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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
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.