed.

      I'd vote Libertarian or Green Party but, well, those people are often pretty insane. I'd vote Democratic because that was better, I thought, that Republican. In the last election I actually voted (not presidential) for Olympia Snowe because of what she has done and what she continues to do to work for the State of Maine.

      Here we are with a new election and I'm not seeing anyone worth voting for. I could, and would, vote for a third party but that is akin to throwing my vote away in the current environment. That's an unfortunate reality but it is real regardless.

      I would abstain but that, to me, is tantamount to treasonous behavior. It is my duty to vote, it is my job, it is a requirement for me personally. As a side note, it pisses me off when I hear people complain about the current government and they tell me that they didn't vote.

      We have had some decent percentages for turn out lately and it would be nice if there were more. The Australian's have to vote or they risk varied penalties I understand. Our situation isn't quite like that but I think it would be good if it were to mimic that. I think, and this is just a guess, that if more people were actually voting (and a broader exposure was a given) that we might actually be able to come up with a third party system where we would get results. Maybe...

      A lot of it is just getting to the point where I'm disheartened. It makes me unhappy that I'm ashamed because of my choice in the next election. I shouldn't be ashamed but this election is a case of me voting for the least likely to ruin my country. For me, because I don't want more regulations and I don't think I need a nanny state, I'm likely to vote Republican because I suspect McCain will be busy with "more important things" and not doing stuff like regulating fatty foods or kowtowing to PeTA.

      That I have to be ashamed of my vote, that I have to hold my nose and vote, that I have to vote against something - which is not the same as voting for something, is bothersome to me.

      When I was younger I was voting for something and, perhaps I'm just seeing more now - age does that they tell me, this time I'm unable to actually do that. I don't like McCain, I don't want him to be president. I sure as hell don't want the alternative.

      Sometimes I wonder if it has reached the point where I need to move and I actually research it but I can't find anything better so I haven't.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    22. Re:Worthless ... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Well, I would say that voting for the Party is throwing your vote away. You should always vote for what you believe in and let the chips fall where they may. We will see no change until that becomes the general attitude. I can tell you this, a vote for McCain or Obama is a vote for Nixon. We have been ruled by his sensibilities for the last 40 years. And furthermore, not voting is not treason.

      --
      What?
    23. Re:Worthless ... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Media-annointed, inexperienced rock star Obama is better? Or is he just different, not Republican and therefore deserves the job?

    24. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Is this the kind of face you want America to continue to have?"

      There, fixed that for you.

    25. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for McCain.

    26. Re:Worthless ... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Someone (foreign) said to me "the problem with British elections is you don't vote for someone, you vote to get rid of the old person", and he's quite correct. The system has broad similarities with the American system -- there aren't many choices (three main parties, but two of them are bigger than the third), politicians policies drift together in their attempt to appeal to the maximum number of voters, and the system feel like "winner takes all". Only the smaller parties have ideologies, but most people perceive them as too radical, so they get hardly any votes (plus, the votes are essentially wasted).

      I'd like to be able to vote for one of the small parties in the next election, but I'll probably be voting for one of the main three, to make sure they beat one of the other main three. People in the UK complain that proportional representation and the resulting coalition governments of the rest of Europe are slow and inefficient, but even if that's true it's a huge improvement on unrepresentative and quick to push through reforms.

    27. Re:Worthless ... by cduffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whatever intellectual horsepower or rhetorical elegance he posesses is being applied to and is in the service of a very patch-work, self-defeating, confused set of principles.

      Try "nuanced"; read his second book for a better understanding -- not only of the principals in question, but of the importance of considering multiple points of view (as opposed to only a single, black-and-white view of the world based on one particular set of partisan principals) in making positions.

      Can viewing the world in shades of gray lead to a charge that one must have a (presumptively black-and-white) view which is inconsistent, constantly shifting, "patch-work" or "self-defeating"? I suppose it may... but that doesn't prevent it from being The Right Thing.

    28. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who gets to say which issue is most important?

    29. Re:Worthless ... by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole thing would go a lot faster if they'd just tell us who they were going to select as their various advisors and whether or not they were going to listen to them.

      Hopefully not too many people are deluded into thinking that the President actually makes his own decisions, rather than leaning heavily on advisors and other departments.

    30. Re:Worthless ... by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      shades of gray

      Don't you understand? Obama is completely black-and-white in his assertions that his political opponents are wrong, wrong, wrong about how they see things. His completely, unshakably clear on how wrong everyone else is. That's pretty black-and-white. Saying that one should "consider all sides" while also saying "the side on which my opponents live is wrong, and is a failure, and we must stop it" is - by definition - hypocrisy. He's "considering" other sides just long enough to 100% black-and-white dismiss them. He's NO different than his opponents in that sense, except that he's pandering to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd, who don't pay very close attention, by saying that he's post partisan and open to discussion, etc. He's trying to have it both ways, and that's the simplest demonstration of his immaturity you could ask for. He's happy to entertain multiple points of view, as long their all his, and don't upset the money-raising engine on the far left. This isn't limited to him - all candidates do it. The difference is that even as he's doing it, he's lying about his commitment to not doing it. That's what he's made of: deceit, right out of the gate, on the very thing that he claims makes him different.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    31. Re:Worthless ... by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      I can't recall the last time I saw a post supporting a conservative view point that didn't get flamed.

      5 posts before you, ScentCone (795499)

      I won't even worry about the 'not getting flamed' part, since this is the internet. Biggest collection of screaming nobodys ever invented.

      Everyone ignores posts that don't match up with their beliefs. It's a hard habit to break and you're never really cured.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    32. Re:Worthless ... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Point not found. Try again.

      The fact remains that any deviation from leftist-liberal dogma will result in lost karma on Slashdot. Also, anything that's simply politically incorrect or makes too much sense will usually get you downmodded too.

    33. Re:Worthless ... by Draek · · Score: 1

      Let me just say that, as someone who's not a US citizen, the fact that you refer to your president as "Commander in Chief" scares me. A lot.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    34. Re:Worthless ... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      The way a candidate approaches science and engineering reveals how well he understands the economy, employment and defense. Anyone who thinks something else is a silly nanny.

    35. Re:Worthless ... by will_die · · Score: 0, Troll

      AS opposed to someone who said that plastics and the ability the grow large quantities of food are among the worse things human have created???
      The thing with Obama is that he actually believes that instead of making a mistake. If you want gaffes listen to Obama some time. He is far less intelligent speaker then President Bush except when Obama is given a speech and then coached on it. There is a reason he does not give interviews and runs away whenever someone says lets have a debate; just look at his recent reasons to the problems in Georgia they have kept Obama away from the cameras out of fear of what he would say.

    36. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Iran is just in the middle of the Iraq/Pakistan border, do you know?

    37. Re:Worthless ... by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let me just say that, as someone who's not a US citizen, the fact that you refer to your president as "Commander in Chief" scares me. A lot.

      Why? That's the primary role of that position. People seem VERY confused on this subject. The president doesn't make legislation happen. The president can't tax anyone. The president is one of the three legs of the checks-and-balances system, with the congress and the courts impacting some issues far more than the president can or should.

      The president is the civilian who is in charge of executive tasks, and the defense of the country is first among those. The military and its related services/agencies are the tools of that job.

      I specifically mention the C-in-C part of the job because it's the part that Obama is least suited for. But who decides how much humanitarian aid to fly off of an aircraft carrier into Burma after a disaster? Who made the decision to land aid-payload by military cargo aircraft in Georgia the other day, at what risk of of conflict with the Russians rolling tanks around in that country? The person commanding the military. The commander-in-chief. Who will be issuing orders to withdraw troops from one spot and move them to another as needed? Who will be interacting with the Ukraine, or Poland on military matters? When the Europeans promise more military support in Afghanistan but continue to come up short of delivering, who gets to decide whether and how to make up for that shortcoming, even as girls' schools are being burned down by the Taliban? Such things fall on the president to execute. He's the chief executive, and the commander in chief of a military that includes the Coast Guard as well as the mobile forces. Obama's a concern because of his unfamiliarity (other than complaining about other people) in those areas, and his willingness to make vague policy pronouncements rooted in that ignorance.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    38. Re:Worthless ... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, let me get this straight...

      1. My initial post is modded Flamebait because I assert that most posters to Slashdot are ultra Liberal.
      2. It is pointed out to me that my impression of the general slant of Slashdot members is not accurate. (I wouldn't consider that flamebait, but that's just me)
      3. In response to this correction, I admit that my impression is probably colored by my own tendency to focus on certain topics.
      4. You vilify every person in the US who considers themselves conservative, which based on the last presidential election is roughly half of the people that bothered to get out and vote.

      ... And I am the "scumbag"?

      This sort of hostile vilification of those "different from yourself" is the cornerstone of racism/anti-semitism/etc. that lead to political coup's, ethnic cleanings, civil war's, and further intolerance (those who were previously tolerant become intolerant as a defensive measure).

      You're attaching everyone from a political party because of your dissatisfaction with the current administration. You have NO IDEA who I voted for in any election, unless of course you can read minds through the internet. You don't know whether or not I agree with any stance that the current administration has made, or whether I'm a member of the Republican party because or in spite of Bush.

      Like most people I'm conservative on some issues and liberal on others. It's not so black/white as you are making the liberal/conservative issue out to be. I joined the Republican party 10 years ago because the issues that mattered most to me were best represented by the "general" platform of the party, not the platform of any individual politician.

      I think you need to talk to a counselor about your hostility issues, maybe get a valium prescription, get laid, something because your reaction to my post was way over blown and disproportionate.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    39. Re:Worthless ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is generally pretty right-libertarian leaning.

      No it's not, it's left-libertarian. To the extent "left" and "right" make any sense anyway, which isn't a heck of a lot. I would say that Slashdot is strongly liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues, and very libertarian (which is orthogonal to the left-right axis).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    40. Re:Worthless ... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't seen it before (possibly hadn't been posted yet?), good read.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    41. Re:Worthless ... by Mjec · · Score: 1

      [a vote for a third party] is akin to throwing my vote away in the current environment.

      Preferential voting.

      Holler for it. There is no reason to not have it. Very simple to implement, very simple to understand and means that the system isn't limited to two parties.

      --
      "But everyone should know everything." -markab
    42. Re:Worthless ... by KGIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it isn't treason but to me it is treasonous - more so in my case than in most I suppose. (Military. Marines to be more accurate, thus I always vote.)

      If I voted for what I believe I'd be writing in a candidate and, well, that'd be a waste in this campaign and any other presidential election.

      I really wish there were a viable third party to vote for.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    43. Re:Worthless ... by magus_melchior · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget he had Phil Gramm, who enabled Enron's outrageous business practices through deregulation-- the same deregulation law is suspected to be a major cause of the credit/subprime crises. Notice, Gramm tried to downplay "recession" hysteria because he helped draft and promote that bill! Gramm's history as far as his position in the campaign is concerned, but his overly business-friendly policies are generally still in place.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    44. Re:Worthless ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I wish that there were a viable third and maybe even fourth and fifth party here in the United States. In my opinion it is as if they were dumpster diving to pick the two current candidates. I tried, really, to vote the "old guy" out of office last election - it didn't work and I've been saying sorry to the rest of the world since.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    45. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

      I've posted numerous things regarding my political leanings, which tend to be Libertarian. I am a staunch proponent of capitalism, nearly to the point of Ayn Rand.

      I haven't wavered on my viewpoints of beliefs in my postings. I can post a laundry list of quotes from founding fathers and conservative presidents that would meet with wide approval on /. I know this because I've done this several times, and I'm usually modded +5.

      It is possible for two opposing platforms to come together on various points. See http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/

      I doubt much of /. would find problem with Eisenhower's farewell speech http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm, a president ranked in the top 10 by conservatives. Furthermore I find it curious how neocons can ignore the words of men whom are almost universally acknowledged to be among the greatest in our nation, our founding fathers, who warn specifically against many things that the current adminstration has done. This lack of logic that current Republicans tacitly endorse that /. cannot stand.

      Finally I will yield that there is more blind agreement with certain liberal ideals, but a properly argued and worded viewpoint from anyone is most often moderated insightful or interesting, or at worst not moderated.

    46. Re:Worthless ... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Isn't that approximately like hiring Satan to be your minister of peace and harmony? Like hiring Ronald Reagan to be your head of Alzheimer's research? Like hiring Hitler to be your minister of anti-Nazi policy?

      Yikes! I mean I know you can be clueless about tech, but... jeez, Carly Fiorina? That goes way beyond clueless all the way to hopelessly inept. He might as well have George W. Bush set the policy. Heck, does he have a three-year-old grandson or granddaughter? Because even an average three-year-old would be a better choice. Heck, a monkey flinging excrement at a bunch of words taped to a wall would probably result in a better technology policy. Wait, what am I saying? A crack-addicted three-year-old monkey trained by George W. Bush would do a better job setting technology policy. There. That's more on the right order of absurdity.

      Of course, tech people (for the most part) don't vote Republican, so I guess McCain feels he has nothing to gain from a good tech policy and everything to gain from a tech policy that favors the big business folks who do vote Republican, so I'm not at all surprised. Still, I had a great deal of respect for McCain before he started running. Since then, he has rapidly de-evolved from being someone who thinks for himself and stands up for some fairly sane set of values (albeit one with economic policies that I didn't generally agree with) into just another party politic tool. Obama is quickly descending in that direction, too. At this rate, by the time all is said and done, we'll have two more choices that nobody can tell apart except on issues that don't really matter except to a few people. At that point, no matter who wins, everyone loses....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    47. Re:Worthless ... by KGIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been screaming for it for years. If the Green Party and Libertarians hadn't put up nut-jobs and didn't have such extremist views I suspect they'd do better. I'd like a decent Independent candidate to vote for. Those parties have no numbers and thus have no money and thus have no exposure. If they aren't in the pockets of big business they aren't getting any media coverage and Average Joe doesn't get to know anything about them.

      The two party system sucks and the third parties aren't really very good at getting a candidate that people will actually vote for. Sucks, really.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    48. Re:Worthless ... by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

      I'm with the GP. I agree with many more of McCain's stances than Obama's (partly because Obama seems to have few 'real' stances in general), but this is enough to make me vote Obama. The other issues aren't important to me, because I am currently very secure in my job and for the forseeable future (heck I have a friend trying to get me to move to his city, teasing me with job offers), and I make enough money to live comfortably, and I have very little problem with our military being in the middle-east.

      I think you should vote based on your current situation, not everyone else's...that's why it's your vote. You don't have the capability to evaluate what everyone in the country wants or needs, and you can't trust much of anyone else to do it for you. So if everyone votes on what they feel will help them personally, then the person who will help the most people will get elected.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    49. Re:Worthless ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Actually, I want that "face" to be driven by actual principles"

      I don't. I want it driven by someone who lets people have there own principles instead of shoving some down their throat.

      "who he is and what he stands for."
      Really? I think you know the obvious example, but I'll avoid Godwin's law.

      You want to talk about religion? religious need cons are destroying this country, we don't need someone else who is at the ball.

      Next time cite some examples so I can painstakingly show you how fucking ignorant you are, you poor excuse for a limp wristed cum stain.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    50. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    51. Re:Worthless ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod you down. That would be so damn funny.

      Your logical mistake is that you assume some how the mod system knows the political perspective of the people it allows to mod.

      The height of Irony that you are a republican with a bureaucracy quote. Republicans having created some of the biggest and worst bureaucracies of all time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    52. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      2) You have friends that would engage in a race war? Man, that says a lot about you. The fact that you haven't brought this to the attention of the police shows you're a coward and an accomplice.

      Dude, get back on your meds. Shooting Republicans in the face is about the most patriotic thing it's possible to do in this day and age.

    53. Re:Worthless ... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Let me just say that, as someone who's not a US citizen, the fact that you refer to your president as "Commander in Chief" scares me. A lot.

      Why? That's the primary role of that position. People seem VERY confused on this subject. The president doesn't make legislation happen. The president can't tax anyone. The president is one of the three legs of the checks-and-balances system, with the congress and the courts impacting some issues far more than the president can or should.

      Bush seems to be very confused on that issue as well.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    54. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's OK for other voters to choose their candidate based on their stance on abortion and homosexuality in the interests of not pissing off an imaginary man who lives in the sky, then it's perfectly acceptable for us to pick our candidate based on his stance on technology issues.

      Especially since (dun da da DUHN!) most of us WORK in technology, so it's actually something that affects us personally!

    55. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      What a bunch of vague, useless, pandering crap. When forced to actually talk detailed substance, Obama has to give in face real issues realistically, and it annoys his leftist supporters who like him most when he's a blank slate that they think will do what they tell him to.

      Whoa there you are really drinking the Republican kool-aid there. You have it COMPLETELY backwards.

      Go look at Obama's issues page. Look at McCain's. There's some striking things here:

      * In general, each of Obama's plans goes into much more detail about the *how* of things. Details are important. In contrast, McCain's issues page just says loads of high level stuff like "As president, John McCain will pursue reforms that address the underlying cultural problems in our education system - a system that still seeks to avoid genuine accountability and responsibility for producing well-educated children." with absolutely no idea how this is supposed to work. His issues page is littered with items like this. It's like they're intentionally vague so you don't see what his true position is.

      * McCain wants to install judges that will overturn Roe V Wade. Right to life is backwards witch-hunt BS.

      * McCain's education plan boils down to: home schooling a-OK, let everyone choose which school to let their kids attend (logistical nightmare).

      There's far more places where McCain's stance is unknown. Do some research for goodness sake!

    56. Re:Worthless ... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Here we are with a new election and I'm not seeing anyone worth voting for. I could, and would, vote for a third party but that is akin to throwing my vote away in the current environment. That's an unfortunate reality but it is real regardless. (...) When I was younger I was voting for something and, perhaps I'm just seeing more now - age does that they tell me, this time I'm unable to actually do that. I don't like McCain, I don't want him to be president. I sure as hell don't want the alternative.

      Short answer: Find a country with proportional representation and move there.

      Third parties in the US are so on the fringes because they're almost where democracts and republicans are the same shit in different wrapping, so vote third party rather than get behind one of the big two. It is just the nature of the "first past the post" system, nothing about the "current environment" and has been the case now for ages. In my country there are alternatives both on the left and right-hand side plus a few in the center that represent various groups, and any party above 4% gets seats in the parliament. What it in practise means is that there are alternatives that aren't so far away politically.

      If a party acts like complete fools or consistently underperform you'll see large groups of voters fleeing to adjacent parties. This means that parties may rise and fall without the huge waves. For example, on the right side of our politics the old big party "Høyre" has been surpassed by "Fremskrittspartiet" as the larger party. Another example which is somewhat older is from 1997-2001, where our leading left party Arbeiderpartiet lost 10.7% of the votes while the far left party Sosialistic Venstreparti gained 6.5%. The total political change wasn't that great - 6.5% went a little left, 4.2% went a little right but clearly the voters made their sentiments clear.

      Looking at the different candidates in the primaries, I think the US got just as wide a spread as us. Many of them seem to want such different politics they would be parties in their own right here. It's just the US system which takes pretty much everything I think of with elections and puts it into the primaries while making the actual election a red-or-blue coin toss.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    57. Re:Worthless ... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? Are you even replying to the right post?

    58. Re:Worthless ... by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      cduffy++

      The thing about seeing everything in black and white is that it polarizes us. It creates a situation where you have 2 sides, absolutely convinced that they are right and the other is absolutely wrong.

      Republicans (well Rovian NeoCons) tend to take this polarity and use it as an attack machine, polarizing people further, which bugs me.

      This all leads to a lovely situation where half the internet hates the other half and both devolve into club-wielding trolls at the drop of a hat. See HuffPost comments for example ;-)

      Having said that, McCain is 100% wrong. Vote for Barack Obama :-P

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    59. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who decides how much humanitarian aid to fly off of an aircraft carrier into Burma after a disaster? Who made the decision to land aid-payload by military cargo aircraft in Georgia the other day, at what risk of of conflict with the Russians rolling tanks around in that country? [...] Who will be issuing orders to withdraw troops from one spot and move them to another as needed? Who will be interacting with the Ukraine, or Poland on military matters? When the Europeans promise more military support in Afghanistan but continue to come up short of delivering, who gets to decide whether and how to make up for that shortcoming, even as girls' schools are being burned down by the Taliban?

      Is this really what Americans think? That they are the saviours of the world? Let's get some things straight:

      1. Wow, $3.25m of aid to Burma? That's 170,000 times less than you spent on invading Iraq.
      2. Giving the Georgians military support isn't heroic. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, which was Russian territory and Bush claims Russia is to blame. This is like Cuba invading the Florida Keys and Russia criticising Bush for reacting. Let's not forget that Bush bombed the shit out of a country that never invaded the US.
      3. US interaction with Ukraine and Poland is so they can set up anti-missile defence systems there. Great! Let's try to disable the Russian nuclear deterrent and then the US can nuke the whole world!
      4. Not sure when the EU *promised* more troups for Afghanistan. They're probably hesitant because the Americans have shown they can and will kill British soldiers and refuse to punish those responsible to the extent that they withheld evidence of guilt until it was leaked by the Sun.
    60. Re:Worthless ... by Darby · · Score: 0, Troll

      You vilify every person in the US who considers themselves conservative, which based on the last presidential election is roughly half of the people that bothered to get out and vote.

      I rightfully vilify them based on the facts. I stated their positions accurately. They are all anti-American, anti-freedom, and unconstitutional.
      Those facts *prove* them to be scumbags. There's nothing particularly confusing about that to an *objective* observer.

      ... And I am the "scumbag"?

      Yes. You stated your support for treasonous religious extremists who seek to create an overpowering police state. That's pretty much an indefensibly scumbag position. I find your complete lack of personal responsibility for your choices....typical.


      This sort of hostile vilification of those "different from yourself" is the cornerstone of racism/anti-semitism/etc. that lead to political coup's, ethnic cleanings, civil war's, and further intolerance (those who were previously tolerant become intolerant as a defensive measure).

      It has nothing to do with them being different than me. I welcome many different viewpoints. You, however are trying to compare holding people accountable for their actions, which is all that I am doing, with intolerance of people based on how they were born? There is a world of difference between those two things. It is the conservatives' contempt for the constitution and their ignorant prejudice which led them to make a mockery of Congress by standing up and screeching such blatantly false and unethical statements like the gays are trying to destroy society. It's that level of insanity and hatred of this nation which has come to define the Republican party.

      I'm certainly not surprised to see you lie through your teeth about that though as such lies are your sole stock in trade.
      Nice attempt at projection, but what you tried to accuse me of in a way even a moderately intelligent child could have countered as easily as I did, is exactly what defines your party and what makes them the worst enemies this nation has ever had.


      You're attaching everyone from a political party because of your dissatisfaction with the current administration. You have NO IDEA who I voted for in any election, unless of course you can read minds through the internet. You don't know whether or not I agree with any stance that the current administration has made, or whether I'm a member of the Republican party because or in spite of Bush.

      Again, all you do is demonstrate your deep ignorance. The Republicans' contempt for this nation goes back long before this administration. Reagan brought fascism full force into the Republican party although they'd been going that way for some time. Why do you think he still holds the record for largest growth of the federal government *ever*. All while selling crack in America in order to train, fund, and arm terrorists? Add in his death squad training camps and you're looking at a vile, America hating monster. Yet he's still canonized by the Republican party. That demonstrates absolutely the contempt and hatred that Republicans *by definition* have for America.
      Right, but it's all the current administration. Pick up a history book and learn to think. You might not come across as such an ignorant, lying fool in future.


      Like most people I'm conservative on some issues and liberal on others. It's not so black/white as you are making the liberal/conservative issue out to be. I joined the Republican party 10 years ago because the issues that mattered most to me were best represented by the "general" platform of the party, not the platform of any individual politician.

      So you hate gays and you love big totalitarian government? Or did you mean their *stated* platform which they piss in the face of every chance they get but that you were too lazy and ignorant to pay attention to?


      I think you need to talk to a counselor about your hostility issues, maybe get a valium prescription, ge

    61. Re:Worthless ... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      I admit that my impression is probably due to my biased reading habits, but I make no assumptions as to the political sensitivity of the modding system. If, as I assert previously most slashdot members fall within a certain narrow range of the political spectrum, they will most likely mod up posts they agree with and mod down posts they disagree with.

      The social security system is probably one of the biggest bureaucracies in the US government, and it's primarily the result of the Democrats. Besides, bureaucracies serve various valid and necessary purposes, one being to protect us from our own sometimes whimsical nature by making "change for the sake of change" more difficult. That being said, I don't have to like dealing with them when I think they are pushing their influence into areas where it doesn't belong. Hence, the sig.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    62. Re:Worthless ... by uncqual · · Score: 1

      I could, and would, vote for a third party but that is akin to throwing my vote away in the current environment.

      The United States has a very diverse (social, cultural, religion, economic, etc...) population. When it is not united by a compelling unifying crisis (such as persistent devastating physical attacks by an identifiable foreign power), it's unlikely that any POTUS candidate that garners enough support to win the election would be considered an ideal choice by most of the voters who actually cast a vote for them. Candidates with true principles are unlikely to be competitive - for each strong principle a candidate expresses that would differentiate them from their opponent, they will gain strength among those who were already committed to the candidate, but lose more of the votes of the mushy middle than they would gain. Principled positions, unfortunately, also involve some pain - and the mushy middle generally wants to have their cake and eat it too.

      In this environment, esp. if one lives in a state where the outcome (due to the Electoral College system) is "preordained" (for example, California), voting for a third party candidate is not throwing your vote away. Indeed, it is one of the strongest messages you can send. Voting for one of the prevaricating candidates from one of the main parties does nothing to encourage candidates to be more principled in the next election (after all, you've already demonstrated you will probably vote for the [Democrat, Republican] if they just follow last election's agenda). If, on the other hand, you vote for the [Green, Libertarian] candidate - you become one of a pool of voters with clearly expressed preferences which may be convinced to vote for the [Democrat, Republican] candidate if that candidate leans towards that principled stance. With the highly engineered POTUS elections, one percent of the vote is a Really Big Deal - make the slime work for your vote!

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    63. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like Obama said we dont have to be worried about Iran cause of the size of the country. After all they're just a tiny country what can they do? Its only about 4x bigger than Germany and Japan.
      This isn't the type of thought process a US president should have either.

    64. Re:Worthless ... by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that the Libertarian party platform you linked to is very socially liberal, while being small government. The first is more like the Democrats. The second unlike either party. The finical policy is conservative, but while superficially similar to the republican's platform, is quite different, as the real republican fiscal policy is to always make choices that favor the rich or the large corporations.

      Lets go through the platform point by point.
      1.0: Socially liberal, a bit stronger than the Dems though.
      1.1: Realistically more in line with the Dems, as the Republicans are the ones who support the Christian Coalition. How socially liberal or conservative this point ranks is debatable.

      1.2: The fact that this point mentions right of private use of Drugs shows that this is definitely a very socially Liberal point. The Dems do not go anywhere near that far. Indeed, while the Democrats officially support personal privacy, their track record is less than ideal.

      1.3. This is a socially liberal point. If read as supporting Gay marriage, it is definitely far more like the Dems than the Repubs. However, taken literally, this would propose abolishing marriage as a government institution entirely. It would also require abolition of anti-polygamy laws. Those readings are sufficiently excessive that I could not support it. But if not taken that far, this is definitely a common and supportable point of view.

      1.4 Pro-choice. Definately socially liberal and associated with the Dems.

      1.5 Pro-jury nullification. Anti self-protection (protect a person from placing themself at excessive risk) laws. Pro-proper court safegaurds. This is a mixed bag. It has some elements traditionally considered socially liberal, and a few considered socially conservative.

      I support the general sentiment, as long as the anti-self-protection thing is not taken too far. Some of those laws like seat belt or bicycle helmet laws, help to combat the human attribute of laziness. I believe those are reasonable. (Note that the laws require an action that might otherwise not be taken.) However, some of the laws prohibit taking certain actions that would put one-self at risk. I have much less issue with getting rid of many of those laws).

      1.6. This section is most about anti-gun control.
      It does not mention disapproval of requiring minimal safety features on guns. However as written, no restrictions on weapon ownerships are lawful. That includes laws making ownership of weapons that have no legitimate defensive/hunting purposes. There is no legitimate hunting or defense use for a M2 Browning, but the policy would forbid prohibiting ownership of it.

      Thats all for now. I might post some notes/justifications for further sections later.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    65. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't have to know everything, but he has to be able to educate himself on anything.

    66. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the kind of face you want America to have?

      Actually, I want that "face" to be driven by actual principles. McCain avoids showing his at all costs, and when they do show, they're contradictory, or imply a very shaky house-of-cards case of mixed premises. Whatever intellectual horsepower or rhetorical elegance he posesses is being applied to and is in the service of a very patch-work, self-defeating, confused set of principles. THAT is not the face I want America to have. He doesn't know himself, and is very careful to hide how he actually feels about a lot of things, because he knows that he has to tap-dance around issues like his crazy, religion-baiting friend the preacher and what tolerating/encouraging him says about his world view.

      Are you really looking for a gotcha contest on mispoken names or recollections? Is that how you'll evaluate the deliberative decision-making perspective that a person brings to being the C-in-C? We're not hiring a spokesmodel (though that seems to be what a lot of people think the job is about - how embarassing). People don't need an inspirational president, they need a competent one who actually knows who he is and what he stands for. Leave it to the righties to imply that it's the government's job to be the source of inspiration and cultural guidance lacking in homes that use their Wii and the Cartoon Network to raise their children. No, I'd rather leave the cultural polishing to the people IN the culture, and have them hire someone as president because he's been around the block enough to do the job right.

      Someone like McCain, who claims to be "post partisan" while in the same breath saying that his political counterparts are idealogically unseparable from "failed ideas" is just plain funny. He's far MORE partisan than his opponent, and utterly slavish to a very loud, far right minority. Is THAT the face you want for America? A poll-following pretty boy who hates to be asked what he really thinks lest he have to actually get pinned down on specifics? No thanks.

    67. Re:Worthless ... by Znork · · Score: 1

      That I have to be ashamed of my vote ... is bothersome to me.

      There is also the issue of complicity. You are, in a way, morally responsible for their actions, what they do with the power you've been part of giving them.

      I don't like McCain

      Then don't vote for him. Sure, the other guy may win, but at least his actions wont be your fault.

      In the end the US needs to get rid of the winner-takes-all system and replace it with proportional representation if you ever want to vote 'for' something and have a reasonable change of actually getting represented, but considering how much easier it is for lobbyists if they just have to pay off two politicians it's not likely to happen.

    68. Re:Worthless ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Similarly, I don't like McCain... but I think Obama would be a much bigger disaster than McCain. I don't really want to vote FOR either of them, but one repells me more than the other. So for lack of better choices, I will vote for the lesser of two evils.

      No non-evil choice appears to be forthcoming at present, and certainly none with any chance of winning the election.

      So to avoid throwing away my vote or not using it at all, I will wind up using it AGAINST a candidate, rather than FOR a candidate.

      This disgusts me, but I don't see a more-responsible way to use my vote AND make sure it counts for *something* in the final tally.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    69. Re:Worthless ... by smaddox · · Score: 1

      New jobs depend on new technology - Period.

      Technology is about the most important topic there is.

      However, I see no correspondence between the topic of Technology and protect kids from porn. Unless you plan on implanting chips in their brains.

    70. Re:Worthless ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Good points in this and your followups. I don't *like* McCain, but Obama SCARES me, and you just articulated WHY. Hope you don't mind if I steal your post and pass it along to others who don't yet see the problem.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    71. Re:Worthless ... by smaddox · · Score: 1

      The problem with our checks and balances system, is they were written with George Washington is mind as president - and people trusted him so much that they didn't put enough checks against the president.

      This is why we are stuck with a Presidency that grows in power year after year.

    72. Re:Worthless ... by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      I tend to notice more the people than the individual posts, and what I've seen many times is one liberal (in the objective sense, not the American "anyone to the left of Reagan is a left-wing radical sense) defending a left-ish interpretation of some fact against a much larger number of pot-shots from conservative / libertarian types. That one person may have several of their posts upmodded, but in general the total number of right-wing posts exceeds theirs.

    73. Re:Worthless ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I think what the parent was talking about is that altho most people here espouse conservative viewpoints, they still support liberal candidates, and the more liberal the better! It makes no sense, but that's all too commonly how it is, especially among younger people with fewer years of realworld experience.

      Back in 1972 I knew a guy who was doing opinion polls... he'd ask folks their views on various issues of the day, and the typical responses in our area were conservative or even reactionary. The final question was "Who do you think would make a good President?" and these people who'd just expressed all those conservative views replied...

      TEDDY KENNEDY ....!!

      Say what??!

      And now we have the same phenomenon here on slashdot. People here espose all these conservative (classical old-style Republican and Libertarian) views, but when asked who they want to see as president, they pick the most liberal candidate -- the candidate LEAST likely to protect their views in the long run.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    74. Re:Worthless ... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Don't you understand? Obama is completely black-and-white in his assertions that his political opponents are wrong, wrong, wrong about how they see things. His completely, unshakably clear on how wrong everyone else is.

      Maybe in his campaign speeches. Not in his lectures as a law professor. Not in his book.

    75. Re:Worthless ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Of course, tech people (for the most part) don't vote Republican, so I guess McCain feels he has nothing to gain from a good tech policy and everything to gain from a tech policy that favors the big business folks who do vote Republican, so I'm not at all surprised."

      Wow...are you really serious here? Where did you get this idea?

      I'm guessing purely anecdotal, but, if that is the case, my experience would show the complete opposite. Most everyone I've ever worked with in the tech industry, tends to be quite conservative...and I'd guess they lean more towards the Republicans.

      If you have links to stats speaking towards your position on this, please post....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    76. Re:Worthless ... by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me amend myself a little:

      Maybe in his campaign speeches. Not in his lectures as a law professor. Not in his book.

      ...and also not not in his speeches over the last two years focusing on an individual issues (as opposed to campaign speeches, in which context explaining why one is a better choice than one's opponents is, after all, the whole point). I understand from his former students that even these are vastly simplified and unnuanced compared to the lectures he gave when teaching -- lectures which, far from telling left-leaning students on a campus with right-leaning faculty what they wanted to hear, asked them questions that challenged (and helped them refine) their beliefs.

    77. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Obama had some strong selling points before this, but McCain's tech policy is so broken that it was the tipping point for me. Obama '08!

    78. Re:Worthless ... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm flabbergasted, I don't even really know where to start!

      Your "Facts" are not facts at all! They are assertions based loosely on actual facts in evidence, and more on conjecture and rhetoric.

      If half of the country is conservative, then they can't be unamerican, becaase they are HALF OF AMERICA!

      Religion, political opinion, and other perspectives that relate to world view are primarily influenced by the household someone grew up in. I gave examples of religious, and political persecution as well as racial persecution, and I didn't even mention sexual preference.

      This to you means I'm a closet racist and trying to project those beliefs on you. Once again you are claiming knowledge not in evidence. My step father is part cherokee, my Mother's maiden name is Gonsalves, my wife is half Korean, and my biological father is 100% Polish (racial jokes about Pols were very common in my neighborhood growing up, and I kept my fathers heritage a secret for many years). I chose to work with a Nigerian professor for my MS and PhD in a lab where over 6 years I've worked with, and befriended 3 Nigerian, 2 Ghanaian, 1 Korean, and only 2 American graduate students. I've experienced the pain and suffering that is caused by prejudice in general and racism specifically, and will not accept it from anyone! So FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT PRICK.

      You are full of irrational hate for individuals that disagree with you. You want my opinion on political issues? ASK ME! Don't put words in my mouth, I'm more than capable of taking responsibility for expressing my own beliefs.

      I don't judge individuals based on their religious/political/ethnic/sexual affiliations or preferences. YOU on the other hand do. Your judgement of me based solely on my statement of political affiliation is the definition of bigoted based on the definition supplied by Leopard.

      bigoted |ËbigÉ(TM)tid| adjective obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries. â expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

      You claim that Republicans are the single biggest threat the to the safety of the US, yet Republicans make up the vast majority of those willing to lay down their lives to defend this country. My step-father served in the marines, both of my brothers and my uncle (mother's family) are currently serving in the military. Your free to say the hateful crap you spew because the military defends this country you claim to love so much and they are predominantly the Republicans you hate so much. I also abhor the use of torture, I have family in the military and fear any of them being taken captive and tortured because of the widespread evidence torture being used by the current administration.

      You also claim that I support a Theocracy. I do not, the religious right is a much smaller portion of the party than the media makes it out to be. I haven't attended church in over 10 years if you discount the 7 or 8 weddings I've attended in that time. In fact, over the last 15 years I've made the transition from Believer, to Hopeful skeptic, to strong skeptic, to currently a borderline atheist. It is one of my biggest deviations from the part line, that I don't believe religion has any place in politics. I support Sex-ed and think Abstinence only programs are a recipe an explosion of teen pregnancy. While I support the rights children and teachers to pray at school if they choose, I don't believe their should be a formal moment for praying that others are forced to participate in. I agree whole heartedly that the US was founded by people looking for religious freedom, I'm originally from Massachusetts and grew up going to Plymouth rock every couple of years on field trips.

      Being a Republican from Massachusetts impressed upon me the importance of political tolerance because I ran

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    79. Re:Worthless ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I've been screaming for it for years. If the Green Party and Libertarians hadn't put up nut-jobs and didn't have such extremist views I suspect they'd do better. I'd like a decent Independent candidate to vote for.'

      Have you looked at the current Libertarian's candidate, Bob Barr?

      I've listened to him lately on the Sunday talk shows...and he's far from a flake. I know he's changed positions on many things since leaving the Reps....but, I like a lot of what he says and stand for now. Give him a serious look. I could easily vote for him, over the 2 main party candidates.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    80. Re:Worthless ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "In this environment, esp. if one lives in a state where the outcome (due to the Electoral College system) is "preordained" (for example, California)..."

      I don't think the Electoral College is what 'pre-ordains' the vote of CA or any other state. The problem is, that most states have it so that the Electoral votes are all "all or nothing" votes. If every state voted proportionally with their EC votes in the EC...then we might see a large change in how things go for president.

      I frankly like the idea about how the EC is there...it preserves the equality of votes across ALL states. Remember, you are a citizen of your state first, then a citizen of the United States...so, therefore, each state should have equal share in say of the president..and the EC provides this.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    81. Re:Worthless ... by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      yup, people are starting to see through his slick marketing image. and mccain is gaining on him. chock up another clinton voter for mccain.

    82. Re:Worthless ... by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Agreed that it's the state's decision to do "all or nothing" EC voting, not the EC concept itself.

      I'd like to see (at least more) states adopt proportional voting, but it's unlikely to happen in "dark red" or "dark blue" states as the party in power would have to decide to weaken their clout in Washington.

      Proportional EC voting would certainly make the POTUS campaign much more interesting in "dark blue" and "dark red" states!

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    83. Re:Worthless ... by Darby · · Score: 1

      If half of the country is conservative, then they can't be unamerican, becaase they are HALF OF AMERICA!

      Wow, what a completely ignorant statement which clearly demonstrates your complete lack of even the most basic knowledge of the foundation of this nation.

      Hot tip, dipshit. This country is not a democracy for *exactly that reason*. What you obviously support is mob rule or the tyranny of the majority. That is a totally anti-American position. The constitution exists for the purpose of preventing what you and the rest of your scumbag fellow traveling traitors are trying to fuck us over with. Would you please read the fucking constitution. It's really not that long and it is your god damned responsibility as a citizen. I am sick to death of having to wipe the asses of you ignorant fucking babies.


      Religion, political opinion, and other perspectives that relate to world view are primarily influenced by the household someone grew up in. I gave examples of religious, and political persecution as well as racial persecution, and I didn't even mention sexual preference.

      Yes, you conveniently left out sexual preference as it's what you and your fellow scum are so ardently trying to illegally persecute.


      This to you means I'm a closet racist and trying to project those beliefs on you. Once again you are claiming knowledge not in evidence. My step father is part cherokee, my Mother's maiden name is Gonsalves, my wife is half Korean, and my biological father is 100% Polish (racial jokes about Pols were very common in my neighborhood growing up, and I kept my fathers heritage a secret for many years). I chose to work with a Nigerian professor for my MS and PhD in a lab where over 6 years I've worked with, and befriended 3 Nigerian, 2 Ghanaian, 1 Korean, and only 2 American graduate students. I've experienced the pain and suffering that is caused by prejudice in general and racism specifically, and will not accept it from anyone! So FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT PRICK.

      The only question this complete non sequitor raises is so fucking what? You accused me of bigotry even though there is no evidence whatsoever for such a position. It is the default Republican claim against anybody who calls them out for what they are when they know that their positions are entirely indefensible. I despise you and your fellow treasonous scum due to the fact that you have willfully chosen to be treasonous scum and for no other reason. As to you not accepting it from anyone, that is a bald faced lie. You have willfully and with malice aforethought chosen to ally yourself with the party who has as one of its most important defining agendas the discrimination against gays, and atheists as well as anybody who disagrees with your fascist agenda. So don't even try to claim you won't accept it when you signed up for it. You are a liar and you have proven that yourself.


      You are full of irrational hate for individuals that disagree with you. You want my opinion on political issues? ASK ME! Don't put words in my mouth, I'm more than capable of taking responsibility for expressing my own beliefs.

      My hatred is entirely rational. It is based solely upon *actions*. Not accidents of birth, not national origin. Actions and actions alone. You already gave your political views. You are a Republican. You seem to think that you can make this claim and then cowardly deny the rightful consequences of that decision. You can talk all day long about how you don't hate gays how you don't hate America and how you don't love fascism, but all you do is demonstrate yourself to be a liar. You can not sign up for the party who has all of those things as their agenda and then deny your support for them. So, no, you aren't taking responsibility. You are trying to dodge it like the coward that you have demonstrated yourself to be.


      I don't judge individuals based on their religious/political/ethnic/sexual affiliations or preferences. YOU on the other hand do. Your judgement of me based solely

    84. Re:Worthless ... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      yup, people are starting to see through his slick marketing image. and mccain is gaining on him. chock up another clinton voter for mccain.

      How could you support both Clinton and McCain? I could see going off to a 3rd party, or deciding not to vote at all... but Clinton and McCain are night and day on the issues. Let's look at some of the wedge issues:

      • Abortion - McCain is proudly and staunchly "pro-life", and believes that Roe v. Wade must be overturned. Clinton has long defended Roe v. Wade. Obama takes the position that abortion is unfortunate, and should be avoided where possible, but should not be illegal (and thus favors upholding Roe v. Wade).
      • Stem cell research - Clinton and Obama oppose the ban on stem cell research. McCain has a statement on the subject with quite a lot of weasel words -- but the bottom line is that he believes stem cell research is immoral and should be illegal.
      • Marriage - Obama and Clinton see civil unions with the full benefits and rights of a traditional marriage as a politically acceptable stopgap measure. McCain staunchly supports marriage being restricted to its traditional definition, and is unclear on his position on civil unions.

      As you may recall from the primary, Obama and Clinton's positions were both very near the Democratic party line, making them difficult to distinguish on the issues at times -- but while McCain may have cultivated a reputation as a maverick, he toes the Republican line. If you care about how the country is run, "slick marketing image" or no, I find it hard to see how one could abandon Clinton for McCain.

    85. Re:Worthless ... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I really wish there were a viable third party to vote for.

      I guess it's up to you and a hundred million other folks to make it happen. It sure won't come by itself. I think you will find that people who don't vote as you(editorial) do to be the bigger problem than than the politicians themselves. Most usually vote their own personal self interest, and the politicians reflect that to the tee. There will be no "change" until the people change their own ways. A corrupt population will breed corrupt authority and vice versa. It doesn't matter if one is just a little less corrupt than the other. It helps nobody but the corrupt if you keep voting for them. It is a disservice. You must turn your back on them, and hope your neighbors do the same.

      --
      What?
    86. Re:Worthless ... by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      mccain is pragmatic. he will do what needs to be done once in office and has a firm record of working across the isle. his views on foreign policy were more responsible and realistic. clinton whatever has been said would have been just as pragmatic in foreign policy if following in the footsteps of the first clinton, neither is fringe like obama. i'm not willing to throw our foreign policy for the future under a bus just to get civil unions on a fast track. somethings are more important than others.

    87. Re:Worthless ... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      It's not just about his "ignorance", he's playing dumb. It's about his corruption, which everybody continues to give him the free pass he's enjoyed over the last 25 years. And about to do again while lobbying for the banks and more war. He carries every bit as much baggage as Bush. Why is this happening??

      --
      What?
    88. Re:Worthless ... by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Shooting Republicans in the face is about the most patriotic thing it's possible to do in this day and age.

      I pity you.

      Please, for the sake of yourself and the people in your life that love you, get help.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    89. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is completely black-and-white in his assertions that his political opponents are wrong, wrong, wrong about how they see things. His completely, unshakably clear on how wrong everyone else is.

      "McCain thinks that we now should put more troops in Afghanistan, I think is a good thing," Obama added at a press conference at 10 Downing Street,"

      If you are going to be so vehement in your portrayal, you better make sure you can't be contradicted in less than 30 seconds on google.

      He's NO different than his opponents in that sense, except that he's pandering to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd,

      What part of "read his second book" do you fail to understand? You judge him on sound-bites, its no surprise he seems vague. All politicians sound like bullshitters if you only listen to sound bites.

    90. Re:Worthless ... by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      and of course obama has serious character issues. The reverend wright issue is not behind us. When he thought no one was looking he decided to spend his time with extremists. Reverend wright has said things that are quite horrible, and obama called this man a spiritual advisor for a long long time and exposed his children to that man. a man so bent that he called reverend Farrakhan a known racist antisemite a great man and gave him awards. of course now that it has become politically inconvenient he throws wright under the bus. its funny that he stood by that man in silence those many years. either he tacitly agrees with wrights views or is a moral coward. Mccain was tested before he was anywhere near running for office, he behaves honorably when no one is looking. Obama seems good at acting decent but before he knew eyes were on him he behaved quite differently. i don't trust a man like that.

    91. Re:Worthless ... by porpnorber · · Score: 1

      It is interesting that you do not consider the economy, jobs, defense, etc., to be technological issues. Indeed, I think that we would be doing a lot better if we considered management, administration and bureaucracy to be technological issues, and gave them same thought to effectiveness, efficiency, modularity and interface design there as we do with, well, our geeky things.

    92. Re:Worthless ... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      I want to apologize, I just looked at several of your other posts in different topics. If you'd have told me up front that you hated all political parties and were a professional troll I wouldn't have bothered feeding you.

      Have a nice life!

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    93. Re:Worthless ... by Darby · · Score: 1

      If you'd have told me up front that you hated all political parties and were a professional troll I wouldn't have bothered feeding you.

      Ahh because I don't like your party, or your party light (which by the way, does not constitute all political parties.Just though you should know that too) and am therefore non partisan, you don't have pat answers to the actual criticisms of your party and your complete ignorance of our system of government and am therefore a troll.

      Nice one. Just creep away.

    94. Re:Worthless ... by Raseri · · Score: 1

      Voting for what you believe would be a waste? Really?

      Sorry, but no. Voting for something you don't believe in just because you feel like it's your duty, or because you don't want to vote for someone who's not going to win, or any other reason that people give for voting for something or someone they don't believe in is throwing your vote away. There won't be a viable third party until people like you start voting for people they do believe in, even if it's just a little bit.

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
    95. Re:Worthless ... by cduffy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      its funny that he stood by that man in silence those many years. either he tacitly agrees with wrights views or is a moral coward.

      Oh, c'mon, now.

      The church in question has been known for social progressivism long before Wright made the news, and if you read Obama's books, he talks about some of the issues he had with some of the other churches in Chicago and the leadership thereof; to put it bluntly, he may well have ended up with one of the best of a bad lot.

      I grew up attending a church where several of the members of the Board of Elders were people with some of whose views I disagreed with pretty strongly (and disagree with even more strongly now; suffice to say that depending on who was speaking that week, it was either forgiveness-and-salvation or hellfire-and-brimstone... unless it was our small town's banker talking about biblical money management or our high school's history teacher talking about old testament prophecies and their fulfillment, both of whose sermons I thoroughly enjoyed -- I grew up attending a very interesting church); the thing that made that church fairly distinct was that we were encouraged to make our own decisions between the many and varying views of Christianity presented. Anyhow, I'm sure that someone with a video clip of some of our more... interesting... sermons could come up with a claim that I grew up listening to a contemporary of Fred Phelps and cast aspersions on my character by such means, and indeed I considered the board members who took those positions in their sermons good family friends despite (and we all worked together on such projects as building [yes, building a building from the lot up, with our own hands and tools] a battered women's shelter and cooking food for the hungry)... in short, my background is such that I understand very well that people are multifaceted, and just where Huckabee was coming from when he refused to be baited into attacking Obama for his relationship with Wright.

      In closing, let me quote Huckabee himself:

      Obama has handled this about as well as anybody could. And I agree, it's a very historic speech. I think that it was an important one, and one that he had to deliver. And he couldn't wait. The sooner he made it, maybe the quicker that this becomes less of the issue. Otherwise, it was the only thing that was the issue in his entire campaign. And I thought he handled it very, very well.

      And he made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything around him that people may say or do. You just can't, whether it's me, whether it's Obama, or anybody else.

      But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements. Now, the second story -- it's interesting to me that there are some people on the left that are having to be very uncomfortable with what [Jeremiah] Wright said when they were all over a Jerry Falwell or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago.

      Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word-for-word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say, 'Well, I probably didn't mean to say it quite like that......'

      And one other thing I think we've got to remember.

      As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement' -- I grew up in a very segregated South.

      And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you -- we've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie, you have to go to the back door to go into the r

    96. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving the Georgians military support isn't heroic. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, which was Russian territory and Bush claims Russia is to blame. This is like Cuba invading the Florida Keys and Russia criticising Bush for reacting. Let's not forget that Bush bombed the shit out of a country that never invaded the US.

      Supporting Georgia is hardly heroic, but South Ossetia is legally part of Georgia, not Russia. Even the Russians recognize that. Functionally it is independent, but not even the Russians recognize the South Ossetian government. North Ossetia is part of Russia.

    97. Re:Worthless ... by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you can claim Obama is such a leftie. He sure wasn't "left" on FISA, or abortion, he isn't terribly "left" when it comes to healthcare either (for a D at least).

    98. Re:Worthless ... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Anecdotally, I've met all of three people who admitted to being Republicans over my 9 years in the industry. On the other hand, this is the California part of the tech industry, so a good part of that may be the overall regional demographics interfering with any attempt to isolate the tech population.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    99. Re:Worthless ... by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      there is no context to heaping unrestrained praise on racist antisemitic bigots. let alone associating yourself as closely as obama did with wright. obama gets a slide because of race. imagine if your wrote up a page of apologist nonsense defending a candidate who called a minister who gave awards and praise to the grand dragon of the kkk his spiritual advisor for years. i'm sorry, its just not excusable. like it or not the truth is obama grew up after dr king, not before, associating with extremists so recently doesn't reflect well on his character. he had the option of leaving or if he had the leadership skills he is claiming, change the church. but he did neither.

    100. Re:Worthless ... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      i'm not willing to throw our foreign policy for the future under a bus just to get civil unions on a fast track. somethings are more important than others.

      You consider foreign policy Job 1? If so, I'd expect that you'd take what the rest of the world thinks into account.

      (If by "fringe" you mean calling the Iraq war a mistake back before that was popular, I'll agree with you that Obama is a fringe candidate on the topic. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure how you reach that conclusion). Also, I think that getting Supreme Court justices on the bench who will uphold Roe v. Wade is more important than just civil unions, per se -- they are, after all, appointed for life; Bush has done enough damage in that department already.

    101. Re:Worthless ... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Did you read the Huckabee quote? To the end?

      I think what it says is important.

    102. Re:Worthless ... by Draek · · Score: 1

      The president doesn't make legislation happen. The president can't tax anyone. The president is one of the three legs of the checks-and-balances system, with the congress and the courts impacting some issues far more than the president can or should.

      Here's where we agree...

      The president is the civilian who is in charge of executive tasks, and the defense of the country is first among those. The military and its related services/agencies are the tools of that job.

      ...and here's where we don't. It is my understanding (and, from what I can see, that of most civilized nations of the world), that the defense of the country is the responsability of the military, the title of "Commander in Chief" (or closest equivalent) being bestowed upon the president solely to remind the military that their ultimate allegiance is to the people of their country, leaving any kind of tactical decision to those with the experience to do so: the people serving in the armed forces.

      Military decisions should be made by the military, diplomatic decisions should be made by diplomats, and those two things shouldn't *EVER* mix except through an official declaration of war issued by the Senate. And it's that, the fact that you're looking for the qualities of an army general for your president, what scares me the most. Perhaps your system is designed to make that a necessity, but that doesn't make it any less comfortable for us in the rest of the world (specially us in South America and Europe, who have plenty of experience with folks trying to mix both roles).

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    103. Re:Worthless ... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it is confusing to a lot of people. Deciding who to vote for is a complex process. A voter has various opinions on the various topics as well as a weighting factor relating how much that particular issue is to them. You can't just assume that the voter will vote for the candidate who they agree with on the majority or plurality of positions.

      This coming from a person who is socially conservative, pro welfare ( using your terminology) state. It would be silly at this point to decide( I think for everyone, but mainly I'm referring to myself ) who to vote for without knowing who the Veeps would be.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    104. Re:Worthless ... by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      I would abstain but that, to me, is tantamount to treasonous behavior. It is my duty to vote, it is my job, it is a requirement for me personally. As a side note, it pisses me off when I hear people complain about the current government and they tell me that they didn't vote.

      This is one thing I love about living in Texas. Since my state will go red no matter what (and electoral college votes are all that matter) I can chose to not vote or vote for a third party without it feeling like I am wasting something.

    105. Re:Worthless ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you can claim Obama is such a leftie

      No, what I said was that he's pandering to the far left for as long as possible by being deliberately as vague as possible so they don't see a threat or anything to burst their bubble. That's why I said they'd be in for a shock if/when he has to actually interact with the real world instead of the fantasy one his campaign talks about when they write his speeches. There's a reason they have him avoid real interviews and press conferences. Every time someone asks him a real question, he's going to disappoint the people that are funding him. You think the left is mad because he's turned out to be rational about being able to monitor overseas communications? Wait until he "refines" his position about Iraq based on new (to him!) information, and defers to the commanders involved on the ground, not his own vacuous politcal button pushing panderosas.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    106. Re:Worthless ... by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Well you are supposed to get kind of a gist of what they stand for in all the campaigning.. but it certainly would be nice to know who they have in mind for certain posts.. I think it's a bit much to flat out declare people as "the one" for any given position, but they could make lists of people they like.. It at least shows that they know who is good at what.

      If for example, a candidate was to say that they had Condoleezza Rice on their list of candidates for Secretary of State.. You would know that that person is a moron with no leadership skills and doesn't know what the Secretary of State does... I mean if the Secretary of State is just a "secretary" who takes dictation.., well then maybe she would be an excellent choice.. but I don't think Secretary means that in this case.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    107. Re:Worthless ... by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      leaving any kind of tactical decision to those with the experience to do so: the people serving in the armed forces

      But there would BE no tactical decisions to make without strategic decisions about when, where, and why to get the military involved in the first place. Likewise, issues with strategic importance (such as the use of nukes) absolutely have to involve the specific command from the C-in-C. Obviously a smart president is going to defer to his commanders about what's possible, the best way to accomplish a given task, etc. But do you really want military people and only military people deciding when and how to escalate a conflict... when or whether to ship out a new carrier group from one ocean to another? The president would be a fool to ignore input from his commanders, but we'd all be crazy to allow the military to make all such decisions in a vacuum. And of course, you're not always going to be talking about a "declaring war" situation. The crazy jihaddist types have totally learned that lesson. One way to consternate your enemy is avoid giving them a geopolitically concentrated enemy that has any resemblance to historical nation-state foes. Those days are gone (Russia not withstanding).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    108. Re:Worthless ... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Most everyone I've ever worked with in the tech industry, tends to be quite conservative...and I'd guess they lean more towards the Republicans.

      Yeah, everyone knows Slashdot is a major haven of rightwing radicals. In fact it's one of the biggest and last holdouts of Bush supporters.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    109. Re:Worthless ... by Atario · · Score: 1

      I specifically mention the C-in-C part of the job because it's the part that Obama is least suited for.

      I'm wondering how you came to that conclusion.

      But who decides how much humanitarian aid to fly off of an aircraft carrier into Burma after a disaster? Who made the decision to land aid-payload by military cargo aircraft in Georgia the other day, at what risk of of conflict with the Russians rolling tanks around in that country? The person commanding the military. The commander-in-chief. Who will be issuing orders to withdraw troops from one spot and move them to another as needed?

      Those all seem like lower-level details than what the Commander-in-Chief should be concerned with. He shouldn't be issuing orders like "move this block of troops from over there to over here". He should be issuing orders like "get rid of the Taliban".

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    110. Re:Worthless ... by mortonda · · Score: 1

      As a Republican you do realize that in the past 20 years, your party has changed drastically.

      ... and even more so in the last 4-8 years. Before 9/11, I thought Bush was pretty good, and or the most part Republicans were at least pretending to be conservative.

      Since 9/11, I feel very betrayed by the Republican party. Living in fear of terrorism is *not* a basic conservative philosophy. While I think removing a bad dictator was a worthy cause in and of itself, (discussions of who put him there aside) I think too much has been done in the name of national security, which has eroded our constitutional rights. I'd rather risk more danger at home and keep my rights, thank you very much.

      Unfortunately, I don't see Democrats doing any better, and there are numerous other issues that I disagree with. So what to do? The only thing I know to do is to keep trying to influence members of my own party to return to the original beliefs that made the party good.

    111. Re:Worthless ... by slash.duncan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > I really wish there were a viable third party to vote for.

      Your wish is your command. Seriously, while the rules are certainly stacked for a two-party system, the only thing keeping it that way is the widely held belief that voting for anyone else is throwing your vote away. If you believe that a your single vote counts at all, as you evidently do, then it should be self-evident that the only thing keeping third parties from mattering is the believe that they don't matter. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

      And it's not entirely hopeless from a numbers perspective, either. While the system is indeed stacked to maintain two-party dominance and unfortunately many third party candidates do seem half crazy, it doesn't take an outright win or even getting a directly significant number of elected representatives of a particular party in ordered to get a change. Ross Perot could have made a difference and did for a short time, but didn't maintain the organization or do much of anything with what he had, so he lost it. At the state level, who would have thought Jesse Ventura could have done what he did? The dominant parties can and do adjust their positions to appeal to significant segments of voters, and should the defeatists change their mind and believe a third party candidate /can/ achieve something, they most certainly can, even if they don't get the position they were running for right away or indeed at all.

      Me? I think I'm somewhat opposite you, in that there's a whole stack of reasons I couldn't vote McCain. I was cautiously supporting Obama earlier, and still expect him to win as long as he keeps the optimistic position (political analysts and historians note that it's extremely seldom that a pestimistic or negative candidate wins against a positive/optimistic one, and I believe Obama likely to win based on that alone), but I don't believe I can vote for him unless he adequately explains his anti-human-rights anti-law vote re warrantless wiretapping. Unless he reverses his position there or otherwise convinces me he had a decent reason for that vote, I'll likely vote third party if I can find someone I'm reasonably comfortable with, or write-in none-of-the-above, if not, simply because there's nothing better. However, not expecting them to win, even if they are crazy to some extent, I can probably find a third party to vote for in the hopes that it'll at least get enough votes to significantly influence things, and if they /do/ win, to shake things up, knowing there'll be enough resistance from the entrenched two-party system to keep things from getting much crazier than they already are, even in the unlikely event the possibly somewhat crazy third party candidate I'll likely vote for does win. That's pretty much what happened to Jesse Ventura, too -- the entrenched resistance kept him from going too far out, and unfortunately there wasn't enough depth there to provide a lasting change. But again, if one believes an individual vote makes any difference at all, as one must if they believe it's almost treasonous not to vote (a position I definitely sympathize with), then one must also believe that change is possible, should we quit prophesying and self-fulfilling the prophesy that it's not.

      --
      Duncan
      "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
      and if you use the program, he is your master."
      R Stallman
    112. Re:Worthless ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Very seldom does any candidate agree with all our views... sometimes that Veep candidate weighs more heavily on our minds than the Pres. candidate... we juggle all the factors and eventually come to a stopping point (tho not necessarily to a conclusion), spend our votes, and go home to chew our fingernails down to the quick while the votes are counted, and sometimes the next day we wish we'd voted the other way.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    113. Re:Worthless ... by ahoehn · · Score: 1

      Why is it not OK for a presidential candidate to admit that he doesn't know something? I'm sick to death of people who think they have to pretend to know everything all the time.

      I completely agree. I cherish the few plainly honest tidbits that the candidates send our way from time to time.

      I'm a big Obama supporter, but the other day on NPR I heard a story on Blender asking the candidates for their top 10 songs. McCain's number 1? Abba's "Dancing Queen."

      Now there is absolutely no fucking way that McCain chose to give Blender that list on the cunning advice of some political consultant. I mean really, unless he's suddenly going after the gay vote, who would be impressed with that song?

      It's obviously a song the man loves, which means that for once, a politician answered a question honestly.

      'Course, it won't make me vote for the man, but it did remind me of the "Maverick" senator that he once truly was.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    114. Re:Worthless ... by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      Hey, I was raised with cartoon network, you insensitive clod!

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    115. Re:Worthless ... by eieken · · Score: 1

      You seem to be implicitly attributing McCain with huge amounts of military leadership experience that would (I'm guessing) lead one to believe he has some vast insight into executive decision making.

      I've looked into McCain a little bit, and it seems that many people seem to agree that his military service doesn't really prepare him for the office of the President. It seems more likely that you are reflecting your own bias on who you think would make a better President as some kind of 'obvious fact', when it is anything but that.

      --
      Meet new people, and kill them.
    116. Re:Worthless ... by whong09 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the buck has to stop there, at the president's desk. If we've got an ignorant fool sitting behind that desk, that just makes it all the easier for lobbyists with their own self interests in mind to persuade the president on key issues that could potentially ruin everything.
      If the president doesn't know much about golfing, that doesn't make a difference. If the president doesn't know much about economics or history or the world at large, that's totally unacceptable. The point is that the person in charge of one of the most prominent nations in the world better know what he or she's doing doing. The president should be able to make the right decisions with the best interests of the nation and, if possible, the world at heart. Ultimately, the point is that we need leaders who don't have "Knows how to run a damned good presidential race" as their main credential on their resume.

    117. Re:Worthless ... by whong09 · · Score: 1

      Remember when that guy, what was his name..
      Oh right, George Washington.
      Remember when our preeminent founding father said that the party system would be the death of us?
      I'm still not seeing anything to suggest otherwise.

    118. Re:Worthless ... by dogmo1001 · · Score: 1

      Not only is a fundamental understanding of the importance of information technology crucial to governance in the 21st century, it is crucial to economic literacy in this century as well.

      McCain -- who I'm now somewhat ashamed to say I supported and contributed money to in 2000 -- has admitted he knows nothing about information technology -- he doesn't use a computer and can't even do email -- and has famously admitted he knows nothing about the economy in general.

      Combine that with the fact that he can't keep the players in the middle east straight (claiming repeatedly and incorrectly that the Wahabists in al Qaeda were assisting their sworn mortal enemies, the Shi'ia government of Iran, for instance) and even forgets who the president of Russia is (No, John, it's not Putin anymore!), and it becomes painfully clear that McCain is clearly a man out of his elements in the race for President of the US going into the second decade of the 21st century.

    119. Re:Worthless ... by Draek · · Score: 1

      But do you really want military people and only military people deciding when and how to escalate a conflict

      No, I don't, which is why I dislike the idea of requiring the qualities of an army general in a president. Let the president worry about "what" and "why" (a diplomat's job), and the army generals worry about "when", "where" and "how".

      And of course, you're not always going to be talking about a "declaring war" situation. The crazy jihaddist types have totally learned that lesson. One way to consternate your enemy is avoid giving them a geopolitically concentrated enemy that has any resemblance to historical nation-state foes. Those days are gone (Russia not withstanding).

      But defending the country from crazy jihaddist is already a labor of the armed forces without the president having to say so, attacking the jihaddists' homeland may not be, but I'd rather let the UN deal with such international affairs (and yes, I know you US Republicans' viewpoint about that, don't worry. Doesn't mean I agree).

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    120. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dubya has a face, should we give him a 3rd term? We will be if McCain is elected. Cut the bullshit. A normal person would rather have Obama any day over some elitist warmonger who'd undoubtedly turn America into an atrocious dictatorship.

    121. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's still a libertarian, which makes him a nutjob, by definition.

    122. Re:Worthless ... by Asterra · · Score: 1

      Since you're not going to provide any links or quotes to underscore your assertions, I'm going to make my reply in kind. The bottom line, chief, is that we are choosing between a man whose ex-preacher you hate, and a man who will continue to bury this country in four more years of the worst Republican catastrophe in over seven decades. Only 15% of the country is racist enough to vote based on skin color. The rest don't even have an "excuse" as poor as that: voting for McCain would be criminally irresponsible. It would mean you're part of the problem. Not that it's going to make any difference. Rant and rave all you want, because corruption is going to lose this round.

      A fun fantasy idea I've had goes something like this. After the dust settles, everyone who voted for Bush 2.0 gets rounded up and shipped to a convenient corner of the country (let's say.. Florida), where the economy is then artificially reduced to deep third-world standards over the span of four years, in keeping with a lobbyist- and Republican-driven leadership. And just to underscore the point, this new pseudo-country is quickly forced to invade several mid-eastern countries, true to the promises made by the country's new fat-cheeked, pinheaded leader. Who knows if this new country would survive? I doubt they would be happy. But at least the rest of the US will have dispensed with that hell.

    123. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to have a president who can speak names correctly and knows basic geography. Yes, I can forgive the occasion mistake. But not the consistent mistakes made by John McCain. We are, actually, electing a president. And he does, actually, speak on our behalf. So part of the job is knowing how to speak. Other parts of the job include making good decisions (McCain - for war in Iraq, Obama - against war in Iraq, McCain - for Bush's constitutional violations, Obama - against Bush's constitutional violations, Etc.) It really is easy to vote for Barack Obama. He knows his stuff, cares about this country, not just the super-rich & elites, and has the ability to speak truth to power. McCain knows how to follow Bush. Not looking to give him a third term with McCain. Don't need $4 a gallon oil again.

      Anyways, have a nice day. And be sure not to manufacture any signing statements during your vacation month of August. Or ignore the August 6, 2001 daily briefing. That one was important.

    124. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, this fair and balanced BS has got to stop. Yes sometimes there are two valid sides to things, but sometimes giving credence to the wrong side just makes us all less intelligent. If you need examples, intelligent design versus evolution springs to mind. Oh and don't give me any of this "But intelligent design could be the answer!" BS. Of course it could. So could the flying spaghetti monster.

      If you're complaining because Obama has the guts to say that the other side is wrong, but also says to consider all the sides, what exactly are you complaining about? He has come to a conclusion that the other side is wrong after considering their side? So you're whining because he hasn't "opened his mind" enough to change it and join the wrong side?

      If there are 4 lights, I don't care how many times you say there are 5, you're still wrong. I see no reason to join your side.

    125. Re:Worthless ... by AySz88 · · Score: 1

      Hah, here comes the moderators modding you up, just to spite you!
      ...uh, wait a second...

    126. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He needs to be in a retirement home, not the Whitehouse

      Yes, we're much better off with a president who thinks we should have the UN Security Council issue Very Stern Words towards Russia over their actions in Georgia...

      Actually Georgia is far more John McCain's fault than Barack Obama's. The reason is simple. Bush and McCain's wars have basically depleted the military and giving that we are financing the wars on China's credit, we really can't even afford to fix it. This depletion makes it very difficult to protect our allies with anything more than "Stern Words".

      So, the question is would Russia have invaded if we were not so weakened? I doubt we will ever know for sure, but it certainly did not help. One thing I am sure enough is Russia is smart enough to know that we really can't do jack about it right now.

      On a similar note, I believe John McCain always wants to follow Osama to the gates of Hell, but to me it looks like he will stay comfy in whatever bolthole he has in Pakistan, since McCain won't go after him there...

    127. Re:Worthless ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You can make that four, probably five from the GP post. While I'm an independent and don't vote party lines, I do vote republican more then democrat. I was talking about this a while back and it seems like about everyone I know dealing with tech is the same way or claims to be.

      I think perhaps your second idea is pretty accurate. Or it seems like it would be. But to keep on topic, I'm not sure why someone would think that a person who needs a tech advisory would know enough about anything related to it to know who Carly Fiorina is or what people think about her. Seriously, he looked at a job recommendation, reviewed a resume, asked some higher up officials if they have heard of her (which they have) and then gave her the job. It is really no different the how the suits hired your inept manager that you can work circles around. It doesn't really matter if you don't have an inept supervisor like that because I know many, many, people do. It is almost industry standard and even more so with someone who worked in California where it could mean a lawsuit if if the the former company says anything negative about you when a prospective employer checks job references.

      I have been on too many assignments where a company hires someone in house to replace me just to find out then still need me with the new Guy's "outstanding" qualifications. It isn't a matter of me being elite either, it is just that the type of people who need me don't know enough about what is being done to know when someone's on paper experience is better then their real life abilities. Of course if McCain or any suit knew about the industry, they wouldn't really need an advisory on it. Like a parent a couple posts above has stated, it is admirable when someone admits they don't know enough that they need to get someone in to help. It could be worse, it could be like that sales guy who promises everything under the sun to the customer and then tells you what you didn't implement but thought you would so he used it as a selling point 2 weeks before the deadline. How would you like someone like that as president. You probably know the type of guy I'm talking about, the one who stands around while twelve others bust their ass so hard that they can't sit down for three month just to get the job done only to hear him brag about how important to the team he was while he is taking credit for all your work. And if you have honestly never met someone like that, your in for a real treat when you do. I'm leaning to a point where I think you might end up with a president like that. And yes, I'm talking about Obama because so far, I haven't seen enough substance to warrant his support other then he's not Bush. You went as far as attempting to claim McCain isn't as good as bush or was it Carly Fiorina or something. Oh well, it isn't important.

    128. Re:Worthless ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The closest I have come was voting for the Green Party rep to ensure that they stayed a legitimate political party in my state. *sighs*

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    129. Re:Worthless ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And Obama doesn't have baggage or coruption? What about James A. Johnson, Antoin "Tony" Rezko or Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr? And I'm not talking about the Rev's "damn America" sermons. I'm talking about the land deals and the church building him a retirement home far away from his perish.

      And for that matter, What as a congressman, has Obama done to end anyone's corruption or any corruption in politics. His only claim to fame as an Illinois state senator was to jack a bill about racial profiling and videotaped confession from Illinois state Sen. Rickey Hendon. He hasn't sponsored anything in the senate that I know of. Most of the bills with his name on it are cosponsored with republicans pretty much only because of the comities he was on.

      It seems like most of his Illinois democrat colleagues are on a payroll or have some other corruption charge against them. That's how Obama got elected in politic in the first place. He challenged signature on the ballots to get his other candidates removed from the ballot and run unopposed. Then by a miraculous twist of fate that I'm sure Obama had nothing to do with, a judge ended up unsealing records from a recent divorce that made his challenger for his senate seat drop out without time for another challenger to step up. This basically left him unapposed again, and now he is groomed and prepped for president miraculously while everyone forgets how he screwed over Alice palmer, Sen. Rickey Hendon, and anyone else in his way. If you can't see a puppet strings of corruption there, you must be closing your eyes. Well, you could be blinded by his rockstar can't do anything wrong persona.

      If corruption is your anti thing. I would think it is going to be hard to find anyone in a higher office that doesn't have some baggage. I don't assume you support Obama but I wanted to point out that we are picking the least of the two evils. At least your know where you stand with McCain. Too many people are covering Obama's roots up and slingshot-ing him into a planted position. It's actually scary because most people are completely oblivious about it and don't care to know.

    130. Re:Worthless ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, the point is that we need leaders who don't have "Knows how to run a damned good presidential race" as their main credential on their resume.

      Well, I guess that wouldn't be McCain then. He failed at running for president once alread.

    131. Re:Worthless ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It all depends on what is important. Not voting makes just as big of a statement as voting does, it just makes it easier to the wrong people to win. If he sees this election as limiting the damage, then voting for a third party (which is throwing your vote away anyways) would be more harmful to him then picking the least evil bastard on the block. In that same respect, voting against someone by voting for the most likely candidate to beat them is just as valid as not voting, voting for a third party, or voting for what you believe in.

      There will never be a viable third part either. For one, there is no grass roots support, not machines if you will, so there isn't enough people exposed to a complete platform that will beat out any dominant party candidate. Second, because of this lack of support, any third party president will be a lame duck from the start. He won't be able to implement anything that the existing parties don't already want implemented. There is also no reservations about overriding a veto when the candidate doesn't belong to your party so any third part president wouldn't be able to stop anything.

      The only way to fix that is by a grass roots campaign that puts third party official in local leadership position that will eventually sprout into higher positions and then the support with be there to some degree. 21 third party senators, even if they are different third parties, is all it would take to stop or implement any legislation. That would stop congress from getting around vetoes and the other parties would have to work with them as well as a third party president to get what they want done which means the third parties cold get their stuff done.

    132. Re:Worthless ... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Which is why neither communism nor facism is popular here as both have come to symbolise authoritarian rule.

      What you are saying makes a lot of sense to me. Personal freedom, respect for privacy, minimal government, decentralising power - those are some of the most important things for me. I am a communist, by the way - but perhaps not in the sense that people on Slashdot think of.

      It would be nice if everybody would learn what all these concept actually mean, like liberty, libertarian, free market, privacy - and communism - because most of the time people simply squabble over differences that only exist in their imagination. Which is why "communism" , at least in America, has become the symbol for everything evil in the world. Never mind that communism is an attempt at creating a balanced and caring society, where everybody gets a fair chance - "Communism" is evil and therefore whenever we encounter something we really don't like, we include it under our oncept of "Communism".

      By doing this people actually join forces with people like the fundamental Muslims, to whom "Christianity" is the symbol for everything evil in the world. Or the fundamental Christians, to whom "Islam" means the same. How are we ever going to find peace with others - and with ourselves - when we don't even try to understand each other?

    133. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm conflicted. On the one hand, you're so obviously wrong I'd love to see you modded into oblivion, but on the other hand, your current modding provides such a wonderfully compelling demonstration of your incorrectness.

    134. Re:Worthless ... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I've always been suspicious of Obama's shooting star status, and no, I don't support him any more than the others now. I fell into the quicksand of charisma for a brief moment, but pulled myself out. I don't claim to know or even really care who the puppet masters are. The presidency has long been a figurehead position. I have basically stated that this election is like putting Nixon in for an 11th term. This is a basically a problem of the electorate choosing to remain ignorant, and more importantly their unwillingness to see past their own self interests. I can say that knowing where McCain stands does not make it any better. That just means you would be putting a known criminal into the white house. Talk about disrespect for the office... I don't believe in voting for the "lessor of two evils". Especially when both are evil. At this stage, I have found that this guy is clearly the most qualified for the job. And you can bet he's the least corrupt of the bunch. I do not care for any apparent support he may give to the democrats. They have proven to be every bit as corrupt as the republicans.

      --
      What?
    135. Re:Worthless ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I figured your position might be something like that. We may disagree on quite a bit of things but your not an idiot. I like the nobody for president too.

      But I have to disagree with you position on the "lessor of two evils". In this day and age when everything is all about me, I have found that none of the presidents from Carter on up stood for what I do. I wasn't old enough to vote for Carter but I lived though his mess that I think we still haven't reached the point of under Bush yet. Anyways, this has lead me to see that I had to decide on who is the most applicable to what I want and need verses who is the most dangerous to it. As you probably guessed, I'm more to the right and side with their positions more which of course means republicans usually. But this year, just like in 1996, I find myself voting more to keep someone out then to put someone in. I think that is a valid position where "anyone but that person" should be an option on the ballot. This year, it mean voting for McCain not because I support him, but because I don't want Obama in.

      I'm even willing to be that we don't like McCain for different reasons too. I don't agree with McCain being more scary though. I know something is up Obama, but I don't know who or why. With McCain, at least I can see it coming and make preparations. Move some money around, organize the anti McCain whatever to attempt to defeat his policies and so on. With Obama, outside of raising taxes and other regular liberal ideas, it will be a crap shoot that I won' know a thing about until it is happening. I know that sounds a little self centered but it isn't like we have another choice that isn't worse. A third party doesn't have a chance and they would be a lame duck anyways, not voting means I can't limit what I think is going to be damage, and truthfully, knowing about McCain has put an element of trust on the table that just isn't there with Obama. It would be different if it didn't costs more money then most small businesses make in 5 years to run for office and probably 10 times that or more for the presidency and real people could run. I know a few people I could support but they have too much integrity to get anywhere near politics.

      And I think the most weird part is that I've usually been excited about voting just to defeat someone. It isn't happening this time around. Maybe things will change when we hear about the VPs.

    136. Re:Worthless ... by phlinn · · Score: 1

      There's more to America's anti communism than just "It's evil!" without any thought. Communism is very focused on equality of outcome. Even your unusually loose version starts with a 'balanced and caring society'. Most pro freedom individuals accept that attempts to equalize outcome inherently require authoritarian control. See "The road to serfdom" for example. If you don't think communism requires authoritarian control, please detail how you will bring it about without some sort of government force. Every historical attempt has become authoritarian.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    137. Re:Worthless ... by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you can claim Obama is such a leftie. He sure wasn't "left" on FISA, or abortion

      O RLY?

      In 2001, B. Hussein Obama argued against (and voted "present" on) a bill before the Illinois state senate that would have banned the practice of some abortion mills of leaving the occasional survivors to die instead of providing proper medical care for them. Three months later, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously in favor of a nearly-identical bill...even such pro-abortion forces as Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer voted for this common-sense, humane measure.

      At a Planned Parenthood event about a year ago, B. Hussein Obama promised the crowd that one of the first things he would do if elected is roll back the few restrictions on abortion that we have. Partial-birth abortion? The practice that the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) denounced as indistinguishable from infanticide would be relegalized. Informed consent? Laws whose only aim is a truly informed choice would be stricken from the books. Parental notification? Let's say that the punk down the street gets your daughter pregnant and then slips her a few hundred bucks for an abortion. If B. Hussein Obama had his way, the laws that would keep you informed about your kid's medical care would be wiped away.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    138. Re:Worthless ... by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      Like this one? It was modded down, right?

      Moron.

    139. Re:Worthless ... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      While he does speak in trollish, inflammatory language, he has one overwhelmingly true point: what the Republican party says bears very little resemblance to what it does, and the departure happened a long time before the current administration. Entirely too many Americans are blinded by the claims of fiscal conservatism and belief in "small" government, and then swallow social policies that are diametrically opposed to their own beliefs as part of the package.

      I submit the example of my parents, since I know them best. They actually believe that Republicans are fiscally conservative. Today. At all levels of government. They listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and think they're +4 Insightful and +5 Informative. They think what's good for big business is good for them. They think that Republicans have worked to keep government small. Obviously their ability to listen to news sources from across the entire political spectrum with the proper level of cynicism is entirely lacking. But it gets worse.

      When it comes to social issues, they apparently aren't even listening. In one ear and out the other. Do they think abortion should be illegal? No. Do they think stem cell research should be illegal? No. Do they think gay marriage should be illegal? No. Do they think Hinduism should be illegal? No. Do they think being a Baptist should be illegal? No. Do they think sitting in a bar and loudly proclaiming that President Bush is an idiot should be illegal? No. Does the Republican party espouse policies that are directly contradictory to these views? Of course. (Except for the Baptist part...)

      So let's recap. My parents will happily vote for members of a party which diametrically opposes many of their social views, expands government by adding an entire department to the Executive branch (historically something done almost[*] exclusively by Democratic presidents), acts against their economic interests, and spends record-breaking sums of Federal tax money. All because the party says "low taxes" and "family" a lot.

      Does any of this sound familiar?

      I'm guessing you're doing exactly the same thing. You're cherry picking a very small number of issues, allowing yourself to be blinded by rhetoric when the party's claims don't match their behavior, and drinking the kool-aid on the things you disagree with. Do you really want to do that?

      There's a reason for Slashdot's editorial opinions concerning political stories. When they do something we don't like, very often they're HARMING us. Usually they're harming you too, only you don't know it. When a story gets posted on Slashdot, the summary or the message thread or both are usually trying to explain the harm.

      So was your antagonist. His passion lead him into trollishness.

      [*] I didn't check all of them. All of the ones I checked that were created in the past 150 years were created by Democrats.

    140. Re:Worthless ... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      I can point out examples affecting the Democrats as well. My grandfather was forced to retire early because of lung and liver failure due to 40+ years of heavy smoking and drinking. Shortly after he retired the Democrats (don't remember if it was state or federal rule) instituted a law that meant his now fixed income as a retiree was taxed, retroactively for something on the order of 5 years. No you tell me how that makes them the "Party of the People" as I had been told by teachers and believed them to be at the time.

      I'm a member of the Republican party because I believe in Many, although not all of the philosophies they espouse and I want to vote in their primaries. I know that they don't always deliver, but being a part of their party and voting in their primaries is the only way I can pick which members of the party end up being eligible for high office. I can't, in good conscience, vote in the Democratic primaries because none of their candidates even pretend to agree with my political point of view on the issues that matter most to me. I agree that there are many Republican politicians that don't stick to what gets them elected, but that problem is an epidemic afflicting both parties and is a major reason why most of the electorate doesn't belong to either party.

      Voting for federal officials (House, Senate, President) long ago became the choice between the lesser of two evils. I don't like it but I also didn't create the situation. While I can expect any candidate to go back on at least some of their campaign promises*, but a Republican is more likely than a Democrat to keep the promises most important to me. I gave examples previously, where I don't agree with the party line, but I diverge further from the Democratic party line. You want to show me a party that fits my beliefs better, and has a chance of winning major elections, and I'll jump parties in a heartbeat. Until then I'll be forced to vote for the best candidate available, regardless of party, and participate in the primaries for the party that is the best fit.

      That's why Darby's responses were so flustering and incomprehensible. No politician I've known has ever kept all of their promises and voting outside of the 2 main parties is equivalent to throwing away your vote in Senatorial and Presidential elections. I pointed out that I'm from MA. What I didn't say was that, as a result I've actually voted for more Dem's over the years than Republicans because I'm not an ideologue. If the incumbent is a Dem and I had no problem with their job execution, then I didn't vote for an unproven Republican just because we shared the same party affiliation. If you check some of Darby's other posts in other threads, you'll see that his ferver isn't reserved for Republicans in the current administration. It doesn't even appear to be reserved for Republicans. He's decided that the "sins" of the few, make those who may have been duped, worthy of no individual consideration and deserving of the kind of hateful thought and rhetoric normally reserved by hate groups for whomever it is they gather together to hate.

      I don't pretend to know all of the answers, I don't pretend that all of my beliefs are correct, but I do know for a fact that the dehumanization of those that disagree with you is the first step down the path toward extremism and Darby appears to be sprinting down that path with his eyes closed.

      And as to the "Cherry Picking", Everyone does that. No voter out there has ever found a politician that agrees with them 100% on every issue, unless the voter chose the politician 1st and political views 2nd (which is the case for many, though not even most, of Obama's newest supporters IMHO). As a result, all voters much choose which issues are most important to them and then vote accordingly, with the full knowledge that
      a) the politician is probably going to end up voting against their wishes in other topics
      b) The politician may vote against their wishes in the very topics t

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    141. Re:Worthless ... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      There's ideals and then there's reality. It is a fact of life that some would prefer society to be more like communism, and some would prefer it to be more like - what? Capitalism, I suppose, although I am not sure that the two are opposites. My very loose and unfounded guess is that there are probably about half of each kind in most societies. My hypothesis is that communism and capitalism crystallise two natural tendencies in humans: the caring/sharing part that is essential for holding together families, end by extension, society; and the independent, outgoing, enterprising part that strives to improve their own lot. Some would call the female vs the male principle. I would say both are necessary for society to function well - the eternal question is what is the right mix.

      Communism doesn't require authoritarian control - it is the natural state for any group of people who live together, like in a family - think about it, although each member of a family has their own possessions, most of the family's assets are owned in common, at least subjectively even if the law may say otherwise. The authoritarian control only becomes necessary if you try to force the issue - it is not likely that one can create a truly communist society through a revolution. But I think it is a possibility if humanity one day learns that there is no "them and us" - isn't this what we all want to happen in one form or another? The descriptions of the Christian Paradise certainly seem to revolve around that theme; communists believe that it is not only an impossible dream.

    142. Re:Worthless ... by phlinn · · Score: 1

      My original intent was mainly to point out that there are reasons behind American distrust of communism. But the followup was revealing. You dodged my question, possibly without realizing it. Your post consists of platitudes, with no specifics of any sort. How exactly would you handle people who don't agree with your philosophy? It's the answer to this question which has lead every attempt at widespread communism to authoritarianism. Consider individuals who for whatever reason are able to produce enough to take care of themselves plus produce a little extra. If they produce more, do you take it? If they decide not to bother because it's just going to be taken, do you engage in slavery and compel them? How about the individuals who could take care of themselves, but don't?

      Allowing people the freedom to make their own choices inevitably produces unequal outcomes. You either have to accept it, or use force to try and change things. Voluntarily sharing and helping is good. Many people are a lot better off because of it. I have no qualms about it, and engage in it on occasion. But it will NOT lead to universal well being.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    143. Re:Worthless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pity you.

      Please, for the sake of yourself and the people in your life that love you, get help.

      You pity me because I do not want to be under constant surveillance by fascists? Because I don't want to be shipped off to a death camp on the whim of a traitor? Because my grandfather fought the Nazis and I don't appreciate those who piss in the face of his sacrifice in order to support their direct intellectual descendants? Because I do not want religious tyranny to take over this country as it was designed to prevent that?

      What exactly is your objection to real patriotism rather than jingoistic treason?

      Hot tip, the people who built this nation would have agreed with me. After all, they did shoot the bastards who were far less objectionable nad totalitarian than current Republicans.

      Seriously, rather than spout meaningless generalities, attempt to defend your position. I wish you a lot of luck on that one.

  3. "protect children from porn, and avoid regulation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yay for contradictions?

  4. grr. by apodyopsis · · Score: 0, Troll

    well.. I am not American and hence I cannot vote, but if I could my vote would be to go tell him to shove it up his ass.

    and this is on the basis of only one point of his platform - helping the MPAA and RIAA.

    Fortunately the legal system is increasingly thinking otherwise.

    1. Re:grr. by chuckymonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sadly when it comes to things such as network neutrality, MAFIAA litigation, censorship of the internet, and understanding how the internet has the potential to be an unstoppable force of intellectual freedom most U.S. citizens are woefully ignorant. They care about gas prices, making sure that they are not responsible for raising their kids, ensuring that gay couples are not recognized as a legal union, and which religion the candidate subscribes to. They have forgotten that there is a reason the the freedom of speech was the very first amendment, I have met very few that ever read the Federalist Papers, hell half of the people that I talk to have never even read the constitution or have the most basic understanding of how our government works. The internet has the power to be the most perfect force for the first amendment which is essential to the rest of the Constitution and in all honesty I don't think the GOP really wants the average citizen to have that kind of power.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    2. Re:grr. by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think the GOP really wants the average citizen to have that kind of power.

      And don't believe for a New York second that the democrats are any better. Both are authoritarians who think that ignorance is strength.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:grr. by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      And don't believe for a New York second that the democrats are any better

      The difference is that Democrats will get more votes from young people who think that only chumps (and old people like McCain) should have to pay for movies, and who capable of compartmentalizing their "respect" for their favorite musicians separately from their willingness to happily rip them off.

      The hypocrisy is stunning. They don't want to be told what they can and can't do online (including burning a huge portion of the available bandwidth while ripping off entertainment), but they want the ability to tell a business that builds and sustains a network how they should operate it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:grr. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Nobody wants to "rip off" the musicians. But nobody wants to be ripped off by the publishers, with their corrupt, purchased legislation. Their privileges are supposed to be of a limited time. And we have to remember, copyright is a government granted privilege. And I, for one don't care how a business operates its network. I only want proper labeling, stated in plain English(or language of your choice). At the same time, it's the customer, or more specifically the end user who should dictate the terms of service. And that's fairly difficult to do when dealing with state protected monopolies, who also buy legislation to protect their interests. In an open, fair market, where even the government is allowed to compete(not monopolize), chances are we will have net neutrality.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:grr. by Grym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference is that Democrats will get more votes from young people who think that only chumps (and old people like McCain) should have to pay for movies, and who capable of compartmentalizing their "respect" for their favorite musicians separately from their willingness to happily rip them off. The hypocrisy is stunning. They don't want to be told what they can and can't do online (including burning a huge portion of the available bandwidth while ripping off entertainment), but they want the ability to tell a business that builds and sustains a network how they should operate it.

      I love it when Baby Boomers get on generational tirades like this. It has genuine comedic quality about it, particularly given how ridiculous and hypocritical it is.

      But since you seem to be a true-believer, let me clear it up for you, old timer. "Young people" are, knowingly or not, rejecting the flawed assumptions and unjust laws that have effectively attempted to privatize human culture for the benefit of a greedy few at the very top of content distribution companies who are better at bribing the legislature than serving their own customers. What you describe as pathological compartmentalization is, in actuality, the very natural returning shift in public values to a more balanced, modern view of copyright protections. In short, the pendulum is finally swinging back towards the social-contract view of government-granted, temporary monopolies described in Article I section 8 of the constitution, which references not the "rights" of companies or starving artists but the "progress of science and useful arts".

      -Grym

    6. Re:grr. by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I actually get my MP3s off the intarwebs for free and then mail the artists the 10 cents per album they would have gotten if I bought the CD.

    7. Re:grr. by Digital+End · · Score: 1
      I always feel a little silly posting this, as it's part of my signature... but it never ceases to be relevent.

      As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

      Pravin Lal, Alpha Centauri (1999) (VG)

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    8. Re:grr. by sadler121 · · Score: 1

      From TFA..

      As President, John McCain would continue to encourage private investment to facilitate the build-out of infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet connectivity all over America. However, where private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or other obstacles, John McCain believes that people acting through their local governments should be able to invest in their own future by building out infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet services. For this reason, Senator McCain introduced the âoeCommunity Broadband Bill,â which would allow local governments to offer such services, particularly when private industry fails to do so.

      He may be against net neutrality, but he can at least see that local government could provide services when the private industry fails to do so. So there is hope that if a Community Broadband Bill does pass Congress he will sign it, and that would allow local governments to build out broadband infrastructure.

    9. Re:grr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be the most eloquent ass-kicking I've ever seen.

    10. Re:grr. by Darby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The hypocrisy is stunning. They don't want to be told what they can and can't do online (including burning a huge portion of the available bandwidth while ripping off entertainment), but they want the ability to tell a business that builds and sustains a network how they should operate it.

      Your hypocrisy is stunning.
      The ISPs didn't build and sustain the networks. We the people were robbed at gunpoint to pay for them to do so. They refused to deliver what we already paid them to do and instead siphoned off the money to executive salaries and bonuses.
      So until they deliver what they lobbied to force us the pay them to do, they have no rights and no legitimate authority over *our* networks.

      If they wanted intelligent, informed people (unlike yourself) to support their right to own their network, then they should have actually paid for it themselves. So by your delusional statement that they should be allowed to screw over my use of *my* property which *I* paid for you demonstrate not only hypocrisy, but the belief that you, me and everyone else in the country are nothing more than the slaves of whoever bribes the government enough.

      You really should consider relocating to a country like China or Saudi Arabia where they already share your values rather than trying to drag this country whose values you despise down to their levels. It is, of course, the ethical thing to do which is why I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to do it.

    11. Re:grr. by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Democrats will get more votes from young people who think that only chumps (and old people like McCain) should have to pay for movies, and who capable of compartmentalizing their "respect" for their favorite musicians separately from their willingness to happily rip them off.

      Then they're up for a huge disappointment. It doesn't matter which candidate wins, they'll both push for ACTA. Network neutrality won't make it any easier for young people to "happily rip [artists] off".

    12. Re:grr. by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the pendulum is finally swinging back towards the social-contract view of government-granted, temporary monopolies described in Article I section 8 of the constitution

      Which provides, in which way, for legal cover when millions of kids grab ripped-off copies of a newly released recording the day after the musician in question publishes it for sale?

      social-contract view

      So, an artist who spends years putting together a recording, or novel, or opera, etc., has no social contract upon which to lean? Only the people who want the material at no charge get to invoke that concept in the spirit of pendulum-swinging? If you don't like the fact that your favorite musician wants to charge you for their work, walk away. The only social contract that matters here is the one where the people who want the artist to work for them either meet what that artists asks as a price, or they take their entertainment-buying dollar elsewhere. You're doing your level best to excuse people from ripping off the entertainment they want because they can. Songs for a dollar? A movie appearing on your TiVo for $1.99? The horror! It's a good thing that we have earnest young rebels willing to forward the useful arts by ripping that stuff off, instead.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re:grr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speech will be kept more or less intact.

      However, they will make it harder and harder to abide for their requirements for the free speech.

      Like those blogging rules they want everyone to follow.

      The potentials realize the internet is like a thousand cats leaving a thousand bags a day in terms of informing people. They do NOT want an informed public. An informed public is a hazard to greedy governments. Just like informed consumers are hazardous to bad business practices.

      As a result, both seek to keep us, as consumers and citizens, in the dark and as uninformed as possible.

      Ass rape by any other name is still ass rape.

    14. Re:grr. by Grym · · Score: 1

      Which provides, in which way, for legal cover when millions of kids grab ripped-off copies of a newly released recording the day after the musician in question publishes it for sale? ... You're doing your level best to excuse people from ripping off the entertainment they want because they can.

      File sharing, for most, is probably a civilly (sometimes criminally) liable act. Maybe even those who fileshare are committing a morally offensive act. That's really not the point. The privatization of human culture and the gutting of the public domain is similarly unlawful (via its unconstitutional lack of realistic limitations and hindrance of scientific and artistic progress) and arguably immoral. Furthermore, the means by which these industries foist their will upon the less-organized public (by bribing the legislature and, in some cases, actually writing the laws which regulate themselves) is also shameful and morally tenuous.

      The situation is analogous to speakeasies during the prohibition era which were ostensibly illegal but, in actuality, a reflection of the failure--not of the people--but of prohibition itself. There were probably people back then who also tried to blame the entire situation on the hedonistic , law-breaking drinkers. They, like you, were misguided relics of a failed way of thinking.

      Regardless, the writing is on the wall. One way or the other, "intellectual property" reform is coming. The only question is whether it will be from those in power waking up to the changing of the tides and acknowledging the failure of trying to pretend that ones and zeros are limited in supply or simply the result of demographics, when all those dirty file-sharers start taking political power.

      -Grym

    15. Re:grr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually get my MP3s off the intarwebs for free and then mail the artists the 10 cents per album they would have gotten if I bought the CD.

      Best. Post. Ever.

    16. Re:grr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that Democrats will get more votes from young people who think that only chumps (and old people like McCain) should have to pay for movies, and who capable of compartmentalizing their "respect" for their favorite musicians separately from their willingness to happily rip them off. The hypocrisy is stunning. They don't want to be told what they can and can't do online (including burning a huge portion of the available bandwidth while ripping off entertainment), but they want the ability to tell a business that builds and sustains a network how they should operate it.

      I love it when Baby Boomers get on generational tirades like this. It has genuine comedic quality about it, particularly given how ridiculous and hypocritical it is.

      and etc...

      Boomers are hypocrytical? Um, yes, if you mean that the most "progressive" of us had rationalizations for "liberating" anything that wasn't nailed down from the "greedy establishment", and we (mostly) now think that stealing stuff is a bad idea. Reading your rationalization (which I cut as youthful foolishness, sorry) for doing the same was quite, ah, nostalgic.

      Hopefully, God will grant us a little more grace, you kids won't destroy civilization before you grow wise enough to realize why that's a bad idea, and you will live long enough to hear the same silly comments from the next generation.

    17. Re:grr. by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1
      +2 Sadly Insightfull

      PS Mods, can I have what you are smoking?

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
  5. John McCain on blogs by jamie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In 2006, John McCain gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, and took the opportunity to mock individual expression:

    When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people. I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me, and, consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of my insights. I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me. With my superior qualities so obvious, it was an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So I rarely did. All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them. It's a pity that there wasn't a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium.

    His contempt for citizens expressing their views is, presumably, why he introduced legislation that would basically have shut down comments on blogs and on sites like Slashdot. Under John McCain, if you are an individual blogger and you allow user comments or user profiles, you'd have to follow the same reporting rules as an ISP, but you'd be subject to even harsher penalties. The EFF called McCain's bill a "constitutionally dubious proposal ... made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations."

    1. Re:John McCain on blogs by 4D6963 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew" ... "With my superior qualities so obvious..."

      I knew it from the start! John McCain is a secret elitist!

      By the way, too bad he's not quite sooo eloquent anymore. It could have been useful, for stuff like, making people want to vote for him.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:John McCain on blogs by howardd21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you missed the point. While it is nice of you to enhance the blogopshere comment with a bold font, that was not his subject. He was obviously speaking about the tendency of youth to dominate the conversation about anything and everything as if they knew the best approach and all others had nothing to offer. In fact, what he is implying here is that it is important to listen, especially to experienced individuals, but listen. That does not reduce the value of a blog, it puts it in context of "where, or from whom,do good ideas come from"?

      --
      no comment
    3. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Come on, now; don't be intellectually dishonest. He's not mocking individual expression; he's mocking what many people perceive to be the stereotypical self-important blogger attitude. I suppose it's fitting that your reaction seems to fit this stereotype. I am not voting for him, but I found that whole diatribe fucking hilarious. There are more than enough legitimate things to criticize McCain over; this excerpt from his speech is not one of them.

    4. Re:John McCain on blogs by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's funny because I generally agree with him. Many people, young or old, think they know what is best for others. They're inclined to step in and dictate how others should run their lives, how other countries should run their governments, and generally how the world would be so much better if either (a) people would just listen to their insights or (b) people would give them the power to enforce their insights on others.

      So, perhaps he had the right idea, that he himself didn't know everything. The problem is that he took that insight and, still assuming he knew everything, extrapolated that out to be an issue of age and wisdom. A wise man knows he is a fool. He does not force his foolishness on others. Instead, it is in his wisdom that he only answers the questions of those who seek him out. For even if he gives a foolish answer, he is merely provided what is asked of him. Such is the paradox of politics and having wise men as leaders in a democracy.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    5. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

    6. Re:John McCain on blogs by kklein · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry, but you just quoted McCain being facetious as though he were serious, meaning you didn't get the joke. It's funny. Laugh.

      His technological platform, however... Not so funny.

    7. Re:John McCain on blogs by rockout · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd agree with you, except that right after the blog line McCain said he "would have felt very much at home in the medium", obviously taking a cheap shot at bloggers as people who "dominate the conversation about anything and everything as if they knew the best approach and all others had nothing to offer."

      The original poster very much got his point, methinks.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    8. Re:John McCain on blogs by ericspinder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      he's mocking what many people perceive to be the stereotypical self-important blogger attitude.

      I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me,

      What I believe he was implying is that children should be seen and not heard. Of course his definition of 'children' seems to extend to all bloggers, regardless of age. Of course the First Amendment gives freedom the press, but doesn't tell us the definition of "Press", but I really doubt if the Framers meant "Government sanctioned and licensed persons"

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    9. Re:John McCain on blogs by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      I have major problems with his bill if it is as you described, but I have no problems whatosever with the quote. That is absolutely how most people on the Internet behave and I think he conveyed it in a mildly humorous, tongue-in-cheek manner. To call it a "contempt for citizens expressing their views" seems entirely too harsh to me, at least based on what you quoted. I don't like McCain (or Obama, really) and I GREATLY support EVERYBODY's right to express their individual viewpoints--but that doesn't mean that most of them aren't self-righteous or otherwise blathering idiots.

      Really, the only shame here is that he singled out the blogosphere for any particular blame. Happens all over the Internet through many different mediums.

    10. Re:John McCain on blogs by jamie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry, but you just quoted McCain being facetious as though he were serious, meaning you didn't get the joke. It's funny. Laugh.

      McCain used exaggerated language to humorous effect. That part's hard to miss.

      What I find more important is that the target of his humor is the ceaseless argumentation on all matters, political and otherwise, that the citizenry engages in when permitted freedom of speech. Contrary to what career politicians would have us believe, there are things worth discussing beyond the pronouncements of our daily papers. There are wrongs to be called out and acts of courage to be heralded. We dredge up our politicians' histories, we compare and contrast, we insult and mourn and challenge not only our opponents' beliefs but our own. We're not polite, because unlike the self-righteous papers' hallowed halls of pretend-land, we talk the way real people talk. Sometimes we persuade, often not, but in large ways or small, we do learn from each other.

      The blogosphere is democracy at its most raw, a ceaseless conversation about the way things are and ought to be, led not from the "top" but by whatever ordinary people want to talk about each day. It's political conversation that, for the first time in thousands of years, actually comes from the people. That worries the entrenched media who for decades have built up undeserved reputations as the arbiters of the news cycle, and the politicians whose unspoken agreements with the media got them where they are.

      I've been a programmer for Slashdot for eight years now. I've spent much of that time writing code to quash abuse without censoring contributions, and support thoughtful comments while discouraging "omg roftl," because goddammit I believe there's something vital and important about what ordinary people have to say. I want to give those people a soapbox, and give their readers the tools to find the most interesting and thought-provoking comments. People with something to say don't need a lecture on prudence and humility from their betters, they need to be encouraged to stand up and join the conversation.

      And politicians like McCain mock them, and mock the way we argue. We're youngsters who show insufficient deference to the hard-won wisdom of our elders. Fuck that shit.

    11. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that also describes half the people on slashdot... Holier than Thou but not religious...

    12. Re:John McCain on blogs by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me guess:
      You are a young man
      You are quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, you are so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else
      You understand the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people.
      You believe that to be especially true with many of your elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as you can tell, was that they had been born before you and consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of your insights.
      You have opinions on everything, and you are always right.
      You love to argue, and you can become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with you.
      With your superior qualities so obvious, it is an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So you rarely do.
      All their resistance to your brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proves is that they possess an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God has blessed you with, and you feel it is your clear duty to so inform them.
      You and your Floppy, Hoppy Bunnies feel very much at home in the blogosphere.

      Gee you're right, he must be TOTALLY wrong. I'm convinced.

      --
      -Styopa
    13. Re:John McCain on blogs by bmajik · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of Course. This _is_ the "McCain" in "McCain-Feingold" we're talking about, after all.

      Surely you're familiar with the McCain-Feingold "incumbency protection act", who's aim is to create a dubious "protected class" of people for whom the 1st amendment (which protects _political speech_ and no other type) still actually applies.

      For everyone else (people who aren't "real journalists") -- no more 1st amendment rights for you, anytime an election is 6 months (or wahtever the bill says) away.

      McCain Feingold is one of these ridiculous laws that, when examined, seems totally ridiculous and unconstitutional. As a practical matter, I don't think it has had a chilling effect on much of anything. As a theoretical matter, it's one of the reasons why libertarians don't like McCain.

      In many ways the '08 Election is a reverse of the '04 Election. In 04 the Democrats were running a "he's not Bush" candidate, and to be frank that was Kerry's only real qualification.

      McCain is someone who is neither pleasing to conservative republicans nor to libertarians who normally grudgingly fall into the republican camp. He's the "not Obama & not Clinton" vote. Almost everyone I've spoken with is much more interested in "not Obama" than "McCain".

      Oddly enough, the fact that McCain is not squarely in the conservative/republican camp may make him an acceptable president. He obviously doesn't care about pissing off other republicans, and he obviously jumps off traditional conservative/republican dogma when it suits him. The reality of the senate voting record is that McCain has jumped across the aisle to get something done with the Democrats far more often than Obama has broken rank with the progressive agenda to get some reasonably-centerist legislation done by cooperating with Republicans.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    14. Re:John McCain on blogs by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      I don't think you quite get the idea of a tongue-in-cheek remark.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    15. Re:John McCain on blogs by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's implying--stating fairly clearly, in fact--that children think they know everything. I'm only 24, but in my experience, even looking back on my own actions, that tends to be true. I'd like to think I'm past it, but who knows if I'll think the same of myself a few more years down the road. Regardless of its truth, though, it's a societal meme in the same vein as "teenagers think they're invincible," so I wouldn't go so far as to ascribe anything to it specifically.

      To be honest, I'm not even sure the comment about bloggers should be considered more than a joke. It's two sentences at the end of a fairly long paragraph; twenty words out of two hundred--out of 3500 if we're counting the entire text of the speech. I checked out the link to the whole speech and while I didn't read it all, that wording is at the end of a paragraph with the next paragraph about him not being so sure of himself as an older man. It would have helped to hear the delivery, I think, but at the moment everything points to it simply being a joke.

    16. Re:John McCain on blogs by fermion · · Score: 1
      So what has changed. He still thinks he is better than anyone else, and still cannot conceive that someone who got into school without legacy and made a success of themselves without their daddy's help and without divorcing their first wife so they could marry into money might be more qualified as a role model to those of us who were not born into a legacy and had to work for a living. Pretty much he still seems to that ignorance, inexperienced, little boy who chooses not to believe that the world can be so much greater than is dreamt of in his philosophy.

      Of course 90% of what is said on blogs is crap, just like 100% of what McCain has said since winning the nomination is crap. But that does not mean that he does not have the right to say it.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    17. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been a programmer for Slashdot for eight years now. I've spent much of that time writing code to quash abuse without censoring contributions, and support thoughtful comments while discouraging "omg roftl," because goddammit I believe there's something vital and important about what ordinary people have to say.

      You mean, you wrote code giving unlimited mod points to editors and the ability to 'bitchslap' people they don't like.

      It sounds so much nicer when you say it...

    18. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      In 2006, John McCain gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, and took the opportunity to mock individual expression

      Incorrect, of course. Quite clearly, the quote shows that he is mocking people -- especially young people -- who think they are infallible and that know better than everyone else.

      Kinda like, well, you!

      I hope you are not intentionally misrepresenting what McCain said, and that you're being merely stupid.

    19. Re:John McCain on blogs by jamie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Making fun of me is fine (and I think I'm all those things, except "young"!)

      McCain was mocking and denigrating unsanctioned argument as a whole.

    20. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I find more important is that the target of his humor is the ceaseless argumentation on all matters, political and otherwise, that the citizenry engages in when permitted freedom of speech.

      You are implying McCain believes people need to be "permitted" freedom of speech.

      You are, of course, completely making that up. There is no truth to it. It's odd that you feel the need to lie about McCain; if he's so bad, why don't you just stick to truth?

      The sad thing is that YOUR guy, Obama, has attacked "the blogosphere" at least as much as McCain, but you apparently ... don't care. He has blamed "blogs" and the Internet for "driving up" his negatives. How dare he attack this "democracy at its most raw!"

      Come to think of it, you've done the same thing on MANY occasions.

      The point, of course, is that it is one thing to attack certain expressions on the Internet, and another to condemn the Internet in general. You, Obama, and McCain have all criticized certain expressions, not the whole thing.

      And politicians like McCain mock them, and mock the way we argue.

      No, he only criticizes SOME of the way they argue, such as pretending to be superior and making stuff up. And good for him. And good for you and Obama for doing the exact same thing.

      Fuck that shit.

      Fuck your overtly partisan hypocrisy.

    21. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of Course. This _is_ the "McCain" in "McCain-Feingold" we're talking about, after all.

      Surely you're familiar with the McCain-Feingold "incumbency protection act", who's aim is to create a dubious "protected class" of people for whom the 1st amendment (which protects _political speech_ and no other type) still actually applies.

      For everyone else (people who aren't "real journalists") -- no more 1st amendment rights for you, anytime an election is 6 months (or wahtever the bill says) away.

      McCain Feingold is one of these ridiculous laws that, when examined, seems totally ridiculous and unconstitutional.

      Not for nothing, let's remember the fact that Democrats supported the bill 198-12, and Republicans supported it 41-176, in the House. In the Senate, it was 46-3, and 11-38. In the Congress, Republicans broadly opposed the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act," and Democrats almost universally supported it.

      So let us not pretend (not that you were doing so) that Obama, a Democrat, who has already proven to be unprincipled on campaign financing (saying he would do one thing out of campaign finance principles, and then rejecting that principle and pretending what he was doing was following that principle), would not be in favor of McCain-Feingold too.

    22. Re:John McCain on blogs by Boss+Sauce · · Score: 1

      I sort of saw it as sarcasm on his part-- the confidence of youth, etc. Whatever, you kids and your internet machines-- I want to know about his policies regarding developing new technology to deal with the impending whale oil crisis...

    23. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1, Funny

      100% of what McCain has said since winning the nomination is crap.

      Then why has Obama adopted so many of McCain's positions, including on Iraq?

    24. Re:John McCain on blogs by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1
      "John McCain is a secret elitist!"

      That is just not true!

      "secret" is the opposite of "blatant".

    25. Re:John McCain on blogs by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        My my, a political tiff between editors. Who'da thunk? *grin*

        Everyone is hypocritical to some extent. We judge others by *what* they are hypocritical about. (feel free to substitute "dishonest" for "hypocritical" in the above, although the two aren't exactly equivalent they are similar esp when discussing career politicians)

        I find the contrast between Obama's tech page and McCain's interesting in that in Obama's he talks more about what should be done while McCain's reads more like a corporate resume. On that standpoint alone I would trust Obama more (although I don't agree with everything he says, either)

        I am entirely non-partisan; while I think Obama is likely the more honest of the two, I don't think that either candidate has what it'll take to get the US out of the mess we are in. I don't believe that *anyone* could do that, at this point. The problem goes far, far beyond whomever is inhabiting the oval office this decade.

        Anyway; continue, gentlemen. I think I'll write in Kodos this go around ;) least of the evils, eh?

      SB

        No, I haven't had my coffee yet. But Jamie, that was one hell of a great rant; it made my morning a bit brighter and summed up my current bitterness quite elegantly. Thanks :)

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    26. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose anyone who doesn't undrstand campaign finance law would call Obama unprincipled. Of course, anyone familiar with it would see that before Obama opted out of public financing McCain had set up state "victory funds," allowing him to accept donations with no cap. Plus he tossed on a combined fund to funnel up to $70k per donor into his campaign coffers. Then there's his massive discount he gets for using his wife's jet and other resources, which is a handy little loophole that he actually wrote into the law himself. And all of this is being done while he's in blatant violation of campaign finance laws in the primary, but he's safe as long as Bush can keep stacking the FEC.

      Faced with an opponnent like that, Obama had a choice. He could have played the game just as dirty and stuck to the letter of the law while raping its spirit. The other choice, which he took, was to play the game straight and take his opponnent head on. Personally, I'd say he made the principled choice while still allowing himself to compete.

    27. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is what is wrong with politics. It encourages people to be limit their thought processes. Jut because one side is crap, doesn't mean another side is crap, and one can't have an enclosed object without at least three straight sides.

      McCain was a relatively humble person, who, although not always right, seemed to try to be right. Even when GW Bush, a deserter from the US Military, attacked him, McCain took the high ground. It resulted in the US electing a deserter, but McCain remained in good graces. Now, McCain has learned the political lesson and has changed his position on oil, Iraq, and even though he whines incessantly about the fact he was tortured, he all of the sudden understands that torture is necessary, that the viet cong were right to do so to protect their sovereignty, and we have the same right. Obama, if he is to get elected, has learned the same lesson. What may be different, if you read the paper, is that Obama has always trampled over people who stood in his way. We saw this with the campaign. The two parties are generally going to be crap, and any third party will not have the political power to counteract it. So, what we hear most of the time from most politicians is crap, and it the democrat populous' job to filter the crap and not be sucked into the power grabbing fear based attack it represents

    28. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 0

      I find the contrast between Obama's tech page and McCain's interesting in that in Obama's he talks more about what should be done ... On that standpoint alone I would trust Obama more

      Despite the fact that he's never actually DONE anything, and that he's already changed on many of the things he SAID he would do? :-)

      I am entirely non-partisan; while I think Obama is likely the more honest of the two

      This befuddles me. I can't speak for YOU of course, but I wonder if the reason many people think this is because they believe that Obama "means well," so even if he goes back on something, well, he meant it at the time! And if McCain changes on something, well, he "obviously" was lying.

      Jamie, that was one hell of a great rant

      I don't believe I have ever thought a rant was good that was almost entirely based on fabrications.

    29. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Faced with an opponnent like that, Obama had a choice. He could have played the game just as dirty and stuck to the letter of the law while raping its spirit.

      Wow.

      You are so completely full of it I don't know where to begin.

      I won't bother, except to say that anyone familiar with the law and with Obama's statements knows that this is PRECISELY what he did: rape the spirit of the law, when he lied and said that his decision to opt out of public financing WAS THE SAME as public financing.

      Anyway, you also neglected to talk about the fact that Obama NEVER at ANY TIME followed through with his promise to "aggressively pursue" public financing. If you think that's principled, you're alone.

    30. Re:John McCain on blogs by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find the contrast between Obama's tech page and McCain's interesting in that in Obama's he talks more about what should be done ... On that standpoint alone I would trust Obama more

      Despite the fact that he's never actually DONE anything, and that he's already changed on many of the things he SAID he would do? :-)

      Obama is at least paying attention; he had his technical stance up long, long ago. McCain waited until the point in the campaign where it was necessary to do so, and what he put up, as I noted, sounds more like a corporate resume than a reasonable, rational technology statement by a potential future leader of the most powerful country on the planet.

      I am entirely non-partisan; while I think Obama is likely the more honest of the two

      This befuddles me. I can't speak for YOU of course, but I wonder if the reason many people think this is because they believe that Obama "means well," so even if he goes back on something, well, he meant it at the time! And if McCain changes on something, well, he "obviously" was lying.

      My non-partisan stance befuddles you, or ? ;)

        Does Obama "mean well"? I dunno, it's hard to tell, from a distance. I think he's a lot more honest about how he does feel about the issues, it doesn't feel - to me, yes - like he's playing the career game. McCain is, of course, a career professional.

        I'm being completely honest when I say I'm non-partisan, if you've read any of my posts over the years you'd see *I'm* being honest.

      Jamie, that was one hell of a great rant

      I don't believe I have ever thought a rant was good that was almost entirely based on fabrications.

      You're entitled to form and hold your own opinions. For a little while longer, anyway.

        Your response is typical of the ones I get from many career republican voters. I find them just as amusing as the ones I get from the other end of the spectrum. Neither style of fanatic, in my opinion, has much of anything new to offer.

        I'm still voting for Kodos. ;)

      Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    31. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 0

      This is what is wrong with politics. It encourages people to be limit their thought processes. Jut because one side is crap, doesn't mean another side is crap, and one can't have an enclosed object without at least three straight sides.

      I am not saying there is something wrong with what McCain did, obviously. I am just saying people who attack McCain as always being wrong are full of it.

      McCain was a relatively humble person, who, although not always right, seemed to try to be right. Even when GW Bush, a deserter from the US Military, attacked him, McCain took the high ground. It resulted in the US electing a deserter, but McCain remained in good graces.

      Wow. No, THAT is what is wrong with politics, people like you LYING and saying that Bush was ever a deserter.

      Now, McCain has learned the political lesson and has changed his position on oil

      Only in response to actual changes in our situation. Duh.

      Iraq

      Wow, this is a big fat lie. McCain's position on Iraq has not changed AT ALL. His position today -- we should leave as soon as we can leave Iraq with a stable government and military that can provide security, that we should increase troops to whatever level necessary to accomplish the job, etc. -- is the exact same position he had five years ago.

      and even though he whines incessantly about the fact he was tortured, he all of the sudden understands that torture is necessary

      Also a lie. McCain has NEVER come out in favor of torture.

    32. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insulting other people by claiming they're fabricating things to cover up some sort of self-justification of their irrational beliefs regarding their candidate is in poor taste.

      Doing it so that for the express reason that it justifies your own irrational beliefs in your candidate is just being a fucking prick.

      If McCain is the second coming of Jesus Christ and therefore he is honest and pure, why not try convincing us instead of just telling us Obama's a dick and anybody who supports him is lying?

    33. Re:John McCain on blogs by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      And strangely enough, many Slashdotters are outraged! Good post.

    34. Re:John McCain on blogs by strong_epoxy · · Score: 1

      If only Obama could get people to vote for him too. How does he convince Iran to disarm when he can't convince more than %45 of Americans to vote for him?

    35. Re:John McCain on blogs by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      lol, a most implacable logic! If I was you I'd look for job openings at Fox News.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    36. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Insulting other people by claiming they're fabricating things to cover up some sort of self-justification of their irrational beliefs regarding their candidate is in poor taste.

      Lying to make your own candidate look good is in poor taste. Shrug.

      Doing it so that for the express reason that it justifies your own irrational beliefs in your candidate is just being a fucking prick.

      It is astonishing to me that you would attack me for pointing out the fact that someone else is not telling the truth. Lunacy.

      If McCain is the second coming of Jesus Christ and therefore he is honest and pure

      Straw man fallacy.

      why not try convincing us instead of just telling us Obama's a dick and anybody who supports him is lying?

      Also straw man fallacy.

      And a red herring, like the rest of your post.

    37. Re:John McCain on blogs by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Wow, you ARE an idiot.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    38. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Obama is at least paying attention ...

      Well, or his handlers are. No matter, I do concede that the Obama campaign is more interested -- and PERHAPS more insightful, though the jury's still out -- about some important technological issues. I just do not accept that he can be trusted on any of it.

      he had his technical stance up long, long ago

      Right, just like his stance on the DC gun ban, which he favored before he opposed. Look, I am not trying to make Obama out to be a Kerry-style flip-flopper. But he simply does not have the experience for me to trust him, and he has shown many times that he cannot be trusted.

      If he gets elected and he follows through on it, great. I won't hold my breath.

      And I also won't sit here worrying about McCain, since most of this stuff won't happen anyway.

      What worries me more than McCain's view on this stuff is that both of them back a shield law for reporters. This is far more important than all this stuff, IMO.

      My non-partisan stance befuddles you, or ? ;)

      Ha. Nah. I just don't know how Obama is "more honest." He certainly hasn't been very honest in this campaign. I didn't even bring up the Rev Wright stuff, or his various dishonest attacks on Hillary and McCain.

      I think he's a lot more honest about how he does feel about the issues, it doesn't feel - to me, yes - like he's playing the career game.

      If you look at his history in Chicago and read what his contemporaries say about him, I don't think you'll feel the same way.

      You're entitled to form and hold your own opinions. For a little while longer, anyway.

      Ha. I think I was just pwn3d.

      Your response is typical of the ones I get from many career republican voters. I find them just as amusing as the ones I get from the other end of the spectrum. Neither style of fanatic, in my opinion, has much of anything new to offer.

      Fanatic? If you've read any of my posts over the years you'd see *I'm* not a fanatic. I have heavily criticized many Republicans, including McCain (which I did in this post!) and Bush, and I've actually posted defenses of both Kerry and Obama during their runs.

      Yes, I usually vote Republican, but not because I am partisan per se, but because I strongly believe in the principles the GOP pretends to espouse. And while voting GOP might not always get us there, voting Democrat will usually move us in the other direction.

      I am the chair of my legislative district GOP, and I recently posted my picks for the primary. In it I actually split my picks between a Democrat and a Republican for State Auditor, because the incumbent Democrat has done a very good job IMO, but I also respect and admire his Republican challenger. I think we will be well-served by either one.

      So yes, I am a Republican. But I do not always approve of Republicans and what they do, and I sometimes defend, and even support, Democrats.

    39. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you do not actually understand McCain's position on Iraq, Obama's position on Iraq, or both.

      All along, McCain has said we should leave Iraq as soon as we can do so safely, with Iraq remaining secure behind us.

      This is now Obama's position.

      Shrug.

    40. Re:John McCain on blogs by Mjec · · Score: 1

      Obama isn't going to convince Iran to disarm through 30s commercials and the occasional big speech. He'll be sitting down with leaders at Camp David for a week at a time. If he did that with the citizenry, I reckon he could probably get a fair proportion of the vote ;)

      PS: As voter turnout in the US is about 50%, if he has 45% of the population voting for him, that ain't half bad.

      --
      "But everyone should know everything." -markab
    41. Re:John McCain on blogs by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Obama is at least paying attention ...

      Well, or his handlers are. No matter, I do concede that the Obama campaign is more interested -- and PERHAPS more insightful, though the jury's still out -- about some important technological issues. I just do not accept that he can be trusted on any of it.

      Neither do I. But if I had no choice but to trust either of them, I'd take Obama over McCain, for reasons noted.

      he had his technical stance up long, long ago

      Right, just like his stance on the DC gun ban, which he favored before he opposed. Look, I am not trying to make Obama out to be a Kerry-style flip-flopper. But he simply does not have the experience for me to trust him, and he has shown many times that he cannot be trusted.

      If he gets elected and he follows through on it, great. I won't hold my breath.

      And I also won't sit here worrying about McCain, since most of this stuff won't happen anyway.

      What worries me more than McCain's view on this stuff is that both of them back a shield law for reporters. This is far more important than all this stuff, IMO.

      Good point, there.

      My non-partisan stance befuddles you, or ? ;)

      Ha. Nah. I just don't know how Obama is "more honest." He certainly hasn't been very honest in this campaign. I didn't even bring up the Rev Wright stuff, or his various dishonest attacks on Hillary and McCain.

      I'm not gonna go there. The barbecue is hot and there's a cold beer waiting for me. ;) But my impression is that a lot of that was media hype. It's akin to saying, well, yeah, I have friends the fact of which I associate with them disqualifies me to be president because they are firebrands and occasionally say things that can be construed as racist. Whoop de fucking doo.

      McCain's friendly circle is quite well known, and includes people who steal everything that isn't locked down.

      While the political arena is overall a slimepit, the republican party is rather well known for the levels they will descend to, as you well know, given your position there. (root out your own evil, sayeth I)

      I think he's a lot more honest about how he does feel about the issues, it doesn't feel - to me, yes - like he's playing the career game.

      If you look at his history in Chicago and read what his contemporaries say about him, I don't think you'll feel the same way.

      I have. Forgive me if I still think he's the lesser of the two evils. ;)

      You're entitled to form and hold your own opinions. For a little while longer, anyway.

      Ha. I think I was just pwn3d.

      Such was not my intention, but yeah, I think you were :)

      As I noted before, I don't think our choice of Supreme Leader really matters anymore. The taint is much deeper and can't be rooted out by any form of free elections.

      Your response is typical of the ones I get from many career republican voters. I find them just as amusing as the ones I get from the other end of the spectrum. Neither style of fanatic, in my opinion, has much of anything new to offer.

      Fanatic? If you've read any of my posts over the years you'd see *I'm* not a fanatic.

      I didn't say you were. I said the response was typical.

      I have heavily criticized many Republicans, including McCain (which I did in this post!) and Bush, and I've actually posted defenses of both Kerry and Obama during their runs.

      Whoa, ok. I wasn't attacking you :)

      Yes, I usually vote Republican, but not because I a

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    42. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow did he really say that?

      The hubris is astounding!

    43. Re:John McCain on blogs by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      A wise man knows he is a fool. He does not force his foolishness on others. Instead, it is in his wisdom that he only answers the questions of those who seek him out. For even if he gives a foolish answer, he is merely provided what is asked of him. Such is the paradox of politics and having wise men as leaders in a democracy.

      Well said.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    44. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't bother, except to say that anyone familiar with the law and with Obama's statements knows that this is PRECISELY what he did: rape the spirit of the law, when he lied and said that his decision to opt out of public financing WAS THE SAME as public financing.

      Wow, you really don't understand what the public financing system is. Obama never opted into public financing, so it would be impossible for him to manipulate the system. See, the point of the system is to prevent moneyed individuals from currying favor with politicians. You know, the same people who made five and six figure donations to McCain's victory fund in return for favors to be named at a later date. And then there's people like Harry Sargeant, who do the same thing by funnelling money in through straw donors. Regardless of which method they chose, McCain is bedding down with them and he's ready to put out--and all he has to do is help them run a gangbang on the finance laws he helped pass.

      Of course, you must know that everything I'm stating about McCain is completely true and has been reported by numerous credible sources. That's why you won't respond to it and are trying to snipe Obama instead. Yes, Obama promised to "aggressively pursue an agreement for a publicly financed election." The problem is that no agreement is possible when the other party is already so deeply committed to rigging the system. Obama made an offer in good conscience, and McCain's people were too corupt to play fair. They were expecting he'd let them cheat while he played with one arm tied behind his back. So please stop getting all huffy because Obama didn't walk blindly into McCain's obvious trap.

      The fact is that McCain is about as dirty as politicians come. I admit that his period of conscience in the 90s had me fooled too, but he's reverted to type and is running one of the slimiest campaigns in history--particularly when you look at where we are in the election calander. The funny thing is that McCain such a bad candidate that you can't seem to find anything positive to say about him, which is why all your effort is going into lying about Obama. That's just sad.

    45. Re:John McCain on blogs by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      "and took the opportunity to mock individual expression"

      Oh good Lord, he did no such thing.

      Read your own quote. He was mocking his own arrogance when he was young, and by extension, was cautioning the crowd against the same thing. He was admitting that like many young people, he thought he knew everything when he was a young man. That's mocking free expression?

      "His contempt for citizens expressing their views is, presumably, why he introduced legislation that would basically have shut down comments on blogs and on sites like Slashdot."

      How about a link from a site that doesn't have your own personal political axe to grind? ThinkProgress? Why not throw in Truthout.org while you're at it?

      Here's a link on the actual bill (and not just TP's embellishments) from a reputable news source:

      Senator: Illegal images must be reported.

      What you failed to mention in your post that this law specifically targeted kiddie porn pictures, and posts by registered sex offenders. The law was meant to punish websites that didn't report them to the proper authorities. Whether or not this is workable, it wasn't the fascist attempt to stifle speech you describe. Reporting a pedophile posting pics of children engaged in sex is "contempt for individual expression"? Are you serious?

      You make it sound like he was trying to pass a law regulating speech on blogs. He was doing no such thing, and I think you know that. Unless you and the other editors start allowing links to kiddie porn, this wouldn't have affected Slashdot at all. "Shut down comments on blogs"? Bullshit, sir. Regardless of the merits, or lack of, of the bill in question, you went into hysterical drama queen mode on this one.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    46. Re:John McCain on blogs by ericspinder · · Score: 1

      --that children think they know everything. I'm only 24, but in my experience, even looking back on my own actions, that tends to be true

      I see that as a euphemism for "can't be persuaded to learn the truth", as few children would claim to know nuclear physics. I was having a conversation with a colleague from work over lunch one day, and he dismissed me with something like "once you get older, you'll know", I looked him square in the eye and said "I'm nearly 40". Truth is that some people will always believe that they have a natural edge in any situation, whether it be age, position, race, sex, height, muscularity, taste in music, ...[whatever]. As they get older, the reasons change, but the core belief often remains, I think that McCain is one of those people.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    47. Re:John McCain on blogs by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      "I'd agree with you, except that right after the blog line McCain said he "would have felt very much at home in the medium", obviously taking a cheap shot at bloggers as people who "dominate the conversation about anything and everything as if they knew the best approach and all others had nothing to offer."

      And? What did he say that was wrong? Are you going to deny that the blogosphere is filled with lots of hot air? There's a reason why most blogs go unread. Most people are normal, average folks with no great insight on anything, nor the talent to write it with any level of interest.

      Put simply, not everyone grows up to be an astronaut. Most of us are just average schmucks without anything really interesting to say, myself included in that. The Internet just gives us the freedom to say it anyway. John Lennon was wrong. We don't all shine on, at least not brightly. Most of us are, at best, average, and that's just fine. In fact, that's reality. That's the normal state of things.

      While I truly love the Internet and appreciate it, it has given us experts with no expertise, pundits with no insight, and an avenue for people who think they know it all to try and prove it. McCain is probably right that the young and arrogant are right at home, here.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    48. Re:John McCain on blogs by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      Then why has Obama adopted so many of McCain's positions, including on Iraq?

      Do you have sources for this, or are you just making it up? Obama's stated position is a 16 month timetable for withdrawal of the main forces. He has had this proposal for months, and it was endorsed by Maliki when Obama visited Iraq before angry noises from Washington forced him to backpedal. McCain's Iraq page has no such timetable, although he started suggesting expedited withdrawal as a possible option after Maliki's announcement undermined his "100 years if necessary" position.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    49. Re:John McCain on blogs by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Apparently the groupthink on slashdot is so juvenile that it can't tell this speech is an expression of "When I was young and stupid, I believed all this shit about how I knew everything and no one else knew anything. If blogs had existed back then, I could have told even more people how I knew everything and they knew nothing". I'm sure it must have gotten a good laugh from the audience as they recognised it as parody of the typical 20-something know-it-all.

      Or maybe not, since slashdot groupthink doesn't seem to get it. But most people here are still in 20-something know-it-all mode, too.

      (Geez, I don't even like McCain, and I can see this. WTF is wrong with you people?)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    50. Re:John McCain on blogs by Reziac · · Score: 1

      My initial impression of Obama was that he was honest and meant well.

      He himself convinced me to the contrary. No one else had anything to do with it. The endpoint he left me at is that I no longer trust him at all.

      McCain, at least, I find to be an honest asshole, who wastes no breath trying to convince me otherwise. I don't like him, but at least I've come to think what we see is what we'll get.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    51. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      He's right, you are an idiot. When I see an idiot of such a calibre, I have a special request to make. Please designate me as your foe.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    52. Re:John McCain on blogs by jamie · · Score: 1

      He was mocking his own arrogance when he was young

      Now ask yourself to what end.

      He was mocking the "blogosphere" using (phony, smarmy) self-deprecation.

      I'm not the one who sneered at those "infatuated with self-expression" -- those are McCain's words. The point of his extended joke was that young people have little valuable to say, and blogs are similarly worthless.

      That's the conservative point of view: your elders are smarter than you, so just listen to them and shut your mouth until you're 50.

      (The progressive point of view might be to thank the bigoted, ignorant, hidebound bastards who brought us up for the few good things they accomplished. Say, winning World War Two and inventing the transistor -- it's a short list. Then show them to a seat so they can watch in dismay while those of us who got a political education from someone other than Augustine, Hobbes, and Leviticus try to fix up the mess they stuck us with.)

      Half the blogosphere was yelling its head off in 2002-2003 that the Iraq war was a horrible idea, sold to us with phony reasons. But our political system is run by white-hairs who sneer that blogging hippies are too young and foolish to listen to. Here in 2008, having been wrong about the war is still a qualification for getting on the TV, because it shows you were serious and wise, and having been right from the beginning is evidence of one's, as you say, arrogance.

      How about a link from a site that doesn't have your own personal political axe to grind?

      Yes, the link you give is ThinkProgress's primary source, so thank you for pointing out that TP and I do not rely on biased information. (That source is actually a story by Declan McCullagh, a libertarian whose politics I mostly strongly oppose except on matters of censorship.)

      Did you read the link you gave? Here's what Declan wrote:

      The other section of McCain's legislation targets convicted sex offenders. It would create a federal registry of "any e-mail address, instant-message address, or other similar Internet identifier" they use, and punish sex offenders with up to 10 years in prison if they don't supply it.

      Then, any social-networking site must take "effective measures" to remove any Web page that's "associated" with a sex offender.

      Because "social-networking site" isn't defined, it could encompass far more than just MySpace.com, Friendster and similar sites. The list could include: Slashdot, which permits public profiles; Amazon.com, which permits author profiles and personal lists; and blogs like RedState.com that show public profiles. In addition, media companies like News.com publisher CNET Networks permit users to create profiles of favorite games, gadgets and music.

      "This constitutionally dubious proposal is being made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts," said EFF's Bankston. Studies by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children show the online sexual solicitation of minors has dropped in the past five years, despite the growth of social-networking services, he said.

      A McCain aide, who did not want to be identified by name, said on Friday that the measure was targeted at any Web site that "you'd have to join up or become a member of to use." No payment would be necessary to qualify, the aide added.

      McCain's bill would have chilled free expression on the internet to the point where very few blogs could have afforded to enable comments. Maybe McCain didn't realize the implications of his own bill for bloggers who want to engage their audience. Or, as his mockery at Liberty would suggest, maybe he just doesn't value open discussion on the internet.

    53. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      Lying to make your own candidate look good is in poor taste. Shrug.

      Yes, it does; it's also insulting everyone forced to suffer your rabidly uninformed presence. So please stop it, for the benefit of us all.

      It is astonishing to me that you would attack me for pointing out the fact that someone else is not telling the truth. Lunacy.

      The problem is that you haven't made any truthful points. You've used vague innuendo and outright lies to mount an ad hominem attack on Senator Obama while providing nothing substantive in support of John McCain. Frankly, it's insulting to everyone and simply lowers the quality of the discourse.

      Straw man fallacy.

      No, although it certainly was hyperbole. Go check a dictionary if you're confused.

      Another straw man fallacy.

      And a red herring, like the rest of your post.

      You really need to stop using these terms because you obviously don't know what they mean. Sadly, I think the best you can do is lie and evade. You were challenged to promote your candidate on his own merits, and you dismiss it. That attitude is precisely why you lost this argument. You don't have anything of positive substance to say about Senator McCain, and the best you can do is lie about his opponent.

    54. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      To be fair, in a recent CNN interview McCain said that 16 months sounded like a "pretty good timetable." Meanwhile, the Iraqi's are now demanding a timetable. So, McCain and Obama's positions have certainly grown closer, but it's because McCain has shifted while Obama hasn't. Of course, it is McCain, and he'll probably say the exact opposite in another few weeks.

    55. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to see you to back those assertions up, because right now you sound like nothing more than a concern troll.

    56. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Obama's stated position is a 16 month timetable for withdrawal of the main forces.

      Which he has, in recent months, repeatedly stated will depend entirely on whether we can do so without leaving Iraq in a state of chaos.

      Whether there is a "timetable" is irrelevant, because with both McCain and Obama, the timetable is "as soon as we can without threatening Iraq's security."

      Obama says 16 months, but by Obama's own admission, that is the same thing as saying "as soon as possible," which is what McCain says.

      [McCain] started suggesting expedited withdrawal as a possible option after Maliki's announcement undermined his "100 years if necessary" position.

      McCain never had such a position. This is a persistent lie, and it's sad. He did not say 100 years "if necessary," he said 100 years "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

    57. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Yawwwwwwwn. "I can't actually rebut what you say so I am going to resort to being stupid!" Your mother must be proud.

    58. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      ... if I had no choice but to trust either of them, I'd take Obama over McCain, for reasons noted.

      I didn't see any serious reasons, but OK.

      Ha. Nah. I just don't know how Obama is "more honest." He certainly hasn't been very honest in this campaign. I didn't even bring up the Rev Wright stuff, or his various dishonest attacks on Hillary and McCain.

      I'm not gonna go there. The barbecue is hot and there's a cold beer waiting for me. ;) But my impression is that a lot of that was media hype. It's akin to saying, well, yeah, I have friends the fact of which I associate with them disqualifies me to be president because they are firebrands and occasionally say things that can be construed as racist. Whoop de fucking doo.

      No, that wasn't my point. My point was about honesty. He said he never heard Wright say such things (even though he had been a member for decades and Wright says things like that a lot); he said he would never disown Wright (which he later did); and so on.

      I also do not care about the Wright stuff itself, much. I do care about how he lied and manipulated to deal with it.

      McCain's friendly circle is quite well known, and includes people who steal everything that isn't locked down.

      That's an oddly false thing to say, but note again, I was not talking about the company he keeps, but his response to the "scandal" about it.

      While the political arena is overall a slimepit, the republican party is rather well known for the levels they will descend to, as you well know, given your position there.

      Actually, it's quite clear in my area -- Washington state -- that the Democrats are MUCH worse than the Republicans. There was the racist flyer from the Dem party against a black Republican that said something like, "do you want him in YOUR neighborhood?" There was just last month a racist ad against the GOP candidate for governor, trying to use an ethnic stereotype of Italians against him by using The Sopranos' theme song (illegally) in an ad.

      That's not to say the Republicans are squeaky clean. I am waging war against a Democrat running for state Senate right now, Fred Walser. Everything I posted on that site is true. I have been very careful about that. Meanwhile Walser -- who was actually convicted of lying and sentenced to a year in jail in June -- just sent out a piece that directly lies about his Republican opponent.

      Some people say my site is "low" or "slimy." I say as long as it is true and relevant to the person's fitness for office, then it is perfectly above-board. I am not talking about his family (except in regard to his wife's service as the Mayor of Monroe), I am not talking about his personality or character, only providing relevant facts related to his existing record of service that speak to his character.

      If only the Democrats around here would do the same as I am, then I'd not complain about them being dirty.

      I have. Forgive me if I still think he's the lesser of the two evils. ;)

      Sorry, but I won't. McCain has no serious dirt in his past (yes, that includes the Keating scandal, for which he was completely exonerated, with even Democrats on the ethics committee and the prosecutor saying there was no evidence he did anything wrong).

      *shrug* - you are still playing the game.

      I am, literally, fighting for liberty. Are you? If so, good.

    59. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      I am not saying there is something wrong with what McCain did, obviously. I am just saying people who attack McCain as always being wrong are full of it.

      That's absurd. McCain is far too inconsistent to be wrong all the time.

      Wow. No, THAT is what is wrong with politics, people like you LYING and saying that Bush was ever a deserter.

      Bush stopped showing up for the cushy Air National Guard drills that his father bought him into. If I'd done something like that while I was in, I would have landed in the brig. Of course, I wasn't a politician's little boy.

      Only in response to actual changes in our situation. Duh.

      Sorry, but your guy doesn't get a free pass--particularly if your whole MO is to attack the other side for doing arguably the same thing. Please provide some specifics as to what the difference is between a thoughtful change of position and a flipflop.

      Wow, this is a big fat lie. McCain's position on Iraq has not changed AT ALL. His position today -- we should leave as soon as we can leave Iraq with a stable government and military that can provide security, that we should increase troops to whatever level necessary to accomplish the job, etc. -- is the exact same position he had five years ago.

      I'll give this one to you in part. McCain was always for the invasion of Iraq--to the detriment of everything else. In the late 90s he regularly complained about Clinton dedicating resources to hunting down al Qaeda when he wanted to ramp up against Iraq. A decade later, McCain still doesn't give a damn about the terrorists actually attacking us; he just wants everyone to focus on Iraq.

      After McCain got his war, however, he has constantly changed his position on its prosecution--and that position has nearly always been politically motivated. When the war was popular he agreed with the administration and sang their praises; when it was unpopular he complained about their missteps and and pointed fingers.

      Also a lie. McCain has NEVER come out in favor of torture.

      You're joking, right? McCain voted against S.1538 specifically because it would have required all interrogations to follow the Army Field Manual (ie. Geneva Convention) restrictions. The only clause he took issue with was the one that explicitly prohibited torture.

    60. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      You are so horribly uninformed that it genuinely hurts to read the crap you regurgitate. Obama's position on Iraq has always been a phased withdrawal, and he's proposed a 16-month time-line for over a year. McCain was against a withdrawal time-line and claimed "we'll leave in victory," whatever the hell that means. Now, however, McCain is saying that 16 months sounds like "a pretty good time-line." So how does McCain moving toward Obama's position mean that Obama has shifted?

    61. Re:John McCain on blogs by Reziac · · Score: 1

      How does describing my own change of opinion make me a troll?? Geez, don't you ever change your opinion about something over time, as more information filters into your awareness?? That's all I was talking about.

      Tho after reading your other comments under this article, I think you're just looking for a flame war. *shrug*

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    62. Re:John McCain on blogs by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      All I can say is that your assessment of the various positions is so simplistic that I don't even know where to start to debunk them.

      I'll leave it at my original statement - you're an idiot.

      Shrug.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    63. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      All I can say is that your assessment of the various positions is so simplistic that I don't even know where to start to debunk them.

      Riiiiiiiiight.

    64. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      You are so horribly uninformed that it genuinely hurts to read the crap you regurgitate.

      False.

      Obama's position on Iraq has always been a phased withdrawal, and he's proposed a 16-month time-line for over a year.

      And now he says that timeline is ENTIRELY subject to whether we can get out while leaving Iraq secure, which means the timeline is not 16 months, but "16 months, or less, or more."

      McCain was against a withdrawal time-line

      A specific date, yes, he has been against it, for good reason: as Obama now concedes, you can never know that far in advance if you'll be able to do it, and further, you give too much information away by announcing it.

      ... and claimed "we'll leave in victory," whatever the hell that means.

      Ask Obama, his view is THE SAME THING.

      Now, however, McCain is saying that 16 months sounds like "a pretty good time-line."

      Yes, but not one he would announce or promise to stick to (as Obama had done, but no longer does).

      So how does McCain moving toward Obama's position mean that Obama has shifted?

      Talk about horribly uninformed. McCain was never against coming out of Iraq. He was only against announcing specific timelines, and he STILL has not announced specific timelines. And Obama is the one who has now come out and said his timeline is subject to change.

    65. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Bush stopped showing up for the cushy Air National Guard drills that his father bought him into. If I'd done something like that while I was in, I would have landed in the brig. Of course, I wasn't a politician's little boy.

      Nope. You are ignorant. He did not have to show up to every drill, he had to show up for a certain number of hours ... which he did.

      Only in response to actual changes in our situation. Duh.

      Sorry, but your guy doesn't get a free pass--particularly if your whole MO is to attack the other side for doing arguably the same thing.

      You know what a straw man is, don't you? I never attacked "the other side" simply for doing that.

      In the late 90s he regularly complained about Clinton dedicating resources to hunting down al Qaeda when he wanted to ramp up against Iraq.

      You're lying again.

      A decade later, McCain still doesn't give a damn about the terrorists actually attacking us; he just wants everyone to focus on Iraq.

      Also a lie.

      After McCain got his war, however, he has constantly changed his position on its prosecution

      And another lie.

      When the war was popular he agreed with the administration and sang their praises; when it was unpopular he complained about their missteps and and pointed fingers.

      More lies. Since the beginning, back in 2003, McCain was criticizing the handling of the war, saying we didn't have enough troops and so on.

      Also a lie. McCain has NEVER come out in favor of torture.

      You're joking, right?

      Not remotely.

      McCain voted against S.1538 specifically because it would have required all interrogations to follow the Army Field Manual (ie. Geneva Convention) restrictions. The only clause he took issue with was the one that explicitly prohibited torture.

      The first sentence is true. The second sentence is NOT true. What he objected to was the notion that the CIA and the military should have the SAME RULES about how to conduct interrogations. In fact, McCain has all along favored specifically banning the CIA from conducting certain procedures, like waterboarding. He simply did not want to link the CIA to the Army Field Manual.

      So yes, what you are saying is a lie. Opposing linking the CIA to the Army Field Manual is NOT the same thing as being in favor of torture.

    66. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does; it's also insulting everyone forced to suffer your rabidly uninformed presence.

      Considering I have directly identified several lies you've told, you're not one to talk.

      Straw man fallacy.

      No, although it certainly was hyperbole. Go check a dictionary if you're confused.

      I never hinted that McCain was "honest and pure." You were making that up. For it to be hyperbole, it would have to be an exaggeration of the truth, but it is not even remotely true, so no, it is not hyperbole. Nice try, though, but you need more work at this.

      You really need to stop using these terms because you obviously don't know what they mean.

      You said that I am telling you "anybody who supports [Obama] is lying." I never even HINTED at this. At all. In any way. Again, it is a straw man. And since it has nothing to do with the discussion but is purely a diversionary tactic, it's a red herring (technically an ad hominem, which is a form of red herring).

      You don't have anything of positive substance to say about Senator McCain, and the best you can do is lie about his opponent.

      I've identified several lies you've told. You've not identified a SINGLE lie I've told.

      Again, you are not very good at this.

    67. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      Considering I have directly identified several lies you've told, you're not one to talk.

      What are you talking about? This is my first comment on this topic, and the first time I've ever replied to you. Do you generally initiate discourse by making a false attack?

      I never hinted that McCain was "honest and pure." You were making that up. For it to be hyperbole, it would have to be an exaggeration of the truth, but it is not even remotely true, so no, it is not hyperbole. Nice try, though, but you need more work at this.

      Once again you are attributing to me statements that I never made. I was simply pointing out that the original comment used hyperbole, not a straw man. That doesn't make the framing anymore legitimate, it's just that his extending of your support for McCain to a messiah-like worship is more accurately called hyperbole. Sorry if it confused you, I'm just a stickler for accuracy.

      You said that I am telling you "anybody who supports [Obama] is lying." I never even HINTED at this. At all. In any way. Again, it is a straw man. And since it has nothing to do with the discussion but is purely a diversionary tactic, it's a red herring (technically an ad hominem, which is a form of red herring).

      We've already established that your entire premise here is wrong; those weren't my words. However, you also seem to miss the point of the original commentor, which I'll address in the following paragraph.

      I've identified several lies you've told. You've not identified a SINGLE lie I've told.

      Again, you are not very good at this.

      Here's where we get to the real point. The original commentor, myself, and several others have noticed the same thing. You've attacked Obama quite relentlessly, primarily by misrepresenting his positions and record. You falsely claimed that he has changed all his positions, is dishonest, has no record, and is adopting McCain's position on Iraq. All of those claims are known falsehoods, which is the real distraction. You still haven't found one positive thing to say about McCain. All you've done is prop up false arguments against Obama and dodge anytime you're asked why you support McCain. Frankly, it's an abysmally bad way to make an argument for your candidate.

    68. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What are you talking about? This is my first comment on this topic, and the first time I've ever replied to you. Do you generally initiate discourse by making a false attack?

      It was your first comment, but it wasn't the first comment of yours that I replied to. So no, what I said wasn't false.

      Once again you are attributing to me statements that I never made.

      I never said you DID. However, when I said I did NOT, and that therefore it was a straw man, you said it was mere "hyperbole."

      I was simply pointing out that the original comment used hyperbole, not a straw man.

      And I pointed out that you are incorrect.

      We've already established that your entire premise here is wrong; those weren't my words.

      And now I've established that your premise about my premise is wrong.

      You've attacked Obama quite relentlessly, primarily by misrepresenting his positions and record.

      Incorrect on all counts. I have only made a few criticisms of him, hardly a "relentless" attack, and I misrepresented not a single thing.

      You falsely claimed that he has changed all his positions

      See, there you go with straw men again. I never said any such thing. And please don't give us this "hyperbole" nonsense.

      I did say he has changed on MANY positions, which is, of course, true: his broken promise to "aggressively pursue" public financing, his reversal on his support for the DC gun ban, his change on oil drilling, his change on accepting the support of "special interests," his change on the Cuba embargo, and much more.

      I am not saying all of these changes are bad. His change to saying the DC gun ban was unconstitutional was a good change, though it doesn't speak well of his supposed expertise on the Constitution to have thought the other way less than a year ago. His change on drilling could easily be explained as a simple change based on the conditions "on the ground," and I do not condemn him for that at all, although I do wish he had had more foresight to support it earlier. Same thing on nuclear power, actually.

      is dishonest

      I said Obama has been dishonest, yes. And I gave specific examples.

      has no record

      Again, I never said that.

      and is adopting McCain's position on Iraq

      I backed that up with facts. You may disagree with my conclusion, but I think given the facts you look a lot more subjective in your conclusion than I do with mine.

      All of those claims are known falsehoods

      Lie.

      You still haven't found one positive thing to say about McCain.

      Red herring.

      All you've done is prop up false arguments against Obama and dodge anytime you're asked why you support McCain.

      This is a lie in two ways. First, I don't do this whenever anyone asks me about why I support McCain. I've actually been very candid about why I support McCain, for months. I even suggested like two years ago that I thought he was the best candidate for the GOP.

      Second, no one actually ASKED me in this discussion why I support McCain. And even if they had, I wouldn't devote much time to it, because it is beside the point of this discussion.

    69. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      Your entire argument collapses into its own false premise. It's a verifiable fact that Obama has spent roughly a year proposing a 16-month time-line contingent to the situation on the ground, and he's been entirely consistent on that. If anything, Obama has actually more strongly committed to the 16-month time-line in recent months while McCain has moved in Obama's direction. These are provable facts, and you're either completely uninformed or entirely without scruples to claim anything different.

      So, since you're incapable of honestly discussing these topics, I see no point in wasting more time on you. Please come back when you're ready to be honest and informed.

    70. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      Your position is so provably false that I'm no longer willing to lend it any sense of credibility with further debate. I'll just let people read earlier in the thread to see how easily your lies are debunked.

    71. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, way to read through the link you posted. It mentions blogs ONCE, in this quote:

      >He said it was not the McCain campaign itself that was responsible for the attacks but the âoeapparatus of conservative columnists, blogs and the like.â

      That does not sound like he is blaming it all on "blogs", but rather blaming it all on "the conservative columnists, blogs, and the like."
      So he's blaming it on the CONSERVATIVE WRITERS, not THE BLOGOSPHERE.
      Jeeze.

    72. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gosh, pudge, were you assuming that no one would click on your misleading link? You say Obama blamed "blogs and the Internet" but linked to a story in which he blamed Fox News and National Review (correctly, by the way) and didn't even mention blogs until the last sentence. Even then, he only mentioned conservative blogs and lumped them in after conservative columnists. He never mentioned the Internet nor the blogosphere.

      So I don't think you're honest.

    73. Re:John McCain on blogs by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      Whether there is a "timetable" is irrelevant, because with both McCain and Obama, the timetable is "as soon as we can without threatening Iraq's security."

      I think the timetable is the most relevant aspect of the debate. Obama has submitted a concrete numerical goal, while McCain refused to make any such proposals. Imagine if you were a programmer, and in another universe you had a twin working on the same project. In universe A, project manager A says, "This is the project. We think we can finish it in 16 months (for reasons X,Y,Z, although unforeseen circumstances may change this). Please structure your subordinate goals accordingly." In universe B, project manager B says, "This is the project. At some point, when the code looks good, we'd like to have a release." Do you really think the two managers have functionally equivalent positions? You seem to be deliberately ignoring the possibility of nuance.

      He did not say 100 years "if necessary," he said 100 years "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

      This is a decisive example of "straight-talking." He said it was fine with him, and then he added that bold counterfactual to soften the blow. At this point it's pretty well-established that Americans are indeed being injured, harmed, wounded, and killed. Logically, this makes his previous statement completely useless.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    74. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      I think the timetable is the most relevant aspect of the debate. Obama has submitted a concrete numerical goal, while McCain refused to make any such proposals.

      See, I don't get this at all. Both of them say they will get out as soon as possible, modulo the same preconditions.

      Do you really think the two managers have functionally equivalent positions?

      First, I am not going to even begin to think it is rational to compare business product development to managing a war.

      Second, this is further a bad analogy because as I've already made clear, and as should be obvious, the fact that timetables are not being talked about in public doesn't mean they don't exist. There's damned good reasons for not talking about them in public.

      You seem to be deliberately ignoring the possibility of nuance.

      No, I don't seem to be doing that at all.

      He did not say 100 years "if necessary," he said 100 years "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

      This is a decisive example of "straight-talking."

      Yes, thank you for recognizing that McCain was talking very straight and plainly.

      He said it was fine with him, and then he added that bold counterfactual to soften the blow.

      False. You are -- apparently intentionally, but either way -- misrepresenting him.

      At this point it's pretty well-established that Americans are indeed being injured, harmed, wounded, and killed.

      Right now, yes.

      Logically, this makes his previous statement completely useless.

      Incorrect. Since he was talking about the future, not the present, it is -- logically -- nonsensical to come to such a conclusion.

      He did not say, nor intend to say, nor intend anyone to think, that we will only keep troops there NOW if they are not being injured, harmed, wounded, or killed. And Obama would not say such a thing either. McCain was simply making the obvious, clear, and true point that from his perspective, and the perspective of most people, it DOES NOT MATTER if troops remain in Iraq, so long as they are not harmed. But currently, they ARE harmed, so -- according to McCain -- we should either get them out, or change the situation so they are no longer being harmed.

    75. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Your entire argument collapses into its own false premise.

      False.

      It's a verifiable fact that Obama has spent roughly a year proposing a 16-month time-line contingent to the situation on the ground, and he's been entirely consistent on that.

      Incorrect. He had said previously that he would give the order, and it was the job of the generals to implement that order. NOW he says, he will only do it if the generals say he can do it.

      Please come back when you're ready to be honest and informed.

      Considering that I actually just showed you were wrong, and considering you still have many lies left out on the table you've not taken back, I shan't care what you think about how "honest" or "informed" I am.

    76. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Your position is so provably false that I'm no longer willing to lend it any sense of credibility with further debate. I'll just let people read earlier in the thread to see how easily your lies are debunked.

      Translation: "Damn, he sure kicked my ass, but I am going to try to get in a last word anyway, and pretend that I just don't want to bother."

      Waaaaaaaah.

    77. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Uh, way to read through the link you posted.

      Thank you.

      It mentions blogs ONCE

      Exactly.

      That does not sound like he is blaming it all on "blogs"

      I never said he blamed it "all" on blogs.

      So he's blaming it on the CONSERVATIVE WRITERS, not THE BLOGOSPHERE.

      Oh, you actually thought I was saying that Obama was blaming a lifeless mass of wires and computer chips, rather than real people? That's just silly!

    78. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Gosh, pudge, were you assuming that no one would click on your misleading link?

      There was no misleading link.

      You say Obama blamed "blogs and the Internet"

      Which he did.

      but linked to a story in which he blamed Fox News and National Review (correctly, by the way) and didn't even mention blogs until the last sentence

      So you're saying I am being misleading for saying he blamed "blogs" in a story that notes that he ... blamed "blogs."

      Come again?

      He never mentioned the Internet nor the blogosphere.

      I never said "the blogosphere," and last I checked, most "blogs" are on the Internet.

      So I don't think you're honest.

      And I don't think you're rational. Honestly. You're telling me it is dishonest to say Obama said something he said. Just ... wow.

    79. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've seen of most blogs, this would be accurate - if not in chronological age, then in psychological age....

    80. Re:John McCain on blogs by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, 100% wrong. He was NOT mocking unsanctioned argument - he was mocking the egoism of bloggers in general and the young specifically; that for some reason they believe that their perception of the world is somehow original, is the clearest, the most correct, and that the ideas that they have are somehow ENTITLED to respect despite a complete lack of life experience or credentials.

      He is utterly NOT criticizing free speech and debate, he's criticizing those who step up to the podium to speak with nothing worthwhile to say but the ignorance not to know it. Look up the root meaning of the word sophomore, for example.

      I can see how you might misperceive this, if you were already prone to disliking the man. He's also not, I believe, saying that people can't argue issues without credential or standing - hardly so. But words coming from Joe Public or from Water-Cooler Pundit or Internet Expert are not prima facie of any credibility. This doesn't mean that they can't accidentally be wise; it does mean that they are UNLIKELY to be valuable in most contexts outside their actual experience. I can't comment extensively on geopolitics and expect to be taken as seriously as, say, Kissinger.

      --
      -Styopa
    81. Re:John McCain on blogs by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1
      Freedom of press comes only to the one who have a press. -- Whats-his-name-I-forget

      In short he wants to take away our press. Get him!!onetwentyone1!!

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    82. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      Keep dreaming. It's all you have.

    83. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      If that's the lie you ave to tell yourself to make it all better, then go right ahead.

    84. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Keep dreaming. It's all you have.

      Shrug. Show me where I'm wrong.

      I know you CAN'T, but it's fun for you to dream, isn't it?

    85. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Again, no actual rebuttal: expected.

    86. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      There's no basis for rebuttal. You've convinced me you're an idiot, so there's nothing to discuss here. All I want from idiots like you is that they designate me as a foe on /. Come on, it's your big chance to accomplish something with your miserable life.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    87. Re:John McCain on blogs by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      See, I don't get this at all. Both of them say they will get out as soon as possible, modulo the same preconditions.

      This is only true if you ignore all of the details, and look only at the big picture. If their positions are so similar, why did Maliki come out in favor of Obama's plan? You still haven't backed up your initial assertion that "Obama has adopted so many of McCain's positions, including on Iraq." I've only seen one vague comparison of withdrawal preconditions.

      Second, this is further a bad analogy because as I've already made clear, and as should be obvious, the fact that timetables are not being talked about in public doesn't mean they don't exist. There's damned good reasons for not talking about them in public.

      You seem to be suggesting that McCain has a timetable that he's keeping a secret, and that we should trust that it is a good one. You could have said the same two sentences 5 years ago, substituting "strategy for winning" for "timetable," but the current administration has clearly fallen short of expectations. Why should we trust McCain's management competence in the absence of both an administrative track record and explicit goals open to public scrutiny? Maybe you should spell out some of those "damned good reasons."

      McCain was simply making the obvious, clear, and true point that from his perspective, and the perspective of most people, it DOES NOT MATTER if troops remain in Iraq, so long as they are not harmed.

      I'm afraid this is far from obvious to me. Why would we maintain troops there in the absence of an imminent threat of violence? It would be expensive, and it would smell like imperialism. McCain drew an analogy to our stations in Japan and Korea, but those were to guard against communist expansion. If the main problem in Iraq were the possibility of invasion, then an extended peacetime position would be justifiable. The current threats in Iraq seem to be internal, so how could we provide a stabilizing presence without putting our troops in harm's way? McCain only paints a vague picture of our troops supporting the Iraqis.

      You seem to like claiming that things are obvious or clear. In my line of work, an assertion of obviousness is typically viewed as a tool for intimidating students rather than a constructive argument. Try rereading your comments, omitting those assertions and the one word sentences. You sound much more reasonable without the extra fluff.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    88. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      This is only true if you ignore all of the details, and look only at the big picture.

      No, you have it backward: it's only NOT true if you ignore the facts and look only at the rhetoric.

      If their positions are so similar, why did Maliki come out in favor of Obama's plan?

      Because he is a politician.

      You seem to be suggesting that McCain has a timetable that he's keeping a secret

      No. I am stating as fact that you are wrong to claim he doesn't have one.

      the current administration has clearly fallen short of expectations

      As McCain is not in the current administration, this is a red herring.

      Why should we trust McCain's management competence in the absence of both an administrative track record

      Um. Obama has none either. Did you really think this was a good point when you typed it?

      Maybe you should spell out some of those "damned good reasons."

      They are pretty obvious. You don't want to give information to enemies that they can use. You don't want to have negative press that can affect the withdrawal if you don't hit your goals. Etc.

      McCain was simply making the obvious, clear, and true point that from his perspective, and the perspective of most people, it DOES NOT MATTER if troops remain in Iraq, so long as they are not harmed.

      I'm afraid this is far from obvious to me.

      Shrug. Your problem.

      Why would we maintain troops there in the absence of an imminent threat of violence?

      That is, of course, irrelevant to the point, which is what McCain actually said. If you want to disagree that what he said is reasonable or feasible, fine, but that is a separate point.

      McCain drew an analogy to our stations in Japan and Korea ...

      Exactly. So how you continue to misrepresent McCain is astonishing.

      You seem to like claiming that things are obvious or clear. In my line of work, an assertion of obviousness is typically viewed as a tool for intimidating students rather than a constructive argument.

      Bull-fucking-shit. McCain said one thing -- troops would be out of danger -- and you insist he said the opposite. You can disagree with whether what McCain said is feasible, but when you assert that McCain said we'd keep troops there in harm's way for 100 years, you are lying.

    89. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      I made a point. You called names. You've accomplished nothing except to convince people you have absolutely no thoughts in your head.

    90. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      My initial impression of Obama was that he was honest and meant well.

      He himself convinced me to the contrary.

      You're impugning a man's character and claiming that his actions changed your opinion from positive to negative. If you you can't back that up, then it fits the textbook definition of concern trolling.

      McCain, at least, I find to be an honest asshole, who wastes no breath trying to convince me otherwise. I don't like him, but at least I've come to think what we see is what we'll get.

      McCain's own record pretty much kills this assertion, but I just wanted to see you take a shot at substantiating it.

    91. Re:John McCain on blogs by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      Your unwillingness to acknowledge the truth isn't my responsibility. Actually, your whole approach is pretty transparent and boring. If you can't be right you just try to yell louder and longer than anyone else.

      In any case, you can stop your random flailing for the last word. You've done a great job of reminding me why I'd quit reading Slashdot, so I won't waste time replying after this.

    92. Re:John McCain on blogs by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I haven't logged every factoid, statement, speech, or position change for either candidate. If I had, I assure you the list would be much longer for Obama, because... frankly McCain has always been a flipflopper and it's not news; he's been around a long time, and I *already* knew what I didn't like about him. But having never heard of Obama before, I knew nothing about him and was perfectly willing to give him a fair chance to win my vote. My first impression of him was very positive, but the more I listened to him, the less I liked. (I don't really give a shit what his rivals said, nor did I pay much attention to them, as all the other Dem candidates were known entities that I *already* knew I did not wish to vote for.)

      As I say I haven't logged, nor care to, every detail that altered my opinion of him. The cumulative impression is what counts in the end and ultimately determines how I vote.

      Some of us have matured past the need to put everything in either/or, black-or-white dichotomies. Sometimes there isn't a set of hard reasons for a decision, but rather the accumulated shades of grey are what determines it.

      Anyway, you can vote for your reasons, and I'll vote for mine, and we'll both probably be pissed in the end, cuz in politics, no one ever gets it all their own way.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    93. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Your unwillingness to acknowledge the truth isn't my responsibility.

      Correct. And it is also not your responsibility to show me where I am wrong. However, if you cannot show me where I am wrong, you can't expect anyone to give a damn when you say I am wrong.

      Actually, your whole approach is pretty transparent and boring. If you can't be right you just try to yell louder and longer than anyone else.

      Your lies are transparent. I gave evidence, I gave facts, I gave legitimate arguments. You do not respond in kind, but instead simply give: "Keep dreaming."

    94. Re:John McCain on blogs by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      Bull-fucking-shit. McCain said one thing -- troops would be out of danger -- and you insist he said the opposite. You can disagree with whether what McCain said is feasible, but when you assert that McCain said we'd keep troops there in harm's way for 100 years, you are lying.

      Yes, I mistook McCain's use of present tense for a counterfactual. Mea culpa. However, I never made this assertion that irks you so much.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    95. Re:John McCain on blogs by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      If you are right then you made a good post worth reading. But in your post you claim to be average without anything interesting to say. So if you are right then your post isn't insightful or interesting and thus not worth reading.
      I think you've proven yourself capable of making a contribution and therefore you are wrong ;-)

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    96. Re:John McCain on blogs by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up if I had points. It's the most insightful comment I've seen on this topic so far.

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    97. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to convince people. I'm just trying to convince an idiot to designate me as a foe. Can't you figure out how to do it?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    98. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to convince people.

      Good for you. It's nice to see people accept their limitations.

    99. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      No, what I am doing is refusing to suffer a fool gladly. You've already fulfilled your part of proving you're a fool. Now all you have to do is designate me as a foe so I'll know to ignore any future blather.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    100. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      No, what I am doing is refusing to suffer a fool gladly.

      No, that's MY line.

      You've already fulfilled your part of proving you're a fool.

      Yeah, people who stick to facts are fools in your world. That's why you vote Democrat. "Reality-based," my ass.

    101. Re:John McCain on blogs by Paiev · · Score: 1
      Before I'm attacked for being "conservative", know that I'm very liberal on just about everything. You're just being silly, though.

      I'm not the one who sneered at those "infatuated with self-expression" -- those are McCain's words. The point of his extended joke was that young people have little valuable to say, and blogs are similarly worthless. That's the conservative point of view: your elders are smarter than you, so just listen to them and shut your mouth until you're 50. (The progressive point of view might be to thank the bigoted, ignorant, hidebound bastards who brought us up for the few good things they accomplished. Say, winning World War Two and inventing the transistor -- it's a short list. Then show them to a seat so they can watch in dismay while those of us who got a political education from someone other than Augustine, Hobbes, and Leviticus try to fix up the mess they stuck us with.)

      This is so soaked with irony that it makes me want to laugh. McCain said that when he was young he was arrogant and thought he knew everything. Here you are, young, arrogant, and thinking you know everything.

      Half the blogosphere was yelling its head off in 2002-2003 that the Iraq war was a horrible idea, sold to us with phony reasons. But our political system is run by white-hairs who sneer that blogging hippies are too young and foolish to listen to.

      Half the blogosphere complained? People complain about everything, especially young people. Big deal. This is not to say that they were perhaps not justified, but this isn't always the case, and just the fact the blogosphere complained is meaningless.

      Yes, the link you give is ThinkProgress's primary source, so thank you for pointing out that TP and I do not rely on biased information. (That source is actually a story by Declan McCullagh, a libertarian whose politics I mostly strongly oppose except on matters of censorship.)

      Umm, no. Declan would be relying on unbiased information and adding his own bias to it. You would be relying on biased information. The second half of that is completely irrelevant to your argument.

      McCain's bill would have chilled free expression on the internet to the point where very few blogs could have afforded to enable comments. Maybe McCain didn't realize the implications of his own bill for bloggers who want to engage their audience. Or, as his mockery at Liberty would suggest, maybe he just doesn't value open discussion on the internet.

      That is one FUD-filled conclusion. You need a *real* source to back up your claims here. That last sentence is especially filled with FUD. You're drawing your own conclusions based on a bill he proposed, and then trying to spin them as his point of view. Nice try, but no.

    102. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      Look, idiot. You've probably been around /. long enough to notice that Einstein was right. However, I'm only concerned with the countable stupidity. Designate me as a foe, and I won't notice you in the future.

      Of course, if /. wasn't such an incompetent design, it wouldn't be an issue, would it? Ten to one you can't figure out any of that--but I still think you might be able to figure out how to designate me as your foe.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    103. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Look, idiot.

      Again, that's my line. This is the word for people who pretend facts don't exist, e.g., you.

    104. Re:John McCain on blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vietnam Vets think McCain shouldn't be president, either.

    105. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      Anyone who hasn't figured out the neo-GOP scam by now... Really, it would make more sense to discuss religion with a Jehovah's Witness. I'm not interested in rubbing your face in the ugly reality. Reality will do that on it's own.

      Your actual purpose in life is to designate me as your "foe" on /. so that I can ignore you better. Should I waste the Shakespeare quote? "I do desire we may be better strangers."

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    106. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Anyone who hasn't figured out the neo-GOP scam by now...

      Anyone who would be so dishonest or stupid as to redefine groups they disagree with as fostering a "scam" ...

      I'm not interested in rubbing your face in the ugly reality.

      You have no idea what reality is.

      Should I waste the Shakespeare quote? "I do desire we may be better strangers."

      The troll doth protest too much, methinks.

    107. Re:John McCain on blogs by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      sorry for the late reply, kinda lost it in a flood of RL ;)

      ... if I had no choice but to trust either of them, I'd take Obama over McCain, for reasons noted.

      I didn't see any serious reasons, but OK.

      Serious reasons? Mine are plenty serious, believe me. Just because I don't have the time to flood you with links, quotes and data doesn't mean I can't. Not to mention that in this story thread I'd have been redundant even when we were first replying to each other. ;)

      No, that wasn't my point. My point was about honesty.

      If both candidates were perfectly, 100% honest, neither of them would have made it to the primaries :) (sorry, couldn't resist)

      Honesty in Politics. Good bog, what an endlessly debatable subject.

      He said he never heard Wright say such things (even though he had been a member for decades and Wright says things like that a lot); he said he would never disown Wright (which he later did); and so on.

      I also do not care about the Wright stuff itself, much. I do care about how he lied and manipulated to deal with it.

      Shrug. I never said I consider him honest. Just more honest than McCain.

      McCain's friendly circle is quite well known, and includes people who steal everything that isn't locked down.

      That's an oddly false thing to say, but note again, I was not talking about the company he keeps, but his response to the "scandal" about it.

      Yeah, he fucked that up, didn't he :) I have plenty of friends that would put me in the same boat as he, were I foolish enough to try to run for high public office. Some of them are very close friends, even.

      He should have said "Yeah, I know the Reverend, and I've listened to his sermons. I agree with this and this point he makes, but not with that or the other one and I agree that sometimes he can be a bit inflammatory. ...

      Or something. Something intelligent and not pandering. :)

      McCain is no better at public speaking, really - he's had plenty of gaffes, some extremely embarassing. Iraq/Pakistan border comes to mind...

      I guess if the public wanted intelligent people in office, they would vote them in. Except that intelligent people seem to be a rarity in the political arena. Why is that? ;-)

      While the political arena is overall a slimepit, the republican party is rather well known for the levels they will descend to, as you well know, given your position there.

      Actually, it's quite clear in my area *snips a lot of stuff that's common all over and not directly relevant to the conversation*

      I've lived in more than a dozen cities in the last 23 years (seen many more), and in my experience the R/D ratio tends to even itself out, overall. Even in "red or blue" states. (what a load of media horseshit that whole labeling system is. )

      I offer as outside evidence the extremely close presidential popular votes of the last so many elections. ;)

      I have. Forgive me if I still think he's the lesser of the two evils. ;)

      Sorry, but I won't.

      Tough shit, then *grins*

      *shrug* - you are still playing the game.

      I am, literally, fighting for liberty. Are you? If so, good.

      Yes, I am. The difference as I see it between us is that while you feel a particular political party which you've put time and effort into is the solution to the problem, I don't feel that either party - or any of the other outside parties, for that matter - can solve the problem. They are not concentrating their resources on s

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    108. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Serious reasons? Mine are plenty serious, believe me. Just because I don't have the time to flood you with links, quotes and data doesn't mean I can't.

      That is not my point. I was not talking about the lack of backing for your reasons, but the lack of seriousness of the reasons themselves. If you have serious reasons, I didn't see them expressed.

      Shrug. I never said I consider him honest. Just more honest than McCain.

      Shrug. You never offered a single reason for anyone to see why anyone would possibly think Obama is more honest than McCain, and it certainly isn't obvious.

      McCain is no better at public speaking, really - he's had plenty of gaffes, some extremely embarassing. Iraq/Pakistan border comes to mind...

      A simple Iran/Iraq gaffe -- and who hasn't made similar verbal errors? -- isn't half as embarassing as Obama actually not knowing that Kentucky is closer to his own home state of Illinois -- adjacent, even -- than Arkansas. Seriously. He said he expected Hillary to do better in Kentucky because it's closer to Arkansas. That's not just a verbal error mixing up two similar sounding names, that is not knowing WHICH STATES BORDER YOUR HOME STATE AS A U.S. SENATOR OF THAT STATE.

      McCain actually, obviously, knows that Iran borders Pakistan, and he knows the difference between Sunni and Shiite. Duh. And Obama knows there's only 50 states, not 57. Duh. And while Obama didn't know that Kentucky bordered Illinois, well, I am sure he does now, and it's humiliating that he didn't know, but it's also not very important (unless you live on that border, I suppose).

      My point here is that taken as a whole and honestly evaluating what was said and what was meant, Obama's gaffes are a lot more embarassing than McCain's.

      While the political arena is overall a slimepit, the republican party is rather well known for the levels they will descend to, as you well know, given your position there.

      Actually, it's quite clear in my area *snips a lot of stuff that's common all over and not directly relevant to the conversation*

      I've lived in more than a dozen cities in the last 23 years (seen many more), and in my experience the R/D ratio tends to even itself out, overall. Even in "red or blue" states.

      What's that got to do with anything? You claimed the Republican Party is especially well-known, as opposed to the Democratic Party, for descending to low levels. And I state categorically that this is bullshit.

      I offer as outside evidence the extremely close presidential popular votes of the last so many elections. ;)

      If you are implying the Republicans stole either of the last two elections, you have absolutely no factual basis for that claim. Even a DEMOCRATIC expert I talked to -- actually hired by the Democratic National Committee -- says that's false. RFK Jr's article in Rolling Stone about Ohio in 2004 was, provably -- I did the research myself -- totally full of lies.

      I am, literally, fighting for liberty. Are you? If so, good.

      Yes, I am. The difference as I see it between us is that while you feel a particular political party which you've put time and effort into is the solution to the problem

      That is not remotely true. It's sad that you would be so closed-minded as to even think it. I've never said or expressed such a sentiment.

      The Republican Party clearly has a much more rational and constitutionally grounded overall philosophy, but the Party itself is no solution to anything. The principles are the solutions, and the party is one mechanism to help install those principles, but it is not necessarily a solution. Judging by the drastically increased federal spending from 2000-2006, it's quite easy to see why many Republicans do not feel warmly towar

    109. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      I know you think your brand of idiocy is a rare and precious thing. It is not. All I want from you, your sole value in my universe, is for you to designate me as a foe.

      Come on, oh shitfaced one. You can do it.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    110. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      All I want from you is just a wee bit of honesty. You can do it.

    111. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      Look you fucking idiot. I'm kind of impressed by your life on /. so you reply so quickly. Me? I have an actual life--and a degree including history. However, it's the later computer science degree that relates to money. I haven't looked at enough of your posts to determine how complete your reality dysfunction is, and I don't care.

      Your purpose in life is to accumulate foes. Please make me one of them. Then you can drop dead for all I care.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    112. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Such a sad state of affairs of our educational system that anyone with such a lack of ability to think critically as you could be granted a degree.

    113. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      Come on, you have to be pulling my leg. You can't possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.

      Actually, I have two degrees. Supposedly two of the best universities in America--but I think you're supposed to think that you're defending America's reputation and honor. Not actually relevant except that you're reminding me of a student I knew back in those days. Either he was a great story teller or a pathological liar, so now you've made me curious to see if he wound up as a best selling author or convicted felon.

      Oh yeah. Back to the point at hand. When are you going to figure out how to designate me as your foe? Come on, you can accomplish that much with your worthless life.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    114. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      Come on, you have to be pulling my leg. You can't possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.

      That's my line.

      Actually, I have two degrees. Supposedly two of the best universities in America

      I am not foolish enough to think that means anything. I know far too many people with advanced degrees from top universities. Indeed, most of the time, people who tell people of their degrees where it's irrelevant are the ones least likely to have deserved them.

    115. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      The only relevance in your life is your collection of foes. Please add me to the list.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    116. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      The only relevance in your life is your collection of foes.

      Even if that were true, I'd still have far more relevance in mine than yours.

    117. Re:John McCain on blogs by shanen · · Score: 1

      I was always skeptical of Einstein's claim that human stupidity was unlimited. Since the humans are countable finite, it requires that some humans possess infinite stupidity.

      Congratulations! Another prediction proved.

      Now about that foe designation, there was a hint in this post about why, though I'm sure such a fine jackass as yourself has never completed the experiment.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    118. Re:John McCain on blogs by pudge · · Score: 1

      I was always skeptical of Einstein's claim that human stupidity was unlimited. Since the humans are countable finite, it requires that some humans possess infinite stupidity.

      Congratulations! Another prediction proved.

      And yet, you're still in fact wrong, and I am in fact right.

  6. Protect children from porn by 4D6963 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how he'd go about doing that. Probably the same way they (most of the Republicans) go about protecting children from STDs, by preaching abstinence. Keeping children away from computers would probably work about as well.

    That would be ironic if they preached using parental protection software, which by analogy could be compared to using a condom. Cue the "it's not the same thing" replies.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:Protect children from porn by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

      The problem is that adults forget what it was like being a kid, and try to hoard all the porn for themselves. This is totally misguided, and kids need porn just as much as the rest of us.

    2. Re:Protect children from porn by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The problem is that adults forget what it was like being a kid, and try to hoard all the porn for themselves. This is totally misguided, and kids need porn just as much as the rest of us.

      But yet more alarmingly, children from unfavoured homes who don't have access to the Internet at home have no means to educate themselves with pornography, causing a dramatic gap in sexual education. Trust me, these days, you don't want to be the only kid on the playground who thinks that "golden showers" have anything to do with Scourge McDuck.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    3. Re:Protect children from porn by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Trust me, these days, you don't want to be the only kid on the playground who thinks that "golden showers" have anything to do with Scourge McDuck.

      Crap, neither do you want to sound like you read a BDSM version of Scrooge McDuck comics.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    4. Re:Protect children from porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keeping your dick in your pants has always been the best way to avoid STDs. Sorry, but that's the way life is.

    5. Re:Protect children from porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that adults forget what it was like being a kid, and try to hoard all the porn for themselves. This is totally misguided, and kids need porn just as much as the rest of us.

      Now there's a cause we can all get behind, free porn for the less fortunate. There should be government funded programs to provide free access to porn sites for low income people. There should be a write off for porn and government subsidies for the porn industry like the oil companies. Who needs it more big oil companies that are earning record profits or small struggling porn producers that can only hire ugly chicks and overweight guys with hairy chests?

    6. Re:Protect children from porn by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Keeping your dick in your pants has always been the best way to avoid STDs. Sorry, but that's the way life is.

      Yeah, the tiny flaw in that plan is the "keeping your dick in your pants" part. It seems people find it more difficult than it sounds and when they do what they thought they wouldn't do they don't have a clue how to stay as safe as possible.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    7. Re:Protect children from porn by owlnation · · Score: 1

      I wonder how he'd go about doing that.

      It's really easy. We just use the "Just Say No" War-on-Drugs Model.

      Oh, wait...

    8. Re:Protect children from porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah we can all live the safest life if we don't take any risks, but in the real world we need to be thinking about risk/safety compromises.

    9. Re:Protect children from porn by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 2, Funny

      They work to the opposites.

      Teach your kid computers and you don't have to worry about STD's.

      Teach your kid about condoms and you don't have to worry about him messing around with computers.

      jk.

    10. Re:Protect children from porn by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      This is your penis *shows tiny pickle*

      This is your penis on porn *shows cucumber*

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    11. Re:Protect children from porn by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 2, Informative

      go about protecting children from STDs, by preaching abstinence.

      Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

      I'm sorry, my friend, but if you're going to slut it up... you're going to pay the price. All the latex and gels in the world won't give you the same protection as abstinence.

      Keeping children away from computers would probably work about as well.

      This isn't about keeping children away from computers. This is about keeping porn from kids.

      You do realize that you can use a computer without accessing porn, I hope.

      Cue the "it's not the same thing" replies.

      Having access to a computer and having sex are different. Maybe you just don't get it?

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    12. Re:Protect children from porn by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the tiny flaw in that plan is the "keeping your dick in your pants" part.

      Where does personal responsibility - specifically, facing the consequences of your actions - enter in your world?

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    13. Re:Protect children from porn by 4D6963 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

      I'm sorry, my friend, but if you're going to slut it up... you're going to pay the price. All the latex and gels in the world won't give you the same protection as abstinence.

      The problem is it only works in theory. In reality, on large scales, even kids with abstinence rings end up doing it, and getting pregnant or catching a STD. The reality is, most people just have to get laid, no matter what you say or what they say, they're gonna do it. All you can do is make sure the ones who will do it will do it properly. Pretending that it's as easy as not doing it is sticking your head in the sand. Abstinence alone isn't enough. You also need to be completely reliable, which is foolish to assume from anyone. Or very unattractive.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    14. Re:Protect children from porn by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Where does personal responsibility - specifically, facing the consequences of your actions - enter in your world?

      lol.. wtf

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    15. Re:Protect children from porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that refraining from eating is the only way to completely avoid food poisoning from such dangerous things as salmonella and e.coli strains? If you're going to gorge yourself like a little piggy, you should face the consequences.

      Or you could, you know, take reasonable precautions to limit your exposure to hostile organisms, from washing to cooking. Maybe you could pray for God to protect you, whatever works for you.

    16. Re:Protect children from porn by nasor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Abstinence has been REPEATEDLY shown to not be an effective way to control the spread of STDs or prevent pregnancy in populations. The problem is that people just aren't willing to be abstinent, even when they are educated about the risks of sex. It's certainly inconvenient that people aren't willing to be abstinent, but society needs to face that reality and deal with it, rather than continuing to fantasize that we can control the spread of STD and pregnancy with abstinence programs.

    17. Re:Protect children from porn by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      And not driving is the best way to stay out of automobile accidents.

      Unless you want to, you know, get somewhere public transportation won't get you.

      I'm not sure what "public transportation" is in the sex part of this analogy, but I'm pretty sure it's as unsatisfying as the local bus.

    18. Re:Protect children from porn by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      And not giving out personal information is the best way to prevent it from being stolen.

      Clearly attempt to prevent things like cross-site scripting, sidejacking, and unencrypted transfer of credentials are all pointless -- we should just teach the "right approach" of not using computers. No loss there!

    19. Re:Protect children from porn by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

      And avoiding contact with all people is the only way of avoiding being killed by someone. Fact. Doesn't mean it isn't completely stupid and illusory. Sorta like communism. Right?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    20. Re:Protect children from porn by Mjec · · Score: 1

      Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

      There are, broadly, two types of sexually transmitted infections: contact-transmissible (herpes, HPV etc) and fluid-transmissible (Hepatitis, HIV etc). Surprisingly enough, these can be transferred without sex. What it takes is either physical contact or fluid exchange. The only reason we separate STIs from other contagious diseases is because sexual fluid exchange is much more common than other fluid exchange (e.g. blood transfusions).

      Let's step back though. Sure, you can get STIs other ways, but they're generally transmitted sexual. Damn straight. So not having sex vastly reduces your chance of catching an STI - this is also true.

      The problem is that not everyone believes in abstinence. People don't abstain because they're afraid of catching diseases - most people anyway. People abstain for personal or religious reasons. Advocating abstinence only - to the exclusion of proper sex education and the provision of condoms - means that those people who exercise their right to have sex are not aware of risk-minimising measures available to them. Like condoms.

      So, since you're not allowed to advocate a particular religious viewpoint, and most people aren't going to abstain because you tell them they'll get chlamydia and die, you're only protecting a few. The trouble is you're leaving the rest without any protection. A comprehensive sex education program, incorporating information about sexuality, readiness, the option to refrain, and ways to do it safely if you are going to do it, will ensure fewer people are harmed.

      If you are having sex because it's suggested that condoms will stop you getting pregnant, abstinence only sex education wasn't going to stop you having sex in the first place.

      And that is tonight's word.</rant>

      --
      "But everyone should know everything." -markab
    21. Re:Protect children from porn by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Scourge McDuck"???

      That's even hotter than Donald in Nazi garb:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2I7rlmefA8

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    22. Re:Protect children from porn by bmo · · Score: 1

      "This is about keeping porn from kids."

      Do you have a non-draconian fool-proof way of doing this? I'd like to see it, because every "solution" I've ever seen is either ineffective or violates free speech.

      Back in the old days, there was no such thing as all of this. We had to get porn the old fashioned way, from magazines.

      We still got it, though.

      Enter the 'net, where US law only applies to sites in the US. How is US law supposed to do anything about porn torrents from piratebay.se (and various seemingly infinite other places on the 'net) without all out censorship? A "Great Firewall" of the US?

      The phrase "tilting at windmills" doesn't even begin to describe the futility of "keeping porn from kids".

      "Having access to a computer and having sex are different."

      Some can't use a computer without contracting viruses.

      *sigh* Dismemberment and brutal violence is okey-dokey but one semi-bare breast during a football game is not? (though I do find Janet Jackson offensive for other reasons)

      --
      BMO

    23. Re:Protect children from porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs.

      Abstinence is also a pretty good way to guarantee extenction :-)

    24. Re:Protect children from porn by T3Tech · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be tiny cucumber... large pickle?

      Nevermind... I've already put too much thought into a vegetable/penis analogy.

      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
    25. Re:Protect children from porn by T3Tech · · Score: 1

      Abstinence has been REPEATEDLY shown to not be an effective way to control the spread of STDs or prevent pregnancy in populations.

      This statement alone is an obvious logical fallacy. But since the rest of your post qualifies what you meant to say was something like "The thoery/practice/philosophy of abstinence education programs has been...", I'll let you off with warning, this time. :)

      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
    26. Re:Protect children from porn by T3Tech · · Score: 1

      Why this is even a topic of discussion amonsgt a presidential election campaign is beyond me.

      If a parent wants to run their own firewall and block [the majority of] porn from being accessible to their children, that's fine. But, WTH does government have to do with it?

      As PP points out, it would be nothing more than an exercise in futility and not to mention one hell of a waste of tax dollars in the process.

      The only sensible thing gov./politicians could do would be to say 'look here's what we can do to "protect the children" from porn - it's everyone's responsibilty yadda yadda, if you have this concern, go to this website blahblahblah.gov which will tell you what you can do to help "protect the children".' That website would be nothing more than providing the facts of why the government can't do anything short of completely destroying the internet as it's known, and here's a bunch of links and other info on setting up your own firewall to "protect the children" that use computers on your private home network.

      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
    27. Re:Protect children from porn by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

      Ceasing to breath is the only proven method of not contracting airborne diseases. The only way.

      That dirt cheap piece of rubber that is 99% effective? Yeah, don't use that... You've still got a 1% chance of catching a disease! The only way to be 100% sure is to stop breathing.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    28. Re:Protect children from porn by oddfox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the tiny flaw in that plan is the "keeping your dick in your pants" part.

      Where does personal responsibility - specifically, facing the consequences of your actions - enter in your world?

      Supremely amusing to see people getting their panties in a twist over simply trying to make sure that people take every precaution possible with whatever course of action they take. Unless you're not taking the position that sex-ed promotes risky behavior. If there's anything that studies have shown about sex-ed it's that it has a drastic effect on reducing teen pregnancy and STD transmission rates. Sorry bub, but safe sex is not a myth, and people need to be educated about it.

      Personal responsibility and safe sex go hand in hand, abstinence-only education is the truly irresponsible and in my eyes indefensible position considering all the evidence gathered thus far.

      You tell me who's going to wind up getting an STD, little Jimmy who knows what to look for and what to do to be safe when things get hot and heavy, or little Johnny who doesn't know the first thing about safe sex and things to look out for. I'd wager Jimmy has a higher chance of not getting screwed by someone who is not honest with him about their sexual history while Johnny laments that he was never encouraged and educated on the proper ways to be safe while playing with fire.

      Really, I think what the abstinence-only crowds driving motivation is is that they simply can't stand the notion that people are getting away with having more sex than them with more partners than them and have to find some way to bitch and piss and moan about it. Was gonna post anonymously but I just don't give a hoot anymore what this does to my karma, goodness knows I've got years of it to burn.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    29. Re:Protect children from porn by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Politics... teaching/protecting children... condoms... computers....

      Wow. Did you by any chance have latest xkcd comic on-the-brain before you posted?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    30. Re:Protect children from porn by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Where does personal responsibility - specifically, facing the consequences of your actions - enter in your world?

      Indeed!

      How about the responsibility for cramming disastrous "abstinence only" programs on kids with the KNOWLEDGE that these dumbfuck programs INCREASE infection rates in kids?

      Seriously? What evil egotistical deluded monster persists in an idiotic course of action when they KNOW the consequences of that action is to cause an increase in infection and disease in children? When they KNOW that the consequence of their action is to increase child pregnancies?

      How about some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY from the idiots "pushing abstinence only programs? How about them coming out with a huge apology saying "Oops, I thought it was a good idea and I thought it would work and I thought it would help protect kids, BUT I WAS WRONG. It was a mistake and I know know it's a bad idea and I now know it doesn't work and I now know it hurts kids, and I am sincerely and deeply regretful for my mistake and for all of the harm I accidentally caused with my crusade."

      How about that? When are we going hear them apologize and get on board with proper sex education, an action that that we know has the consequence of reducing disease and reducing pregnancy in children?

      The only thing WORSE than some evil person causing malicious harm is some deluded holier-than-thou crusader trying to "help" people and going on a crusade of causing harm. An ordinary malicious person generally just lies-cheats-steals-assaults people till he gets whatever selfish thing it was he wanted, but the deluded crusader will dedicate himself to his cause as a lifelong mission, and all of the ruined lives and even dead bodies he trails in his wake only serves as further proof to him that he needs to work harder "fixing" the problem. The fact that teen pregnancies and STDs and even AIDS and death INCREASE only serves as further proof to him that his "treatment" should be increased.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    31. Re:Protect children from porn by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      No I haven't read that XKCD comic before.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    32. Re:Protect children from porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

      All you can do is make sure the ones who will do it will do it properly. Pretending that it's as easy as not doing it is sticking your head in the sand.

      Yeah, you should instead masturbate by sticking your dick in the sand. You won't get anyone pregnant that way, but if it's sand at the beach, you might get crabs.

    33. Re:Protect children from porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn Straight,
      Pretty soon they will be telling us that jerking off is wrong...oh wait... damn they did it again
      http://www.jackinworld.com/library/articles/elders.html

    34. Re:Protect children from porn by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

      And the science shows that, despite that, abstinence-only education doesn't work. Period. There's literally nothing else to debate, the results are in, and it simply *does not work*.

  7. Net neutrality won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess what comes first?

    The government must define neutrality.

    Guess how many millions of pages of regulations on the internet that will mean?

    Net neutrality -> the only winners are the lawyers.

    Because we all know government regulation makes things soooo much better.

    1. Re:Net neutrality won't work by something_wicked_thi · · Score: 1

      Oh, do tell. What does government regulation do to make things so terribly bad? Please cite your sources. And do tell us how much better things are now that the cable and telephone companies are less regulated than they used to be.

  8. McCain is using Abacus by ilovesymbian · · Score: 1

    Actually, McCain is using the Abacus for his daily work. Someone just introduced him to a $5 Sharp calculator.

    1. Re:McCain is using Abacus by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Unlike Mike Huckabee who uses his supporter Chuck Norris to punch the numbers into the calculator.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:McCain is using Abacus by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I challenge anybody with a calculator to come up with net assets at the end of the month faster than the guy who really knows an abacus. The calculator (and the spreadsheet) only makes it easier to come up with more useless information needing more boxes of fanfold(paperless society anyone?).

      --
      What?
  9. very disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading this makes me feel like my party is outmoded. Any other candidates out there, Deep Blue? Enough with humans ruling over us, bring on the machines.

  10. hypocrisy by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Informative

    John McCain's stance on copyright infringement is hypocritical. The reason is that he is currently being sued by Jackson Browne for copyright infringement because he used the song "Running on Empty" without permission. This looks to be yet another Republican professing high fallooting morals but who by his deeds is shown to believe that morality is for the populace and doesn't apply to him.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    1. Re:hypocrisy by Dhalka226 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right from the article you linked:

      A McCain spokesman said the ad in question, which mocks Sen. Barack Obama, was put together by the Ohio GOP.

      The article isn't even 100 words, could you not make it all the way through? I know /.'ers are notorious for not reading the article, but one would think they wouldn't link it as support for a dubious claim without giving it a once-over.

      It isn't even being run by him or his campaign. Even if it were, it's entirely probable that he would have nothing to do with the ad other than a final "go ahead and run it." It would not be at all unreasonable to assume that even if he took note of the fact that they were using the song, that he assumed his staffers had done their job and obtained proper permission to do so. If I were a presidential candidate, I know I would have much more important things to do than micromanage my team.

      I haven't seen the ad in question, but if it's anything like most political ads it runs about 30 seconds long, which in my mind would also bring up a fair use question even if the song ran the entire duration. The article also doesn't mention anything about whether or not anybody was contacted with a request to stop using the song or compensate the artist or if he just went straight to lawsuit town.

      I'm not a McCain supporter by any stretch, but your post is just ridiculous. Then again it's patently obvious you made up your mind long ago and are inventing lame "issues" to try to lambast him with, so I suppose you'll just come back with a "zomg he's lying he's a politician lolerskatz."

    2. Re:hypocrisy by remove+office · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, both the McCain campaign and the RNC have gotten itself in hot water several times for using copyrighted music or video clips without permission during this cycle.

      A few examples:

      McCain was served with a cease and desist letter from Fox News after he used their broadcast footage in a commercial without buying it...

      McCain was sued by Mike Myers after he used a clip from a skit from SNL without purchasing it or getting permission from Myers himself (Myers isn't the copyright owner, but that's irrelevant).

      McCain got yelled at by copyright owners for using the "Rocky" theme song in an ad without permission.

      One of McCain's YouTube videos have been hit with a copyright infringement claim by Warner Music Group after the campaign used a song by Frankie Valli without permission.

      Of course, all of this is not to mention McCain's little plagiarism issue with Wikipedia...

    3. Re:hypocrisy by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Did the ad end with "I'm John McCain, and I approve this message."? Even if he wasn't the one who produced and directed the ad, he may have supported or endorsed its message-- and it wouldn't be surprising, because he's been catering to GOP interests since he won the GOP nomination!

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    4. Re:hypocrisy by jbengt · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the first few issues cited, but after reading your link to "McCain's little plagiarism issue", it does not appear to be close to plagiarism.

    5. Re:hypocrisy by testadicazzo · · Score: 1
      I just read about the McCain's plagiarism issue. I dunno. I'm about as anti-republican as it comes, and I sure hope he doesn't win the election, but the plagiarism thing seems like blowing smoke.

      Follow the link and read the so-called incidents of plagiarism. I would say it's completely obvious that his speechwriter used Wikipedia as a reference, but what's wrong with that? It's not like he/she grabbed the text verbatim. No single sentence is exactly the same, and most are rewritten substantially enough that I think it's hard to say whether or not this really is plagiarism...

      Me I'm more concerned about the fact that he feels it's relevant to mention that:

      one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion

    6. Re:hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This looks to be yet another Republican professing high fallooting morals but who by his deeds is shown to believe that morality is for the populace and doesn't apply to him.

      Morality is for anyone who makes less than 5 millions dollars a year.

    7. Re:hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCain just got caught plagiarizing his POW stories from a Nobel prize winning Russia novelist who died two weeks ago.

      Not only has McCain plagiarized from Wikipedia (not given attribution to the content he nicked from there), he now is telling stories of his POW experience that are found instead in a novelist's short stories. The stories were written and published prior to the end of his internment.

      He even made a political ad out of his plagiarized story last December to counter a Huckabee political ad.

      McCain: Will Lie For Anything

    8. Re:hypocrisy by shermo · · Score: 1

      This looks to be yet another Republican professing high fallooting morals but who by his deeds is shown to believe that morality is for the populace and doesn't apply to him.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/highfalutin

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
  11. No Agenda in the Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The Summary: "Net Neutrality is something he 'does not believe in.'"

    The Website: "When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts. John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices."

    The Summary: "helping the RIAA's War on Sharing is necessary to stop the 'global epidemic' of piracy"

    The Website: "While the Internet has provided tremendous opportunity for the creators of copyrighted works, including music and movies, to distribute their works around the world at low cost, it has also given rise to a global epidemic of piracy. John McCain supports efforts to crack down on piracy, both on the Internet and off."

    The Summary: "avoid Internet regulation unless 'necessary.'"

    The Website: "Keep the Internet and entrepreneurs free of unnecessary regulation" and "John McCain understands that unnecessary government intrusion can harm the innovative genius of the Internet. Government should have to prove regulation is needed, rather than have entrepreneurs prove it is not."

    1. Re:No Agenda in the Summary by fractic · · Score: 1

      The Website: "When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts. John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices."

      Wow that's a point I totally support. Now where can I find John McCain's plan to create such a marketplace?

    2. Re:No Agenda in the Summary by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      "When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts. John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices."

      So he believes in last mile regulation, because that is the only way you are going to get a open marketplace. Having each competitor lay down their own last mile to each house is simply not efficent use of resources, so instead they wil split up which houses each competitor gets, resulting in local monopolies or duopolies. Somehow I don't think he has thought that far though.

      "John McCain supports efforts to crack down on piracy, both on the Internet and off."

      So he supports cracking down on a large part of the population (including a very huge part of the young) and he support the anti free market regulation known as copyright and patents, and probably in their current interpetation that have gone far overboard.

      "Keep the Internet and entrepreneurs free of unnecessary regulation" and "John McCain understands that unnecessary government intrusion can harm the innovative genius of the Internet. Government should have to prove regulation is needed, rather than have entrepreneurs prove it is not."

      Common sense. Don't create unnecssary laws. Of course, the real problem is the next step which is to determine what is nescessary and what isn't. That is where the different political sides differ in opinion, thinking that their view is the only correct one.

    3. Re:No Agenda in the Summary by Eddi3 · · Score: 1

      I think I know his plan...

      He's going to use the Internet.

  12. Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh great. Yet another Linux distribution that www.distrowatch.org is going to have to track. "McCain-ix"
    Probably needs 1GB just to load. I'll stick with Obama-mama-ix thanks.

    I can't wait for the Barack Software Distribution. There's no way in hell McCain-ix can beat BSD.

  13. Did he ever have your vote? by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I knew this kind of position was coming as soon as he said he didn't know how to use a computer. He obviously doesn't understand the issues, so naturally he is just going to default to his party's (or contributor's) position.

    If I were in his place and somebody asked me to formulate a position on farming, I would do the same thing. That's why it is important to look at what party a candidate belongs to and who is giving him money.

    --
    weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    1. Re:Did he ever have your vote? by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not true, I heard that his first girlfriend was Ada Lovelace.

    2. Re:Did he ever have your vote? by More+Trouble · · Score: 1

      He obviously doesn't understand the issues, so naturally he is just going to default to his party's (or contributor's) position.

      If I were in his place and somebody asked me to formulate a position on farming, I would do the same thing.

      You wouldn't bother to become even slightly educated? Or obtain competing expert analysis? I know I would. I think this platform is very well considered, and expresses exactly what it's meant to express.

  14. Who takes platforms seriously in an election? by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 1
    Of course there's going to be contradictions. Every candidate (maybe except Barr (L)) will say whatever he thinks his current audience wants to hear. So, if an audience of parents who've seen "To Catch A Predator" want to hear something about stopping all those pedophiles and child porn on the Internet and we need regulation, the candidate will say it. If he's in front of an audience of folks who want complete freedom, he'll say that to.

    In regards to this issue, it's safe to say that once in office, McCain or Obama (I'm still voting for Barr) will do what the big corporate money wants and throw in a little something for the "regulate the pedophiles" crowd - to keep the hysterical parents and bible thumpers happy.

    1. Re:Who takes platforms seriously in an election? by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Informative
      The most wildly blatant contradiction, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and he doesn't know how to use a computer. Man, you guys can really pick them, now I know how you managed to have both shrubs running the CIA and why the CIA made such a hack job of collect evidence on all those so called terrorists in GITMO.

      The really lamest part of course is 'Educate Its Workforce For The Innovation Age', all the lamest politicians the world over have been rabbiting on about exactly the same thing and then in the next breath, global marketplace and free trade, with the net result that all those job are outsourced to countries that pay one tenth the wage and you have a flood of people in the food services industry with tech degrees. Either that or cannon fodder for the military industrial complex.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Who takes platforms seriously in an election? by Ksisanth · · Score: 1

      The most wildly blatant contradiction, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and he doesn't know how to use a computer.

      The current chairman of that committee is Senator Inouye (D-HI), and the ranking member is Hutchinson (R-TX).

  15. In whom do I trust by moteyalpha · · Score: 1

    I am not sure why I would trust a politician to protect my children. I know myself, and I don't take government money and use it to buy sex. Why would I let such perverted old farts baby sit my daughters? And as far as technology, I trust them less with technology and my freedom than I do with my daughters.

  16. He picked Carly Fiorina as an advisor by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Arguably one of the worst leaders in the tech industry. It's no wonder his technology positions don't make any sense. That's like picking Jeffery Skilling as an energy advisor...wait, he doesn't need him, he's got Phil Gramm. With the added advantage that Gramm isn't in federal prison...yet.

    Let's just pick the most incompetent, corrupt people from every industry we can find and bring them together in one party. It's no wonder his positions on technology don't make any sense. A classic case of the problem dictating the solution.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  17. Re:Sharing? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Violating other people's legal rights is not "sharing".

    Granting legal rights of excessive scope and duration is not "good government" either, especially when sites such as opensecrets.org demonstrate the bribery that prompted things like the Bono Act and the DMCA.

    Grow the fuck up, asshole.

    Nor is comparing somebody to an anus "civil".

  18. Really? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 4, Informative

    Technology is my area of expertise, and I guess it's that of many slashdot readers. There is probably no other area where we can judge a candidate as well; therefore if his program sucks balls in this respect, it's probably just fair to extrapolate to the others.
    Besides, McCain is Bush III. He's pro war, pro war on terra, and so on.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you were really such a nerd, maybe you would realize the the logical fallacy in your post.

      I just destroyed you.

    2. Re:Really? by ohxten · · Score: 0

      Tell me this: has Bush kept us safe since 9/11?

      Peace through strength, baby.

      --
      Need an automatic screenshot taker? Try here.
    3. Re:Really? by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you were going to do this properly, you could at least pick the correct logical fallacy than just selecting the one that everyone knows about.

    4. Re:Really? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      Just what right do you have to tell someone (ISPs) how they may use their own property?

    5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, it always takes Microsoft three tries to make a halfway working product!

      3.0 may still have plenty of memory leaks, some of which will be fixed with SP1, er his VP choice.

    6. Re:Really? by finiteSet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell me this: has Bush kept us safe since 9/11?

      No. Inspiring the next generation of poor, angry, anti-American would-be-terrorists is not keeping us safe, it is setting us up for long-term failure.

      Day to day life has been devastated for many in the middle east, with aggressive US foreign policy as the catalyst (if not cause). Rightly or wrongly, it gives a new generation someone on which to assign blame for the problems they face.

      Bush's bandaid will fall off sooner or later.

      --
      If we start buying CDs then the terrorists have already won.
    7. Re:Really? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      Who is "us"? Do you include your armed forces as well? Over 4000 dead soldiers don't feel so safe anymore.

  19. Re:Sharing? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    "Legal" doesn't always mean right.

    Apply your sig to yourself.

    --
    What?
  20. It's coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >"and avoid Internet regulation unless necessary".

    Remember this one when you're filling in your Licenced Internet User forms this time next year.

  21. Re:"protect children from porn, and avoid regulati by fedos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about, "I'll protect the American consumer, and I'm against net-neutrality[sic]"?

  22. Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll stick with Obama-mama-ix thanks.

    That's still vaporware. :)

    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  23. That's all well and good... by dangitman · · Score: 1

    ... but what's his position on tubes, and whether a truck will fit in them or not? There's serious issues here which demand real answers!

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  24. I modded you up for your AWESOME SIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apartments are designed by people who live in houses. -- HangingChad

    (posted AC but you can visit me here).

  25. Ones got to hope for Obama! by jopsen · · Score: 1

    I'm not American, but I took at look at the two programs... And McCain is clearly the dumbest of those two (no offense, just plain sense)... :)
    I got quite a laugh from reading his weapon policy... And the rest of the "isues" aren't that smart either... Just look at the top of the page, if anyone my country looked in the air next to a sign that said "Country First", I'd probably find myself violating Godwin's law :)
    (And I'm not German).
    Anyway, Obama isn't quite socialistic enough for me... But I guess he'd get my vote, if I was American...

  26. Just look at the URLs :) by jopsen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I took a look around the different campaign sites it's clear McCain is EVIL!
    Links at McCain site:
    johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=3d8ee2ad-d7f2-4f3d-ad9f-ffe1b41ca178

    Links a Obamas Site:
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

    Clearly, McCain is using a Microsoft server and Obama is using mod_rewrite or similar technology... Probably a rather none-evil technology...

    Also at validator.w3.org:
    McCain has: 124 Errors, 44 warning(s)
    Obama has: 8 Errors
    I'd say this proofs McCain is evil!

    1. Re:Just look at the URLs :) by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's proof that McCain's web developers are ASP monkeys who couldn't code themselves out of a paper bag.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  27. Encouraging scientific education by dlur · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How does either candidate expect to move interest in science forward in the US when you can no longer: a) buy a home chemistry set, b) you end up with government agents raiding your house if you have a LEGAL home chemistry lab (ala Mass.), c) experimenting with home-built fireworks or small-scale explosives is now an act of "terrorism"?

    No kids are going to get interested in science anymore because all of the cool things we did as children to pique our interest in science are now illegal or acts of international terrorism.

    --
    Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
    1. Re:Encouraging scientific education by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

      But instead you can legally own enough firearms to kill a heard of dear. Yeah, you could also kill a herd of deer.

    2. Re:Encouraging scientific education by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      No kids are going to get interested in science anymore

      Who cares? Scientists will be imported (exported, from where I am). And I know this, because it is already happening.

    3. Re:Encouraging scientific education by shma · · Score: 1

      b) you end up with government agents raiding your house if you have a LEGAL home chemistry lab (ala Mass.),

      I suggest you go back and reread the story and have a look at the comments. It was nothing more than ridiculous sensationalism. No one raided his house, and they cleared out the lab because it was unsafe. Not every exaggerated incident is evidence of a tyrannical government.

      Firefighters found more than 1,500 vials, jars, cans, bottles and boxes in the basement Tuesday afternoon, after they responded to an unrelated fire in an air conditioner on the second floor of the home.

      Vessels of chemicals were all over the furniture and the floor, authorities said. The ensuing investigation involved a state hazardous materials team, fire and police officials, health officials, environmental officials and code enforcement officials. The Deebs were told to stay in a hotel while the slew of officials investigated and emptied the basement.

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    4. Re:Encouraging scientific education by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      a) You're referencing a guy who was running a full-blown industrial chem lab in his home, which is hardly a "home chemistry set"-- please produce a source for an arrest or confiscation of a home chemistry set.
      b) "Legal" until one sets his house on fire and his neighbor's. The guy didn't bother to maintain his AC unit in the same building with piles of organic chemicals.
      c) This is more legit security theater if they're actually calling it "terrorism", but most cases it's to keep kids from blowing their hands off or setting their houses on fire, because today's parents don't bother to make sure they know how to handle potentially dangerous things safely. They want their babies to stay the hell away from the stuff, so the kids find the stuff and get hurt or killed because they don't know what they're doing. Parents are even more outraged, so the stuff is outlawed even though they ought to shoulder a significant portion of blame.

      Kids are only piqued by things blowing up and burning? If that's so, perhaps we should encourage them all to join the military, where blowing stuff up and burning stuff is the entire point? Chemistry isn't merely about fires and bombs, and science is much more mundane and interesting* than what you are imagining it to be.

      * For every spectacular chemistry demo, there's thousands of titration tests to be done in labs.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    5. Re:Encouraging scientific education by Darby · · Score: 1

      Kids are only piqued by things blowing up and burning? If that's so, perhaps we should encourage them all to join the military, where blowing stuff up and burning stuff is the entire point?

      The difference is that by learning things you can go on to provide great benefits to yourself, to your nation and your fellow man. By joining the military all that you are able to do is serve as a hitman for corporate interests and work against the interests of your nation and your fellow man.

      Sad but true.

    6. Re:Encouraging scientific education by dlur · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the article?

      From the article:

      No extreme hazards found in basement workshop that alarmed authorities

      None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk,

      No mercury or poison was found.

      Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products.

      That's right, nothing he had was ANY more dangerous than typical household cleaning products. The authorities confiscated all of his equipment and chemicals. This guy wrote books and taught children. He was not making meth or explosives. He'll likely be charged thousands of dollars to "clean up" his home lab when not a single thing in his lab was illegal or particularly dangerous. At most he was up against a zoning violation, which does not warrant wholesale confiscation of materials.

      To me this is a perfect example of how the US government overreacts to even the slightest thing out of the ordinary ever since "9/11". You can't take pictures of public buildings, or even a hotel lobby even anymore. Just being a little different is apparently a crime these days.

      And to me this is what's scary, because I can't think of a single instance of someone doing something extroidinary when that person was just a mundane drone following the sheep herd. No, inspiration and innovation are much more likely to occur in "out there" settings with "out there" people. Conformity is not the answer.

      --
      Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
    7. Re:Encouraging scientific education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't actually read the articles, did you?

      Because they discovered that the chemicals were harmless, no more dangerous than the stockpile of poisons everyone has under their kitchen sink.

      But did they give them back? Nope.

      Did they have a warrant to even search the house in the first place? Nope.

      Did they allow him to live in house? Nope, they kicked out for half a week.

      All of which ignores the real problem: WHY THE FUCK IS CHEMISTRY ILLEGAL IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

      To all the people blindly quoting "but he broke laws!" you're MISSING THE FUCKING POINT. The laws are fascist in the first place! THE LAWS HE BROKE SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED!

  28. More McCain insanities by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    This is more reason to vote for Obama who has for sanity on these issues. McCains positions are designed to help corporations, and basically screw the people. He supports regulations on the internet wherever it benefits big corporations. Only an idiot would call net nuetrality "regulation", but in McCains twisted mind it is, and he opposes it because it would help the people and assure their free speech rights, but it does not help corporations. Net nuetrality would in fact prohibit regulation of the internet by corporations, but he only sees corporations as having rights, people dont have rights, and McCain is elected by and only respond to corporations, people mean nothing to him , the only concern he and other republicans have about the people is to trick and lie to the people enough to make them think republicans care about them, when all their care about is corporations and the super rich. So something which takes away peoples freedom and gives more power to corporations (quasi-government) is not regulation, in McCains twisted mind.

    His idea of "protecting children" means "lets censor the internet for consenting adults and arrest consenting adults for accessing porn of consenting adults". It is just another trick by republicans to take away more freedoms and rights from people, infringe on their free speech, and broaden their powers to incarcerate people for non violent non-crimes which hurt no one (pornography).

  29. My Scorecard by davide+marney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My scorecard for the McCain platform. Rated on a uninflated A-F grading scale, where a "C" means the norm.

    John McCain Supports Risk Capital For Investment In American Innovation

    Grade: C. OK; nothing specific to the tech sector, though.

    John McCain Will Not Tax Innovation By Keeping Capital Gains Taxes Low.

    Grade: C. A good idea in general, but not of particular help to technology.

    John McCain Will Reform And Make Permanent The R&D Tax Credit.

    Grade: B. Good idea.

    John McCain Will Lower the Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent To Retain Investment In U.S. Technologies.

    Grade: C. Again, a good idea for the economy in general, but doesn't do anything to specifically address technology.

    John McCain Will Allow First-Year Expensing Of New Equipment And Technology.

    Grade: B. Good idea.

    John McCain Will Ensure Technology And Innovation Is Not Hampered By Taxes On Internet Users.

    Grade: C. OK, fine, but I'm not buying the rationale at all here. I think this is code for "no government regulation". A vast amount of bricks-and-mortar commerce has been moved onto the Internet. If we accept taxation of commerce, we should have no problem accepting taxation of it on the Internet.

    John McCain Opposes Higher Taxes On Wireless Services.

    Grade: C. OK, lower taxes, yeah, but what we are buying with our taxes in the first place?

    America Must Educate Its Workforce For The Innovation Age.

    Grade: B. Grants for higher ed are a good bargain for taxpayers.

    Fill Critical Shortages Of Skilled Workers To Remain Competitive.

    Grade: B. Good idea. More flexibility on H-1B visas will help.

    John McCain Has Been A Long And Ardent Supporter Of Fair And Open World Trade.

    Grade: C. Nice to know.

    Competition Has Been A Great Strength For America -- Offering Opportunity, Low Prices, And Increased Choice For Our Citizens. Markets work best when there is robust competition.

    Grade: D. McCain had a chance to address the real problems of non-competitiveness that plague the technology sector, and ducked.

    John McCain Will Protect The Creative Industries From Piracy.

    Grade: D. Another disappointment. The "creative industries" already have plenty of money, lawyers, lobbyists, and memberships in the exclusive clubs needed to get the protection they need. Who's giving the people the protection they need? Not the government, apparently.

    John McCain Will Push For Greater Resources For The Patent Office.

    Grade: C. Obviously needed; basic good management.

    John McCain Will Pursue Protection Of Intellectual Property Around The Globe.

    Grade: C. OK, fine; more good management.

    Provide Alternative Approaches To Resolving Patent Challenges.

    Grade: B. Some innovation here is long overdue. Good idea.

    John McCain Will Preserve Consumer Freedoms.

    Grade: B. Freedom is good, and additional attention in this area is needed to keep a level playing field.

    When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts.

    Grade: C. OK, that's the right pattern, but McCain seems to not get the fact that the tech sector really needs some tough love from the government right now. If regulation is not warranted now, when would it be?

    John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices.

    Grade: F. The telco marketplace is anything

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:My Scorecard by pipingguy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Neat. Can you do the same analysis for Obama? Oh wait, oops, that would be a moving, feel-good target.

    2. Re:My Scorecard by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Always remember, moderators: mod down comments you disagree with. It's in the best Slashdot tradition, but not following Taco's instructions.

    3. Re:My Scorecard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure few others are surprised about the moderation. Hint: you might have gotten modded higher if you cut out the trollish comment after the question mark.

    4. Re:My Scorecard by WATist · · Score: 1

      These statements all have plenty of weasel room so I hardly ever put much faith in these types of promises.

  30. Re:Just to clarify things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, sir, are a hero.

  31. Got a Question for McCain by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    At your house you have at least one appliance with a digital clock on it. What time does it read now and is it flashing?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Got a Question for McCain by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Even a clock flashing "12:00" will be correct twice a day, which is a better record than most politicians.

      Brought to you by the Frigidaire 2008 election campaign.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  32. Serious Question... by RocketScientist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There were two parts of the platform related by Ars Technica. The first part was increased copyright enforcement, and the second was patent reform.

    The question's coming up, bear with me, some setup involved.

    There are, basically, 3 industries that benefit from copyright: Music, Movies/TV, and Software. Copyright enforcement helps all 3, but (at least for short term profits) patent reform is not good for the software industry. So overall, this part of McCain's platform really only helps the Music and Movies/TV industries.

    That's part 1 of the setup. Here's part 2:

    The Music and Movies/TV industries are populated *mostly* by people who support Obama. Furthermore, the Christian Right in this country very much hates those two industries and would like to see them die in fires of hell for promoting vice. Oh, and the Christian Right hates the software industry, because all they do is make games full of murdering.

    That's part 2. Here's the question:

    Is there a reason that McCain's platform serves to (1) increase the profits of industries that hate him and give TONS of money to his opponent, and (2) Provides legal protection for industries that his primary voting base despises?

    1. Re:Serious Question... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "Is there a reason that McCain's platform serves to (1) increase the profits of industries that hate him and give TONS of money to his opponent, and (2) Provides legal protection for industries that his primary voting base despises?"

      I wondered the same thing. It makes no sense. Anyone want to try shoehorning it into an explanation??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  33. Do children actually need protection from porn? by nasor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has it ever been scientifically demonstrated that porn is harmful for children? Just curious - if it has, I would be genuinely interested to heard about it.

    1. Re:Do children actually need protection from porn? by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good question. In my experience, *normal* children seem to have exactly one reaction to porn: they go "Eugh, gross!", gawk for a few moments (the same way anyone will when confronted with something they consider freaky), then quickly lose interest and go on to other normal childhood pursuits.

      I'm wondering if the only "harm" from porn comes to children who are already psychologically abnormal (maybe liking porn at an early age predicts a tendency toward sexual abberations as an adult?), or are being sexually abused (so the porn looks more "normal" to them, rather than icky and gross).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  34. Not linear! by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is generally pretty right-libertarian leaning

    You're accurate with the libertarian, but the 'right' is just wrong. slashdot has a fairly even spread across the libertarian side of the scale, from totalitarian to anarchistic. It's one of the reasons I like /.

    In no contemporary use of the word can slashdot in totality be considered 'right'...like it or not, right now, 'right' and 'republican' means NEOCONs.

    NeoCons represent far-right totalitarian corporatists who cloak themselves in Victorian-era Christian 'values' marketing and PR rhetoric. I see VERY few comments on /. from this NeoCon perspective.

    Please remember, 'politics' is not a linear, one-axis spectrum. It's two axis at least...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Not linear! by Darby · · Score: 1

      In no contemporary use of the word can slashdot in totality be considered 'right'...like it or not, right now, 'right' and 'republican' means NEOCONs.

      Right means the same thing now as it has always meant.
      Authoritarian, elitist, protecting the power of those in power at all costs. Using the power of the necessarily large, powerful state in order to promote the agenda of the already powerful against the interests of the people.

      You should probably look at where the term came from since you think this is somehow different than what it used to mean.

      In the French Assembly the representatives of the aristocracy and the church sat on the *right* side of the aisle. That's it. That's what right means now and has always meant. Promote the power of the elite.

      The representatives of the people sat on the left. This is why "left" describes groups dedicated to using the power of the necessarily large, powerful state against the individual to force "equality". Note that this isn't "equality under the law". It's equality as in "I want what you have without earning it".

      "Liberal" means those who promote the value of the individual against the power of the state. Now, in America, this word has been manipulated to destroy the very idea it once stood for. We no longer have a word in common usage in American English to describe the beliefs of the people who founded this country which is a deeply disturbing fact.

      "Liberalism" is what the left and the right are left or right *of*. Both despise liberalism but for very different reasons and with very different goals. Either way left and right both absolutely *demand* a large overpowering state to enforce their goals and they are both totalitarian. The canonical example of the right are the Nazis and the canonical example of the left is soviet communism.

      If you describe yourself as right or left then you are putting yourself into one of those camps. Neither of which an ethical person could possibly support.

    2. Re:Not linear! by xaxa · · Score: 1

      That Nazis aren't a good example of the economic right. I don't have time for more than copy-pasting a sentence from the Wikipedia article:
      "Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism, racism, collectivism,[11][12] eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism,[13][14][12] anti-communism, and totalitarianism."
      They are centrist, economically, and authoritarian.

    3. Re:Not linear! by T3Tech · · Score: 1

      You're accurate with the libertarian, but the 'right' is just wrong. slashdot has a fairly even spread across the libertarian side of the scale, from totalitarian to anarchistic.

      I didn't think totalitarianism fit into libertarianism at all, aren't the two essentially opposites with authoritarianism going hand in hand with totalitarianism?

      Though I would agree that saying 'pretty right-libertarian leaning' is off. The libertarian leaning of the /. crowd ranges pretty equally left to right to total anarchist, by the traditional definitions.

      BTW, haven't the terms "conservative" and "liberal" been deprecated on /. yet? The use of these words without proper modifiers could mean any number of things, since once upon a time 'liberal' was a term that embodied limited government with individual freedom and civil liberties, and 'conservative' referred to distribution of wealth, power, etc. At one time, they shared much of the same ideals and now they are pretty much the opposite of how there were originally used. Thus, using these terms can only lead to confusion amongst a community such as /.

      But then again we are talking about politics. Oh, bother...

      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
    4. Re:Not linear! by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      the nazis's were anti capitalist. National Socialists should be the clue from the nazi's 25 point platform 7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich. 11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. 12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts. 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. 15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. 16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities. 17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. 18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race. 19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law. 20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. 21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

    5. Re:Not linear! by Darby · · Score: 1

      collectivism,[

      As in Christianity, Deutschland Über Alles, and Uniform Pasty Arianism. Not left wing collectivism.

      opposition to economic liberalism

      Hence either left wing, which, given that they were pretty much defined by their hatred of communism it isn't...or right. Like I said.

      Liberalism is the center. Left and right are probably best defined by their opposition to liberalism now that there actually is such a philosophy ("left" and "right" predated liberalism).
      Liberalism can pretty much be summed up in one sentence from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal".

      The left fundamentally agrees with this point. They, however, feel that the power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote, enforce, redistribute, etc. that equality. Typically executions/exterminations are based on idealogical purity and therefore might be avoidable if you're willing to immediately start believing everything the state tells you to. Then everyone gets a bowl of rice a day (no cold rat meat unless you bring enough for everyone) and everyone would sit around singing kumbaya..well they would if someone hadn't decided it had anti state overtones and broken all the guitars and shot all the musicians.

      The right fundamentally disagrees. They feel some people are born better than others (generally based on race, religion, national origin, parentage, etc.)
      They feel that the power of the state should be used against the individual for the benefit of these elite groups. Hereditary power, church and state overlap, corporate welfare. And of course, war, which is always bad for most people and very good for a few.
      Typically executions/exterminations are based on accidents of birth thus avoidable only through stealth and speed (and having somewhere to go).

      Now Hitler started more to the center than he ended up. The industrialists/aristocracy set him straight. Socialized costs and privatized profits makes for right wing looting of the populace. They did quite well for a while building war materials and the like. Granted, they ended up getting a lot of shit blown the fuck out of, but, you know, it really couldn't have happened to meaner people ;-)

      As far as economic right specifically, I'd say the US went right of Germany/Italy a while ago. After all we've been able to keep the war machine going all through WW2 and up to now, so you're unelectable if you even talk about reducing the military. We have no credible military threats, just lots and lots of people in the military and all the associated industries who'd all have to hit the streets and find jobs that don't require wars and tax dollars to stay working if we did.

    6. Re:Not linear! by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      c'mon Darby!

      you missed the whole point of my post...modern politics is too complicated for a one axis 'left' and 'right' classification, that's why I linked to the two axis political spectrum.

      all you did was bloviate your selective history and interpretation of the words 'left' and 'right' in contemporary usage. An analysis frought with myopic errors of context and definition.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    7. Re:Not linear! by Darby · · Score: 1

      you missed the whole point of my post...modern politics is too complicated for a one axis 'left' and 'right' classification, that's why I linked to the two axis political spectrum.

      I saw that, and I don't think that it does a good job of explaining the realities either. I'm not considering it in some simplistic right/left thing as should be obvious by how I explained my position. You might have considered pointing out where you think my position is somehow ignoring the important distinctions rather than just claiming I'm making one dimensional points. I'm not. Either I didn't explain that clearly enough, or you didn't read clearly enough ;-)

      For a detailed explanation (if you're interested and have the time) I find the position put forward on this site to be quite illuminating.

      It also does a good job of demonstrating the flaws and omissions of the standard 2 axis spectrum and the Nolan chart as well as the simplistic one dimensional right/left.

    8. Re:Not linear! by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      so, you agree with me, you are just wanting to further the conversation about the exact type of two axis spectrum to use.

      Personally I feel one can use different two axis models to describe different aspects of society and politics. Ex. there is a two axis spectrum that describes religion vs. humanism...

      I think that the two axis spectrum from "Political Spectrum" is the best of what I've seen at fitting most broad socio-political contexts. (That link you sent me has it copied, and discusses it).

      About that link...that guy is doing the same thing you are...he uses language like he's out to re-invent the wheel when all he brings is a suggestion about improving it. And he uses the word 'post-modern'...whenever someone uses this word, be prepared to hear pretentious, effusive bullshit pedaled as insight.

      Specifically,

      They also make the incorrect assertion that "regulations" and "freedom" are inherently contradictory, while this is not really true - it all depends on the nature and execution of the regulations. For example, regulations that prevent slavery increase freedom.

      No, here he misunderstands slavery as a legal institution. Under slavery, the STATE give the right to legally own people as property by defining slaves as such. You need look no further than the Constitution where slaves are listed to count as 3/5 of a person. So in an organized government that legally recognizes 'slaves' as property there is a revocation of freedom by "regulating" the definition of what can be considered "property" and enforcing laws as such. No contradiction here: regulation (slaves=legal property) in this case is contradictory to freedom.

      it [political spectrum from "political spectrum"] leads to the incorrect characterization of "Fascism" and "Communism" as being similar or the same. Fascists and Communists disagreed on virtually every point, aside from the fact that they both opposed Liberalism

      Here the author directly misunderstands how the political spectrum works. Fascism and Communism both deprive their citizens of social freedom (authoritarian), as he admits. Fascism gives more economic freedom (to the ones deemed worthy) while Communism is more collectivist minded. Ex: One of the things the Soviet Union prided itself on is their guarantee of employment. Fascism would never do that, by definition. Hence they are both authoritarian but at opposite ends of the other axis.

      The author of that link seems to me to be trying to compensate for the fact that the two axis political spectrum accurately contextualizes the behavior of neo-con and Reagan/Bush republicans in the global comparative context. There's no denying the facts.

      I do hope you respond to this post, as I'm interested to see where YOU are comming from.

      In your respons, please directly address my two critiques of that link you sent.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    9. Re:Not linear! by Darby · · Score: 1

      so, you agree with me, you are just wanting to further the conversation about the exact type of two axis spectrum to use.

      You don't seem to understand that I was never talking about anything else. Regardless of whether you talk about the social or economic left or right, the definitions I gave work equally well. Take, for example somebody with one of the numerous different interpretations of Christianity. Socially, they feel the power of the state should be used against gays to prevent equality because they feel that gays are inferior and hence don't deserve the equal rights the constitution guarantees. Socially they are far to the right. Now say they also go with Jesus's statement that a camel will fit through the eye of a needle before a rich man goes to heaven and that helping the poor is critical to being a good person. They might well demand purely redistributive taxation and hence are on the economic left. Do you see how the definitions are properly applied, even if you don't agree that they provide a more accurate framework for discussion?

      About that link...that guy is doing the same thing you are...he uses language like he's out to re-invent the wheel when all he brings is a suggestion about improving it. And he uses the word 'post-modern'...whenever someone uses this word, be prepared to hear pretentious, effusive bullshit pedaled as insight.

      When you need to jump directly to ad hominem, you demonstrate the weakness of your position.

      No contradiction here: regulation (slaves=legal property) in this case is contradictory to freedom.

      Yes, it is. That's what he said. Banning slavery is a regulation which is not contradictory to freedom and in fact increases it. All you did was repeat a small part of his point.

      Here the author directly misunderstands how the political spectrum works. Fascism and Communism both deprive their citizens of social freedom (authoritarian), as he admits. Fascism gives more economic freedom (to the ones deemed worthy) while Communism is more collectivist minded. Ex: One of the things the Soviet Union prided itself on is their guarantee of employment. Fascism would never do that, by definition. Hence they are both authoritarian but at opposite ends of the other axis.

      By the fact that you have to specify that economic freedom is only given to the ones deemed worthy, you demonstrate the validity of the position that I am arguing. You can't claim to increase freedom while requiring that that definition only apply to a select few. That is one of the major flaws in your position, and why your spectrum fails to accurately address reality.

      The author of that link seems to me to be trying to compensate for the fact that the two axis political spectrum accurately contextualizes the behavior of neo-con and Reagan/Bush republicans in the global comparative context. There's no denying the facts.

      No, he made valid points about the failure of the other systems to provide a useful context in which to discuss the real political arena. Points which I demonstrated your failure to grasp.

    10. Re:Not linear! by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      Do you see how the definitions are properly applied, even if you don't agree that they provide a more accurate framework for discussion?

      no. i really don't. honestly, you lost me, but it's good that you support using a two axis framework and care enough to keep going w/ our little chat.

      About 'definitions' in politics especially it's just difficult. The rhetoric and propaganda and 'ends justify the means' style persuasion tactics make agreeing on definitions so difficult I've found. Every word is loaded with meaning whether the participants in the discussion intend them to be or not.

      And if two sides can't agree on definitions then how can dialogue about the implications of the ideas those words represent occur? beats me

      Points which I demonstrated your failure to grasp.

      Yeah, here's the thing...I think we'd actually have a more productive discussion if we talked about what specific policy positions we support at this point. Funny thing is, we might agree on alot of policy positions, just disagree about the philosophical underpinnings and how we use logic to arrive t those policy positions. For me, all the talk of 'political spectrums' and whatnot is a means to an end, that end being a bill passed by Congress doing x,y and z things that will fix America's problems.

      When you need to jump directly to ad hominem, you demonstrate the weakness of your position.

      heh...two things:

      1. I busted that out b/c i like to have fun on message boards, call me juvenile, but that's just how I roll.

      2. 'ad hominem' ... yes my attack on post-modernism was an ad hominem, and that's intentional. I read a paper somewhere (Stanley Fish maybe? I don't like him that much but I've read some of his NYTimes stuff) that discussed the "Liberal Arts" vs. "Hard Sciences" tug of war for resources (read=money) that is happening on university campuses. To be brief, the article was written by a Liberal Arts guy, and in his analysis, any criticism of Liberal Arts as being 'unnecessary' comming from a hard sciences guy was nothing more than an Ad Hominem attack.

      I don't remember the whole article or if I agreed with what he was saying, but I did remember that one part, and have since decided that in my quest to defeat the intellectually reductive masturbatory moebuis strip that the word 'post-modernism' represents then I must fight fire with fire. In other words, the idea that post-modernism is a useful term to describe anything at all (architecture excluded...that word only is valuable in discussing architecture) can only be combated by using it's own 'logic' against itself.

      Noam Chomsky said it best:

      There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. -- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.

      are you a Christian? me too!

      Look up

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  35. Re:"protect children from porn, and avoid regulati by Tikkun · · Score: 1

    Was I the only one that read that and though: "Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!"

  36. But... by rascher · · Score: 1

    Will the new platform run on Linux??

    1. Re:But... by T3Tech · · Score: 1

      A beowulf cluster of party platforms? um...

      In Soviet Russia, the political platform runs you.... oh wait that's just an obvious fact.

      ohh... on second thought let's not go to /. memes, 'tis a silly place.

      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
  37. Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform by Darundal · · Score: 4, Funny

    But McCain-ix is undeveloped, closed source abandonware.

  38. The be concerned, very concerned by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Before worrying about someone who slips and claims SUdan And Somalia are the same, shouldn't you seek someone who knows at least the US is not composed of 57 states?

    The campaign is hard on people, give them a break with small slips. Both sides.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  39. Not what he was saying by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    He was saying Children should be heard, but also listen - not that they should not talk at all, but that other viewpoints besides that of the angry youth should be considered as well.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  40. Re:Sinking ship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you got modded Troll because there is no -1 Sheep.

  41. The scope of the First Amendment by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1st amendment (which protects _political speech_ and no other type)

    I see this assertion on Slashdot here now and again, and while I'll certainly agree that political speech was probably the type of speech which the Founders were most concerned with protecting, I see no basis for the assertion that that was all the First Amendment is meant to protect. Quoth the Constitution:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Seems pretty broad and universal to me.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:The scope of the First Amendment by bmajik · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar and you may well be right. However, I would claim that current laws regarding slander, libel, hate-speech, and whatever law covers yelling "fire" in a theater are all laws that abrdige the freedom of speech (and the press, for that matter).

      Either the amendment restricts what type of speech it is meant to cover to the narrow venue of political expression, or it is just flatly ignored in order to implement the speech restriction laws I've enumerated above.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    2. Re:The scope of the First Amendment by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar and you may well be right. However, I would claim that current laws regarding slander, libel, hate-speech, and whatever law covers yelling "fire" in a theater are all laws that abrdige the freedom of speech (and the press, for that matter).

      And anyone who's studied these issues (honestly, a first year poli sci class covers this stuff) understands this basic maxim: your rights end where mine begin. Laws which outlaw certain forms of speech (such as libel and slander) exist because, in exercising one's right to free speech, one infringes on another individuals rights. You'll find cases like this all over the place, and it's one of the difficult sticking points when creating new law.

      Either the amendment restricts what type of speech it is meant to cover to the narrow venue of political expression, or it is just flatly ignored in order to implement the speech restriction laws I've enumerated above.

      Wrong. The amendment protects all forms of speech, so long as, in exercising those rights, you don't infringe on the rights of others. Period. It's really very simple.

  42. The politics of "Slashdot" by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1
    I've seen highly moderated posts advocating any of the following:
    • Individual firearms ownership rights
    • Fiscal responsibility
    • Limited government
    • Individual responsibility
    • The rule of law

    Traditionally all of these would be considered conservative positions. What's calling itself "conservative" now would not be recognized by Edmund Burke or Barry Goldwater.

    1. Re:The politics of "Slashdot" by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Liberal/Conservative is the scale which balances traditional, upper-class values (conservative) with rights of newly enfranchised classes such as women, minorities, poor, gay or disabled (liberal).

      Authoritarian/Libertarian is a different scale which balances centralized control (Authoritarian) with individual rights (Libertarian).

      People's positions on these scales vary widely with different issues depending on their own background and the likelihood that the government would support them. For example, those seeking firearms rights are not likely to want a Democratic Congress to decide the issue. However, when they want abortion limits they may favor a federal law if set by a Republican-controlled Congress. This isn't inconsistency; it just points out that the labels are a way of observing and classifying behavior, they don't control how people act.

  43. Written by NASSCOM, Intel and HP! by Robert+Oak · · Score: 1

    You missed who wrote his platform! He believes in Fictional Employment Theory, a little known contrived system conceptualized by a lobbyist near you! McCain likes to spew this rot to workers who just lost their jobs. Either McCain has to be one of the best snake oil salesmen of all time or someone has implanted a diode in his head to turn off his brain.

    --
    http://blog.noslaves.com
  44. Issues in order of importance: by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

    1. REAL Campaign finace reform. Our congress is wholly-owned. The administration is wholly-owned. It's what Bush must have meant when he spoke of an "ownership society." We live in a plutocracy. It's not one man, one vote. It's one dollar, one vote. Anyone who can gather 5,000 signatures should get 100% federal funding for running for the House. For 15,000 signatures, you get funding for Senate. For 15,000 signatures 40 or more states, you get funded for president. It should be 100% illegal to give any amount of money to any elected official in the Federal Government. Period. The reason this is the #1 issue is it underpins the entire system. 2. Energy independence. We are warping our foreign policy because we're addicted to cheap foreign oil. We need to fix this by reducing our dependence on oil as a transportation fuel and eliminating our depenence on oil as a fuel for electric generators. Funding mass transit in our 50 largest cities would be a good start. Taxing gasoline to pay for it would be even smarter. With the $1.5 trillion we've wasted in Iraq, we could have built out 10 subway lines in EACH of our 50 largest cities. The majority of our population lives in these big cities. If we shift en-mass to mass transit, we'll lower our oil consumption by millions of barrels per day and that will have an effect on demand which will make it more reasonable for rural citizens who cannot use mass transit efficiently to get around based on oil. Geothermal systems can be installed and homes in the NE can be converted from oil to electricity produced by wind and wave farms. 3. Increased funding for scientific research. Because we get better batteries, better generators, better wind turbines, and better all kinds of stuff. We're under funding our basic science. 4. Increased funding for maintenance of existing infrastructure. No more collapsing bridges, please. 5. Stop funding Ethanol. It's stupid. 6. Stop subsidizing the RIAA. Don't regulate the internet. 7. Continue to let individuals decide if Abortion is right or wrong. Land of the Free means people are free to live in ways that do not meet your approval. 8. Give every law-abiding citizen over ten years of age 15 RPG's and an AK47 and 5,000 rounds of ammunition. After the carnage ceases, have a reasonable discussion of gun ownership rights and responsibilities.

    1. Re:Issues in order of importance: by Mr3vil · · Score: 1

      The only thing I'm addressing in your comment is your mass transit proposal. While I'm not opponent of mass transit. "Build 10 subway lines in every city" is a bit idealistic and does need a healthy dose of realism. Not every city has sub-surface terrain that's suited for tunnel construction, and elevated train ways pose their own unique planning and engineering concerns. Mag-lev trains would eliminate a good portion of noise issues that is associated with El-ways. Another thing is, an elevated train can potentially displace those that need public transit the most as you buy out the properties they currently rent. More bus service would be nice though, in my city the buses run ever decreasing routes and only pass by a stop every hour and a half to two hours. By next census it might get worse as the feds will pull funding if the city's population exceeeds a certain figure. I think there also needs to be a PR campaign to remove alot of stereotypes that have been portrayed in the media. Just about any place outside of New England, the residents act as though setting foot on a city bus will give you AIDS.

  45. The irony... by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

    A few weeks ago, McCain said "nuclear" and the discussion here and elsewhere went nuts with people saying, "OMG He's going to give us nuclear power!!!1! Vote him! Vote him!" Another time, he mentioned a possible manned mission to Mars, and a similar geek-gasm ensued. Interesting that both of these proposals are conspicuously missing from his technology platform, which includes pro-BSA/RIAA/MPAA language.

    Didn't he get the memo that he's supposed to keep hyping the promises that will get Slashdot commenters in a tizzy until he's elected? I guess Rove's hubris has infected every level of the GOP leadership-- they think that they can get away with being honest about being sold out* because they think they'll get the White House anyway. If McCain falls below 40% in the polls, I suspect Cheney will attack Iran and Russia to give the old war veteran an opportunity to give the appearance of leadership. That way, even if McCain loses, Obama is stuck with a multi-front war that he cannot win.

    * Granted, Democrats are no better in this regard. In my state, Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein both are corporate shills, but the Democrats keep them because they are ace fundraisers.

    --
    "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  46. Re:"protect children from porn, and avoid regulati by HoppQ · · Score: 1

    That's McCain for you. He flip-flops and when he doesn't, he outright lies about his current and past positions. Quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised if even McCain doesn't know what the bloody hell he would actually do as president, but it cannot include half the stuff he's promised because of logical, financial and other impossibilities.

    --
    My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
  47. Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll stick with Obama-mama-ix thanks.

    If you need a more powerful computer for the Obama distro it raises taxes and has the government buy you one.

  48. Don't let facts get in your way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Obama avoids showing his at all costs, and when they do show, they're contradictory, or imply a very shaky house-of-cards case of mixed premises.

    Or that they can't be expressed in soundbytes. You might not realize it, but do you really think a nation of this size can be governed by a few simple, popular rules that fit on the back of a post card? Me? I like the fact that he has one of the best organized campaigns ever, while the opposition (both Hillary & McCain) have been described as disorganized (Hillary in terms of internal politics, McCain in terms of not having any message control and having to severely restrict access to McCain so he doesn't put his foot in his mouth).

    > Are you really looking for a gotcha contest on mispoken names or recollections?

    There would be no contest. You can't tell me you're "experienced" in one breath and then plagiarize Wikipedia for your speech on the country of Georgia in the next.

    > People don't need an inspirational president, they need a competent one who actually knows who he is and what he stands for.

    Well, ideally, we'd have both. And for competence, I'd say that how well you run your campaign has some bearing on that. Moreover, you do NOT want to try and make that case about McCain.

    He's now "against" his own immigration plan. HE WROTE the damn thing. HE SPONSORED it. And you're going to tell me it's not a flip-flop? The Bush tax cuts: he voted against them before he voted for them. He called evangelical leaders "agents of intolerance" in 2000. Guess where he'll be on stage with Obama soon?

    > A poll-following pretty boy who hates to be asked what he really thinks lest he have to actually get pinned down on specifics? No thanks.

    Indeed. Very good reasons not to vote for McCain.

  49. Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    The problem is despite what they "say" they are for/against in the end it ends up SSDD. It is one hell of a shame the man died,because Bill Hicks after all these years is still right on the money. In the end it doesn't matter what they say,because they get a giant check thrust at them and go "How much? Really? Okay,anything you say!". I mean,look at how quick Obama flipped of FISA. Does anyone doubt he got a really fat check? But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  50. *Obama is Dying by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can't wait for the Barack Software Distribution. There's no way in hell McCain-ix can beat BSD.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but Netcraft confirms it- Barack's campaign is dying!

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  51. Slashdot right-libertarian? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Uhhh, please explain. Slashdot is generally pretty right-libertarian leaning. Hardly 80% strongly liberal.

    I don't agree with that at all. I'd say its more to the left-libertarian side, and there's a big difference. I think the audience has moved somewhat to the right, at least on some issues, but I'd wager the majority of people here are still mostly on the left. Look at attitudes towards religion, conventional morality, drug use, and right wing political figures. And then tell me Slashdot is "right-libertarian". Not yet, it isn't.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  52. Re:"protect children from porn, and avoid regulati by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Yay for contradictions?

    There are ways to keep porn out of the hands of children without regulating the Internet itself. That isn't a contradiction. Using your logic, I could also say "Protect people from libel and have a free press. Yay contradiction".

    No freedom we have is completely unencumbered. There are always limitations, like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. No judge is going to let you slide on that one with a free speech argument.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  53. Slashdot Quality by graveyhead · · Score: 1

    Can pudge please refrain from spewing his partisanship so blatantly around slashdot?

    Isn't the readership biased enough without slashdot staff egging us on?

    The last political article on slashdot stopped me reading it for two weeks, and this did not help.

    --
    std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
  54. For the love of Krishna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't vote for John McCain!

  55. Re:Sinking ship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like someone who thinks a personal attack is a logical argument, therefore you sound like a spokesperson for MSNBC. Kieth Olbermann, is that you? Or perhaps you're Chris Matthews. How's that tingly-leg problem these days?

  56. So, 'basic bullshit' it is ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    he wants to bolster business, but he wants to kill what made internet so big a field for doing business in - network neutrality, which ensures that the small entrepreneur and the big boy start equal on everything ? at least almost ? and turn the tables for benefit of big buck corporations ?

    well, thats quite republican.

  57. Excluding the biggest terror attack on the US by Woundweavr · · Score: 1

    Excluding the biggest terror attack in US history as a means to measure "keeping us safe" is more than a little disingenuous, don't you think? Besides, the Administration itself acknowledges that terrorism is stronger now than in 2000.

  58. Re:Sinking ship? by joelwyland · · Score: 1

    Troll? Did I actually say something that wasn't true?

    This:

    And Obama is set to pick Kerry

    This:

    he'll stand by his stance of executing children who accidentally escape the abortionist's, knife.

  59. Re:"protect children from porn, and avoid regulati by diamondmagic · · Score: 0, Troll

    Consumer protection != Freedom

    Like it or not, net neutrality IS an infringement on freedom. I think all of the problems we have had thus far could be solved with existing legislation, there is need for new laws as of yet.

  60. Netcraft Confirms it: Ron Paul is dying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is official; Netcraft now confirms: the Paul campaign is dying.

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Ron Paul community when Zogby confirmed that Ron Paul poll numbers have dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all voters. Coming close on the heels of a recent Fox News survey which plainly states that Ron Paul has lost more voters, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Ron Paul's campaign is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Republican primary.

    You don't need to be the amazing Kreskin to predict Ron Paul's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Ron Paul's political career faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Ron Paul in public service because Ron Paul's campaign is dying. Things are looking very bad for Ron Paul. As many of us are already aware, Ron Paul continues to lose voters and funding. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    His presidential campaign is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core volunteers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time campaign staffers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Ron Paul's campaign is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    His campaign manger states that there are 7000 Libertarian party members out there. How many die-hard Paul supporters are there? Let's see. The number of Libertarian Party posts versus Ron Paul posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 of the Ron Paul faithful. Anarcho-capitalist posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Ron Paul posts. Therefore there are about 700 anarcho-capitalists. A recent article put small-l libertarians at about 80 percent of likely Paul voters. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 small-l libertarians. This is consistent with the number of libertarian-leaning Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of the campaign, abysmal polling and so on, Ron Paul's campaign went out of business and was taken over by the KKK who sell another troubled ideology. Now the KKK is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that Ron Paul has steadily declined in the polls. Dr. Paul's campaign is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Ron Paul is to survive at all in politics it will be among right-wing extremists and radical Libertarians. The Paul campaign continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save Ron Paul from his fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Ron Paul is dead.

    Fact: the Paul campaign is dying.

  61. How about protecting the little guys? by deanston · · Score: 1

    Support more scientific education for children and independent research is ONLY one stance needed to bolster this country's technology platform. Every other talking point is pure diversion and a waste of time. The Internet was not invented by politicians, lawyers, or company heads (no not even Al Gore). Creative people don't just start inventing things just because they thought there's a tax break involved. Don't make me fucking laugh. Corporations don't need protection from piracy. It's the little guy who invented something great and get stolen by the big corporations that needs protection. The common fucking political wishful thinking is "science will save us" yet kids look at the society and learn that the only way to power and riches is by lying and cheating and fake, blind leadership.

  62. Re:Netcraft Confirms it: Ron Paul is dying. by Kyle_Katarn-(ISF) · · Score: 1

    Umm, did Ron Paul not withdraw from the race several months ago? Perhaps you're thinking of Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate?

  63. McCain vs Obama...FIGHT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the current trends of rapidly consolidating ISPs into bigger and bigger fish .. safegards to prevent intentional denial of access by ISPs seems to me a reasonable and necessary concept.

    The devil is in the details -- being for net-neutrality does not mean that your specific proposal will help rather than harm the network.

    As consolidation continues it becomes increasingly naieve to believe the market will save us from blocked access to the likes of vonage and youtube.

    We must also concider as the staggering amounts of bandwidth we have access to increases the oversubscription rate of our beloved ISPs increase by leap and bounds. Comcast RST shit will only get worse if ISPs have no ground rules to work with.

    Measures to fairly distribute avaliable resources during peek demand and even fast path performance critical communications for online games and Voice applications must be tolerated. It gets thorny quickly as you progress into specific areas as over-zealous neutrality laws may put dampers on some of the more creative economy access plans and in the end there may be unavoidable overlap between honest intentions and selfish ones.

    ISPs just need to learn how to provide pricing models that more closly mirror actual cost... oh wait.. on second thought I kind of like all the grandmas in my area subsidising my 10mb/s downloading sprees and I would rather not see the Internet go the way of US nonsensical cellular plan pricing so maybe I should just shut the hell up.

    Either way you slice it McCain is a clueless idiot. Don't vote for him.. you'll be sorry if you did... heck you'll be sorry if you didn't and he still wins :)

  64. Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Funny

    But Obama reversed his position on booting being a necessary step for PC operation, for booting pc's is bad for global warming, therefore Obamanix will not have the option of creating a bootsector, nor will it come with one.

    When I enquired about exactly how he used this empty black screen of his, I was called a racist, beat up, and thrown out of the building (from the third floor window).

    Fortunately the massive quantities of hot air in the head of one of his former fans broke my fall. To those who weren't there it might seem that it'd be very hard for mere hot air to break a fall from a third floor window, however to those I would say that that depends on the quantity. Think big.

    The rest of his fans don't care, after all, Obama promised Obamanix would come with Duke Nukem Forever pre-installed.

    The distributions release date is said to coincide with Duke Nukem Forever's release date : the day after installing Obama in the white house and giving him the power of preventing a single word about the curious absense of said distribution being published, with laws that would let less bytes pass on *any* router than "prophets suck" articles can be found in this year's "taliban chronicles".

  65. Re:Sinking ship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) http://wbztv.com/politics/jonkeller/john.kerry.vice.2.796143.html

    2) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

    So, as you can see, the John Kerry rumor has legs, and Obama was the only senator in the Illinois Senate to speak out on the Senate floor against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The first time it was put to a vote, he voted "present." Way to have balls and stand up for your beliefs, Barack.

    To the parent poster, I regret to inform you that you have failed miserably in your endeavor to appear intelligent.

  66. Damned cross-dresser! by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 1

    McCain is a cross-dresser: He's a Democrat dressed in a Republican's suit!

    McAble

    1. Re:Damned cross-dresser! by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't fret, little GOP sheeple. He's just flip-flopping to get more power. He'll rip off the Democratic disguise soon enough to reveal his true elitist colors right after the election.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  67. 4,000 plus dead "safe" by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    More people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than died in 9/11 not even counting Iraqi civilians.

  68. Re:Sharing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can you type so well with your mouth stuffed so full of record label executive's cocks?

  69. Re:Sinking ship? by joelwyland · · Score: 1
    You're still posting anonymously because you know you're full of crap.

    1) http://wbztv.com/politics/jonkeller/john.kerry.vice.2.796143.html

    Hey, look! A guy with a blog spouted unfounded rumor! It must be true, I read it on the internet. Did you even bother to read the random blog entry?

    2) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

    Please show me where in this article that says that Obama wishes to execute babies? THAT is why you are a troll. All the stuff you are spewing are incendiary lies at worst and unfounded rumor at best.

  70. Re:Sharing? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Shut up you little pussy coward. You can talk to me when you have a spine.

    Now go off and die in a fire.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  71. Re:Sharing? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    So you admit that it is violating other people's rights. That is good. Now, how about actually doing the right thing and changing the laws instead of violating them.

    Or are you such a self-centered, egotisitcal asshole that you feel you should be able to break the law?

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  72. Re:Sharing? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If one doesn't think a law is right or just, one works to change the law. One does not act like you: a self-centered, self-important shithead who thinks and acts like the law and common decency applies to himself.

    And, it is a legal right, regardless of whether or not you believe it is "right".

    Now, fuck off and die in a fire, you worthless piece of monkey spittle.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  73. Recursive hypocrisy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, what? I believe you're doing exactly what you accuse Jamie of doing. It's ironic you accuse him of being "overtly partisan" because last I knew, you were a member of the RNC (or something akin to that, I admit that memory fails me). Hypocrisy, BTW, is not unique to any party. You can find it among the Greens as easily as the Libertarians, though there's NO shortage whatsoever in the Republican & Democratic parties.

    Anyhow, McCain was complaining that youngsters dare question their elders. And saying that he did the same when he was young, so let's all laugh because he knows better. While that is certainly true for many things, technology isn't one of them, which makes his mention of blogs quite ironic.

    I taught computer classes at the local library for quite a while. I doubt I had any students less than twice my age and I'm almost 30. Yes, there are exceptions. There are old people who have a lifetime of experience with coding. They're not common, however. I myself claim over two decades of computer experience. Yes, I really was programming at 6. You can thank 3-2-1 Contact magazine for that.

    Obama, on the other hand, was complaining about blogs as rumor mills. But this is Slashdot, so I can see why you'd be offended by that. Though I wonder what you'd have said if the "McCain is a closet Buddhist!" story got published.

    In chastising Jamie for distorting McCain's words, you have done the same with Obama's. In decrying hypocrisy, you have become a hypocrite.

    But what else is new?

    1. Re:Recursive hypocrisy? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? I believe you're doing exactly what you accuse Jamie of doing.

      OK. But you're wrong.

      It's ironic you accuse him of being "overtly partisan"

      I never did any such thing. Please read it again. I chastised him for expressing overtly partisan hypocrisy. You left out the antecedent. I did not say HE was overtly partisan, I said his hypocrisy was.

      Hypocrisy, BTW, is not unique to any party.

      I never in any way implied that it was.

      Anyhow, McCain was complaining that youngsters dare question their elders.

      Absolutely false. He never in any way implied that it is wrong to question.

      Though I wonder what you'd have said if the "McCain is a closet Buddhist!" story got published.

      The exact same thing that I would say if "Obama is a closet Muslim!" got published. Indeed, I received many emails from friends saying he was, and I replied to them with the facts, sometimes including a link to snopes. I personally researched many of the claims so I could disprove them.

      In chastising Jamie for distorting McCain's words, you have done the same with Obama's.

      I did no such thing. You apparently base this on the flawed premise that in comparing Obama's words to McCain's, that I am misrepresenting Obama, since McCain meant something and Obama meant something else. But in doing so, you misrepresented McCain.

      McCain was doing the SAME THING as Obama: chastising people for saying untruth is truth.

  74. Re:Sharing? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    ...die in a fire...

    Settle down, Beavis.

    Gosh darn it. You're almost funny. Not quite, but I did smile for an instant. You just don't have what it takes. Or you're all of 7 or 8 years old. Besos. Don't step in the horse poop.

    --
    What?
  75. Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform by LKM · · Score: 1

    Well, McCain is older than Duke Nukem Forever's first leaked screenshot! Wait, he actually is. Damn, that's old!

  76. It's the same, really by LKM · · Score: 1

    If you are basing your vote solely on technological issues in a presidential election, you really need to get out more. There are much more important issues that the President should be considered about (economy, jobs, defense, etc).

    A good economy and a good job market are directly related to whether technology is treated as a danger or as an opportunity.

  77. Because it's his job. by LKM · · Score: 1

    Why is it not OK for a presidential candidate to admit that he doesn't know something?

    Perhaps because it's his damn job to know these things? You know, elect the guy who knows what to do?

    Why is it that so many Americans actually want their president to be dumb?

    1. Re:Because it's his job. by fugue · · Score: 1

      No. It's his job to know how to make a good decision. If he is under the delusion that he knows something, he's less likely to hire, or listen to, a clever advisor.

      Even Jimmy Carter didn't know everything.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    2. Re:Because it's his job. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Jimmy Carter didn't know a damn thing while he was president. He knew a lot before and after but got retarded along with everyone around him when he was president. I remmeber a bunch of radio station getting in trouble for playing a parody of the oscar myers My bologna has a first name song,
      My peanut has a first name, It's j-i-m-m-y.
      My peanut has a second name. It's C-a-r-t-e-r,
      and as I have to struggle every day, if you ask me this is what I'll say,
      because jimmy carter has a way of ficking up the USA.

      (and yes, they said ficking but it sounded like fucking.)

      You were probably too young or not even born yet during his presidency. Really, outside of that he is/was/still is a great guy. But people weren't really happy with his presidency though. Reagan was elected with almost 10% lead in the popular voted and carried 489 electoral voted to Carters 49. Almost another 9% of the popular vote was split between third party candidates. That should tell you something when the incumbent losses that bad.

  78. Re:"protect children from porn, and avoid regulati by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

    I'd vote for this guy just to see what he actualy does. =p

    --
    I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
  79. WTF by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    You don't seem to understand what you've linked to. No matter how you stretch it, I didn't even "correlate" anything. I used the word "extrapolate," which doesn't mean the same thing. At all.
    But, well, if you can't tell the difference, go ahead, vote republican, that's what you "special" people do.

  80. Re:Sinking ship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sensationalist attempted pathos exploiting argument.
    Kindly gtfo at your nearest exist.

  81. Re:Sharing? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Tell it to Medgar Evers, tell it to Gandhi.

    But I suppose, you are more prone to violence?

    Tell it to Sam Adams, then.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  82. Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform by Malachias · · Score: 1

    Don't assume that you need a regulatory regime to do things right. Many of the subscribers to slashdot participate in the decisions that make the internet what it is and ultimately what it will become. They do so not by "technology policy", but through ideas, through what they build, and through what they attempt. If they cannot be trusted (or perhaps they are not trusted even by themselves) to do the right thing the vast majority of the time, then there is no amount of regulators that can fix the problem. I know there are all kinds of unintended consequences scenarios. I know there is no consensus on all the possible issues. Even so, there is a lot of power in the decisions we make. It is not about militancy, it is about taking responsibility for the consequences for our decisions and not abdicating it to others. We should not get so caught up in a candidate's technology policy that we forget the role we play.

  83. Re:Sharing? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Little does he know that monkey spittle cures cancer, and it's an aphrodisiac. I can hardly wait for DaveV1.1

    --
    What?
  84. Dangerous by NickGnome · · Score: 1

    Demonstrating that, not only does he not know much about science & tech, but he doesn't know anyone who knows anything. But it's not as though Barracks O'Bama had a clue, either. I'd much rather see Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin getting some media coverage. "Half of knowledge is knowing where to find knowledge."

  85. Long-term Thinking by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    This disgusts me, but I don't see a more-responsible way to use my vote AND make sure it counts for *something* in the final tally.

    I used to support this tactic. Now, I'm thinking more strategically.

    The old me would have voted for McCain because he's slightly less socialist than Obama. In some respects, not all.

    Now, I'm sick of "both" parties, especially the Republicans, for giving us socialist candidates who completely disregard our Constitution. So, I'm writing in Ron Paul and asking as many people to do so as possible, at least Rule-of-Law types. I even made a couple bumper stickers to spread the word.

    Because, I think if McCain loses to Obama by a margin that is less than the number of people who vote for Ron Paul, the Republicans will reconsider their platform. Or, if not, it'll lend quite a bit of credence to a new party that might be able to start restoring the Republic. The number to beat is about 1 Million, the last biggest write-in vote getter, about 90 years ago.

    So, consider that your vote may "count for *something*" this time around, but does it really count for anything beyond November, besides empowering the current dysfunctional two-party system? Like McCotter said, "Let It Bleed".

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Long-term Thinking by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I have thought about that, and still have mixed feelings about it. Much as it would feel good to make the statement, and maybe startle a few people in the Rep party, would it actually accomplish anything? I'm not so sure. I do know my business won't survive the economics of another Carter-esque presidency.

      Speculation is that MT governor Brian Schweitzer will run for the next Democrat pres ticket -- and from what I've seen so far, I like him better than any other potential candidate (for 4 years from now if McCain wins, or for 8 years from now if Obama wins). MT's notion of "Democrat" really means "liberal Republican" rather than left-wing whacko like it presently does to the rest of the world, making him appealing to a broad base. And he's had the balls to tell the Feds to GFY over RealID. This old-line Republican likes that.
      Plus the fact that he hasn't lost touch with the farms and ranches that are the foundation for everything else -- cuz everyone's gotta eat. One of the big problems today is that the average person is now the 3rd generation away from the farm, consequently there's this huge disconnect between how they see the world and how the world really works. This sad truth came home to me when I met not one but TWO nominal-adults who (I shit you not) DID NOT KNOW that beef comes from cows!!

      Anyway, I hope that's a viable game plan for the future. The present options still suck. :(

      Had the thought the other day that we really should have appreciated Barry Goldwater more, back when we coulda had him.. :/

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Long-term Thinking by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I have thought about that, and still have mixed feelings about it. Much as it would feel good to make the statement, and maybe startle a few people in the Rep party, would it actually accomplish anything?

      I agree, there's only a chance it would. As opposed to the other options which definitely perpetuate the status quo.

      I do know my business won't survive the economics of another Carter-esque presidency.

      Oh, well then it gets easier, since you'd be voting for shutting down your business with either an Obama or McCain vote. They both want to impose massive socialist programs. A bit less on McCain's side if you believe his 'conversions' over the last year on crucial fundamental issues (I don't). Either way, if you're serious you ought to find a buyer now. Even if you do sell, it wouldn't be right to vote to shutdown other businesses of those less fortunate, especially since you understand the consequences. I'm assuming here you don't feel those people would be better off as government 'workers'.

      This sad truth came home to me when I met not one but TWO nominal-adults who (I shit you not) DID NOT KNOW that beef comes from cows!!

      Wow. Good thing they probably sat in government schools for 12 years or more! I did recently have a vegetarian tell me that cows don't need to get pregnant to produce milk. I was giving her a hard time for supporting the veal industry by eating cheese. ;)

      Had the thought the other day that we really should have appreciated Barry Goldwater more, back when we coulda had him.. :/

      I'll just include a quick link in case you're not aware of which political movement Barry is currently involved with.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  86. Re:Sharing? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Now, how about actually doing the right thing and changing the laws

    How do people do that if neither major U.S. political party's platform has copyright reductionism as a plank?

  87. Exactly how do you read his speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> I never did any such thing. Please read it again. I chastised him for expressing overtly partisan hypocrisy. You left out the antecedent. I did not say HE was overtly partisan, I said his hypocrisy was.

    > Hypocrisy, BTW, is not unique to any party.

    >> I never in any way implied that it was.

    A) You're splitting hairs in the first answer.
    B) You're contradicting yourself (or at least being very unclear when talking about 'overtly partisan' hypocrisy).

    > Absolutely false. He never in any way implied that it is wrong to question.

    You're misreading me. He's clearly implying that the ideas of youth are wrong (even if they're not wrong to question). There simply isn't another way to read that than as an "I'm older and know better than you" speech. Unsurprisingly, that won't play well among the young, particularly the young people who happen to know far, far better than him about technology, where his experience does not apply (he doesn't know much about modern computers & internet, however much people want to claim that his knowledge of mechanics in the military in days gone by should somehow count as 'technology', particularly when he was near the bottom of his class in the military).

    > The exact same thing that I would say if "Obama is a closet Muslim!" got published. Indeed, I received many emails from friends saying he was, and I replied to them with the facts, sometimes including a link to snopes. I personally researched many of the claims so I could disprove them.

    This, I will commend you for.

    > McCain was doing the SAME THING as Obama: chastising people for saying untruth is truth.

    You might as well have said "they both think they're right!" But Obama was chastising people for spreading debunked rumors. McCain was saying "I'm older than you, so listen up!"

    Don't get me wrong. I'm sure he has *some* experience. But he's not very good at picking advisers (failed CEO of HP as an economic *and* tech adviser!?), at party organizing (he has what? 3% of Obama's organization on the ground), at computers (I'm glad he's forcing himself to at least use some now, but...), or at remembering where other countries are (is this NOT considered part of 'foreign policy' experience? or are they just 'senior moments' as if that made it better?).

    Given that barely graduated in the military, the "I know more than you!" routine falls pretty flat when subjected to any objective measure. You might reply that he's been in the Senate for, what? Almost 40 years? But he should *already* know this stuff, especially the difference between Sunni & Shiite.

    The man is my Senator. I have voted for him in the past. But I can't honestly say he's the best man for the job this time. I don't like Obama's stance on some things, especially abortion. But a lot more of us than just the unborn are going to need saving at this rate. Sometimes you have to stop the blood flow before you can patch the whole wound.

    1. Re:Exactly how do you read his speech? by pudge · · Score: 0, Troll

      A) You're splitting hairs in the first answer.

      Not at all. You obviously do not understand what I wrote. I was attacked as hypocritical because, the poster said, I attacked him for being partisan, while I am also partisan. But I did not attack him for being partisan, I attacked him for being hypocritical.

      B) You're contradicting yourself

      I don't see how anyone would think so.

      There simply isn't another way to read that than as an "I'm older and know better than you" speech.

      There simply isn't any way to read that as an "I'm older and know better than you" speech.

      Obama was chastising people for spreading debunked rumors. McCain was saying "I'm older than you, so listen up!"

      McCain did no such thing.

      Quote for me what you think he said that supports your representation of it. I can't find what you're saying anywhere.

      he's not very good at picking advisers (failed CEO of HP as an economic *and* tech adviser!?)

      First, she is a fantastic advisor. Carly Fiorina, despite her flaws, is very sharp and knows what she's talking about.

      Second, come on: Obama has had even more problems with advisors than McCain.

      at party organizing (he has what? 3% of Obama's organization on the ground)

      That is not party organizing, it's campaign organizing. Different things. But I get your point, and would only point out that Howard Dean had by far the most people on the ground right up until the time he got killed in Iowa. Obviously, Obama supporters are more excited than McCain supporters. And equally obviously, this doesn't tend to be a deciding factor.

      at computers

      Granted, though not sure why I should care too much. I'd rather have a lack of experience with computers than a lack of experience with Russia, Europe, Iran, the Middle East, etc.

      or at remembering where other countries are (is this NOT considered part of 'foreign policy' experience? or are they just 'senior moments' as if that made it better?).

      Oh please. Obama has had at least as many "senior moments" of his own, including not knowing WHERE HIS OWN STATE IS. Obama attributed Clinton's lead in Kentucky to the proximity of that state to Arkansas, despite the fact that Kentucky borders HIS home state of Illinois, and does NOT border Arkansas.

      Given that barely graduated in the military

      That is untrue. Being low in his class DOES NOT imply that he "barely" graduated.

      But he should *already* know this stuff, especially the difference between Sunni & Shiite.

      I have had the same dogs for 10 years and I still get their names wrong, even though I know exactly which one is which. People switch names all the time. Ted Kennedy switched "Obama" and "Osama" (something I also unintentionally and embarassingly do on occasion). Almost everyone switches "Iran" and "Iraq." Anyone who actually thinks he doesn't know the difference between being "Shiite" and "Sunni" is just being stupid, just like people who actually think Obama believes there are 57 states in the U.S. are being stupid.

      Seriously, if you want to compare "senior moments," I don't think Obama will win.

  88. Re:Sharing? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Wow, you are an idiot aren't you? Maybe you should try learning about politics before you spout off.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  89. Re:Sharing? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Oh, please, Great One. Enlighten us. We can assure you that the revelation of your all knowing ways will not be casting pearls before the swine.

    Say "Cheeeese" :-)

    --
    What?
  90. Net Neutrality = Suppression of Free Speech by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

    Having just studied up on the Council for Foreign Affairs and how they attempt to control public views and government policies via the media, anyone against Net Neutrality is, in my mind, suspect not only as a candidate for any high office, but even potentially a traitor to the United States and an enemy of the its citizens. John McCain has shown repeatedly that he is no different from any politician of any stripe (although most typically the GOP these days) that supports the destruction of our Constitutional rights, the exploitation of our resources, and enrichment of corporations to the detriment of the greater good, and who is willing to alter his stated position, in denial of his resume, in order to retain and acquire more power.

    Opposition to net neutrality is the desire to suppress free speech, disguised in a business suit with an American flag lapel pin.

    --
    *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  91. Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever happened to Ron Paul? I thought he was going to bridge the gap between the GOP, Dems, & the LP? Didn't he set a record on funding? (He got some of my ca$h ... )