Slashdot Mirror
A Look At Joe Biden's Tech Voting Record
Aviran brings us an analysis of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's voting record on technology issues. CNet breaks down the issues by category and provides details on the tech-related legislation he's introduced in the past several years. Biden received a score of 37.5% on CNet's 2006 technology voter guide. We've discussed the technology stances of McCain and Obama in the past.
Why did Biden vote against the FISA bill, the one where Obama voted for? You know, the one that granted telecoms immunity against criminal prosecution.
Fuck McCain
Fuck Obama
How can a candidate running on a base of "change" justify picking a VP who has been in DC for 30+ years?
The only thing "changing" in January is the position DC is fucking me in...
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Do Senators exist who can open a laptop without assistance and actually avoid drooling on the keyboard?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I'm voting for the presidential candidate, not their VP and certainly not their spouses.
Right now, neither McCain, nor Obama will get my vote.
That's the original post title and post by Aviran that's merely alluded to here... why the need to neutralize it? Would you have neutralized it for a Republican candidate?
Interesting. Is there a J. Edgar Hover wannabe there? Or is it just the current climate with this administration.
the trouble with this is, even though Obama would be the President if elected, Biden would be President of the Senate. So if there's a tie breaker for or against something that would further deteriorate our Civil Liberties, I can only assume Biden would vote in favor of less freedom. And if that should some to pass, maybe Obama would veto it. Then again, maybe not. This country is on a path of safety overrides freedom every time. I have lost hope.
At least Joe Biden knows how many internets there are.
Whoever wins, we lose.
Everyone has bias. Everyone.
The problem with voting records is not always apparent when you look at them and try to decide if someone is good for an industry or not. Industries are too complicated for any law to be truly pro or against the industry. Tech is especially so.
For me, the best voting record for a candidate is proven by those who halted BAD legislation by not just voting against more government intrusions into the market, but also worked to hold up bad bills from leaving committees. My favorite legislators are those who just shut down most bills before they're even really bills. The legislative committees is where the best work is done, or the worst work is done.
This is why I fully believe our campaign finance laws are to blame when it comes to voting records. Since the individual is greatly limited in who they can support, and how, it is always the large lobbying groups that end up writing the laws. McCain and Feingold knew this, and they knew that limiting the voice of the individual would end up limiting the power of the individual.
To wrap up, trying to look at voting records is bad because most of the work is done before the vote is even considered. We have no power, as individuals, to try to work in that process. The lobbying groups, which are always about MORE legislation to destroy competition and never LESS, are cozied up very nicely: to Obama, to Biden, to McCain, to whoever it is who is elected, might be elected, or was elected. And on that, all of them have terrible voting records which do nothing but restrict competition in every market they touch.
Joe Biden turns 66 just after the November election. He'd be turning 74 if he ran to replace President Obama in 8 years. That'd be older than McCain is now; Biden running for POTUS in 2016 isn't bloody likely.
Biden wasn't nominated the VP because of his tech voting record. Just look at what the Democrats are talking about- Iraq, the economy, healthcare, the housing crisis, etc. Net Neutrality is barely on the radar, and you can be assured that NN isn't going to get a vote in the next two years (unless someone piles it in an omnibus) even with a Democratic majority.
Biden is a tactical choice to try to win the election; not a choice of "who would actually make the best VP once we win". All you have to do to realize that is watch Biden's acceptance speech, where he smacked the hell out of McCain. Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on politically; that "seven kitchen tables" line was gold. That's what Biden is there for- to attack McCain (and McCain's VP choice) while Obama is above the fray.
VPs are chosen as an attempt to win elections, not as an attempt to pick the best man for the job.
Care about privacy? Read this!
Against all the parties of capitalism, for a workers party that fights for a workers government!
Did you read your own link? "Although Biden's presidential bid was derailed, the senator did address the claims. In the case of the speech, Biden had previously cited Kinnock as its source and claimed to have forgotten on the occasion that it was scrutinized.3 According to Biden, the law school incident had been the result of confusion regarding the rules citation and footnoting.4 In 1989, the Delaware Supreme Court's Board on Professional Responsibility cleared Biden of the law school charges."
If the only alternative is McCain and $haircut, then Obama and LITERALLY WHOEVER gets my vote.
This is the power and the glory of the two party system at work.
We have lost more freedoms than ever under Republican administrations and this user seems to question the ability of Obama/Biden before they even get a chance - as if its the democrats fault we're in this shit hole we're in today (or as if the parent accepts this shit hole as conservative progress)
Tell me ONE law, ONE goal, ONE ambition of the Obama/Biden ticket that will make "safety override freedom every time".
Obama/Biden isn't Clinton politics.
* Going Green is energy policy
* Creating Green jobs is Economic Policy
* Having a right hand mand to fill in the "DC politics" greed that voters will (for what reason i don't know) expect is a BOON.
* Healthcare is a great policy - a social insurance program that could have been funded for every human being if we hadn't been hell bent on WAR
I could go on and on what Obama/Biden can do for us but to people like you, its only what you assume they will do against you without regards for your fellow neighbors, countrymen and US citizens.
After taking over the Foreign Relations committee, Biden became a staunch ally of Hollywood and the recording industry in their efforts to expand copyright law. He sponsored a bill in 2002 that would have make it a federal felony to trick certain types of devices into playing unauthorized music or executing unapproved computer programs.
Good to know that at least one elected official is willing to stand up for the rule of law. Music and software thieves have it far too easy with today's technology, and its good that the law is being refined to punish them and punish them HARD.
--
Don't steal the dream - don't steal music.
I guess we'd better hope voting records don't mean much, as it seems Biden is a firm friend of the *AA's
NEW YORK -- Joe Biden may have made his name in foreign relations in 32 years in the Senate, but his efforts against piracy have won him respect in Hollywood.
Biden was named Saturday as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate. The Delaware senator has got a long list of credentials, including chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, membership on the Senate Judiciary Committee and experience on the world stage lacking in the top of the ticket. But the 64-year-old Scranton, Pa., native has been a strong advocate for U.S. intellectual property rights and an ardent soldier in the fight against piracy.
As a founding member of the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus, Biden has helped the lead the fight against countries such as China, Russia, Mexico and India that need stronger copyright protections.
"When somebody holds you up on the street and takes your wallet, we call it robbery," Biden said in May 2007. "And when somebody steals your idea and creation, we call it theft, plain and simple." The MPA has lauded the work of the anti-piracy caucus as being essential to motivating the government to action.
(From http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i67f2ad037eba0dd6e4821ce39ce827a3?imw=Y)
And Hillary now has a solid reason for wanting Obama to lose, to get a crack at 2012.
All of them voted for the I-CAN-SPAM Act, except Obama. Obama didn't vote for the I-CAN-SPAM Act because he was not there to vote for it.
Fight Spammers!
Yeah, I know it sounds absurd, but I think doing something like this would have done two things:
1) It would have proved that he is not all talk. I was skeptical before, but now I know for sure that he is just more of the same. The only thing that sets him apart is that he is very well spoken. Clearly that is no longer one of the factors for the American people when electing a president.
2)) It would have proved he is willing to step over the partisan lines, if even in a most ridiculous fashion, to demonstrate that he really does want change at the base level. This system is so fucked, the only way to get change is to blow up the foundation.
To be honest, I now believe that this upcoming presidential election will be the *least* important in decades.
Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
When FISA came to a vote as HR.6308 on July 9, 2008, Biden voted against it, Obama voted for it.
--
make install -not war
He's a repeat offender. That was a bit of a Google grab-bag link, but it's going to haunt him. Having "addressed" the issue doesn't alter his repeatedly having done the deed. It speaks to his need to always have something (at length!) to say. Couple that with, for example, lecturing someone in front of the Senate for an appointment review along the lines of, "my IQ is higher than yours," and you get a sense of how he relates to the rest of the world.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I would guess that he has many ppl creating speeches for him.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Here are a couple of basic facts omitted by the submitter: Obama got a 50.00% rating and McCain got a 31.25% rating.
Given that that information was available via two clicks on the same page that yielded Biden's rating, and given that the positions of the presidential candidates is a lot more important than the positions of the VP candidates, one has to wonder why the submitter didn't find those details worth mentioning.
Additionally, Obama made it very clear before he announced his choice of Biden that he wanted a VP candidate who would engage him in discussions about issues, disagree with him, and challenge his assumptions. Here's an example, in Obama's own words:
I apologize if this reduces the number of McCain troll points for somebody interested in getting some McCain campaign schwag.
I added the bold text for emphasis in the Obama quote above.
Another thing: a voting record is useful for evaluating a congresscritter, but not via a simple number. It requires more careful analysis. This is because a congressvarmints will sometimes vote for positions he opposes when the defeat of those positions is assured, but the positions are popular with the congressvarmint's constituents (or the opposite: vote against a position he supports when passage is assured without his vote). And while both members of the House of Representatives and Senators both do that, Senators have yet another trick because of the existence of the filibuster in the Senate. An example is Senator Joe Lieberman, who voted with the Republicans for cloture (i.e., to end the Democratic filibuster) on the nomination of Samuel Alito the Supreme Court. Since it was known that the Republicans had enough votes to rubber-stamp Bush's nomination of Alito, the vote that mattered was the cloture vote. After that, Lieberman cast his vote against confirming Alito, so he could tell the voters in Connecticut, an overwhelmingly Democratic state, that he had voted against Alito. If you were just to look at the confirmation vote, you might think Lieberman had been against confirming Alito, but on the vote that mattered, he voted with the Republicans.
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
There are legitimate reasons to vote against Internet gambling. There are legitimate reasons to vote against H1B visas. There are legitimate reasons to vote against free trade with China.
CNet is a news site. It shouldn't try to push a political agenda, even one that it thinks its audience shares.
From the News.com Article:
"[Biden] sponsored a bill in 2002 that would have make it a federal felony to trick certain types of devices into playing unauthorized music or executing unapproved computer programs."
"Biden signed a letter that urged the Justice Department 'to prosecute individuals who intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks.'"
"Last year, Biden sponsored an RIAA-backed bill called the Perform Act aimed at restricting Americans' ability to record and play back individual songs from satellite and Internet radio services."
"Biden received a mere 37.5 percent [technology voting record] score because of his support for Internet filters in schools and libraries and occasional support for Internet taxes."
"Biden voted for the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act (which was part of a larger spending bill)."
"Biden returned to the business of targeting P2P networks this year. In April, he proposed spending $1 billion in U.S. tax dollars so police can monitor peer-to-peer networks for illegal activity. He made that suggestion after a Wyoming cop demonstrated a proof-of-concept program called "Operation Fairplay" at a hearing before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee."
"On Net neutrality, Biden has sounded skeptical. In 2006, he indicated that no preemptive laws were necessary because if violations do happen, such a public outcry will develop that 'the chairman will be required to hold this meeting in this largest room in the Capitol, and there will be lines wandering all the way down to the White House.'"
In short, Biden cannot be trusted on technology. Hopefully his influence in anything technology related will be minimal.
I still say we try voting "None Of The Above" this year. I know constitutionally, you can't, but it would be interesting to see how well the country would run if we had NO ONE in DC. Just go back to the way the constitution says. Put the government in charge of the military & making treaties, and let the states run everything else. Make people more responsible for their own lives.
But seriously, this is chilling. You'd think someone in Washington would understand the constitution. When we wake up someday in a police state, wondering how we lost the most important thing, the essence of our democracy, we'll look back and understand that all these seemingly minor bits of legislation gave up our essential liberty for a whole lot of nothing.
A domain ready for service to the cause - post your ideas.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
I just noticed that the top-scoring Republican on the CNet tech voter guide page is "Senator George Allen." Wha? Jim Webb beat him 2 years ago and has been serving in the Senate since January of 2007. So that made me look more carefully. This is a 2006 voter guide. So the numbers may have changed a lot since the page was created.
John McCain could have a COMPLETELY different rating by now, because there's almost no substantive issue on which he hasn't reversed his position at least once in the last ten years. For example, McCain was against using the military for "nation-building" (never mind that that was never the mission in Bosnia anyway) when Clinton was president, and was against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy when they were proposed and passed, but has obviously completely reversed his positions on both those issues and a number of others. For example, McCain was for outlawing abortion before he was against it (when he wanted to be a "maverick," bucking the Republican Party's position) before he was for it again (when he needed votes from the "Christian Right" in the current presidential campaign).
So what do we have in TFS? The use of a flawed means of analyzing Biden's tech voting record; the omission of the more relevant comparison of Obama and McCain, leaving the Biden numbers in a vacuum, looking scarily low for us tech nerds, even if we put aside the flawed nature of the rating; and the use of a page from 2006 to make this argument.
Seriously, I hope the schwag is really good, and not just cheesy "McCain 2008" mugs or T-shirts or something.
I have to give the modern (post-Reagan) Republican Party credit. They have the most amazing, unbroken party unity I've ever seen. This year, Bush's deep unpopularity has some Republican members of Congress (e.g., Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon) running away from Bush and pretending they've been endorsed by Obama. And the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee told Republican members of Congress to run away from the Republican brand in this year's election. But still, when they need a vote in Congress for legislation a Republican president wants, they command party unity that would be the envy of the Chinese Communist Party of the 1970s. And this despite the Republican voter coalition consisting of at least three distinct parts whose interests are often at odds with each other. There's the Christian Right, which would have the government legislate their version of "what God wants," the libertarian Goldwater types, and the "Rockefeller Republicans," who tend to be socially liberal, at least in relative terms in the 21st Century USA, but conservative on economic issues. You would think this coalition would have fractured, but the Rs have managed not only to hold it together for a quarter-century, but actually strengthened it, taking over all three branches of government for about half of this decade. Meanwhile, the Democrats never seem to muster that kind of unity. Clinton and Carter, the last two Democratic presidents, had a lot of problems with Democratic-majority Congresses. Will Rogers famously said that he did not belong to any organized political party - he was a Democrat. As Homer Simpson would say, "it's funny because it's true." OK, there are signs that Howard Dean and Obama are transforming the party, but I can't imagine it ever being the complete lock-step monolithic voting the Republican Party has been for the last 20 years or so.
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
It never ceases to amaze how uninformed people can be about the role of Government as depicted in the U.S. Constitution.
In our Democratic Republic, it is NOT the government's responsibility to make the world a better place, or even our own country. Its ONLY jobs, are to enforce its laws, defend its borders, and insure equal ACCESS and PROTECTIONS, not OUTCOMES.
Human beings, inside and outside the U.S. are NOT the same, they are individuals, and as such, some are more able than others, both physically and intellectually.
To demand equal outcomes, is to deny the rights of the individual to succeed. This is why Socialist or Communist governments always end up denying individual rights in favor of the State. The U.S. Constitution defends each individual's right to the PURSUIT of happiness, NOT happiness in and of itself.
That means, you have the right to COMPETE; to make a better life for yourself.
Get a clue, my misinformed friend. A happy society, is a FREE society. Income inequality is as natural as height, weight or attractiveness inequality. We are NOT the same, we are not a cookie-cutter species, with equal talents and abilities. When Government tries to treat us as such, first oppression, and eventual revolution are the only potential result. Free people celebrate their differences; this vaunted DIVERSITY you constantly hear liberals chattering about. Diversity is true on many levels, even in one's ability to have a prosperous, successful life.
I'm not trolling, and I really hope there might be SOMEONE else on this forum who knows their history enough offer an informed response if any.
If not, I've got karma to burn, bitches!
You should note that when you vote for the (slightly) lesser of two evils, you are voting for the two-party system by doing so.
Then would you recommend that I look into Bob Barr or someone else?
Newsflash - Joe Biden is an evil coont. Anyone even vaguely surprised?
i suppose it's a good thing that this article has more to do with legislation he wrote and introduced than on what he's simply voted for, huh?
How is he a repeat offender if he was cleared of the charges, and if he had previously credited Kinnock every single time he used the quote(s)? A mistake made once is not a "repeated offense".
Clever signature text goes here.
That lowers his chances of being a target for crazy nutjobs, because if Obama goes, who would want a mexican Vicepresident? ; )
Run for the hills!
Then remind me, what the denominator the fraction 375/1000 is supposed to represent?
I'd have a fair idea if we were talking about the ACLU, or Focus on the Family, or some group like that. I'm not at all sure what agreeing 100% of the time with the editors of CNet would mean, except that I'm guessing that I'd probably be posting this from Windows.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Biden
Seems to have a total hardon for the *AA and wants to regulate the 'net to hell.
Knows about as much about the internets as McCain.
And a Democrat. If oil and gas lobbyists love Republicans, Hollywood seems to love Democrats. Imperfect correlation, but what real-world correlation isn't?
We should consider that McCain got a 31.25% and Obama got a 50.00% by the same rubric
... that makes Biden the President of the Senate. So if there is a tie in the Senate, he gets to break the tie, as Cheney has done 8 times so far. What we need is enough pro-technology senators to ensure this doesn't happen. Still, he will be able to do a lot of damage with his powers to control the agenda. So what Obama needs to do is keep him busy on foreign affairs trips, sending him overseas, to keep him away from the Senate so the President pro tempore can take control.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I have heard this accusation a lot lately. Eventually, I went and actually looked up what happened. I have come to the conclusion that your accusation is dishonest. A simple google for "obama" and "rezko" turns up thousands of stories, but here is a representative one.
For those who, like me, tend not to follow all the political scandals, here is a summary. Rezko and Obama bought adjacent parcels of land. Obama's parcel had a house on it; Rezko's was undeveloped. These two parcels had previously belonged to the same person, who had decided to split their property and sell it in two parts. Some time later, Obama wanted to expand his property, so he bought a slice of Rezko's land. I have not seen any indications that Obama bought the land for anything less than a fair price; in fact, I read an article showing that Rezko made a decent profit on the land but I can't find that article right now.
Don't you hate meta-sigs?
McCain's Vietnam experience does show grit and character, but your main point is sound.
Obama is not qualified. McCain is not qualified. Nobody who has a chance of getting to run is qualified.
There's a science fiction story called "2066: Election Day" by Michael Shaara. In it, the master computer chooses the President, because the voters have proven to do such a bad job. It is programmed to select the "best qualified man". The story hinges on a constitutional crisis that came up because the programmers coded "best qualified man" not as the expected "Select max(qualified) from candidates" but as "select max(good) from candidates where qualified=true". The computer refused to select a President.
This anti-tech/pro-tech chart is stupid and arbitrary.
According to the cnet's chart, anyone that's against piracy is anti-tech? Anyone that's for anti-porn filters in shcools is anti-tech? Complete bullshit. I'm sure almost everyone that voted for DCMA and internet filters consider themselves pro-tech, and have reasonable arguments despite being in disagreement with slashdot doctrine.
Same goes for most of the other bills that cnet arbitrarily decided would represent "tech" and arbitrarily decided whether yes or no on each issue was pro or anti tech.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
That is probably the biggest issue facing tech workers.
I know where McCain stands. McCain wants to rip the lid off any kind of a guest worker cap.
I get the idea that Obama wants to do the same, but Obama is not as brazen about it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Pure Bullshit, because they did NOT attempt to split the Parcel, until it was determined that Obama could not afford to buy the entire lot on his own. Facts are a bitch, when you use the proper sequence. The whole notion of Obama wanting to expand his lot is simple fiction dreamed up before the fact for plausible deniability. That you were moderated up with that nonsense only goes towards the gullibility of the Obama-nation.
Submitters just can't win can they? If they left their bias exposed, they'd be blasted for exposing their bias. They try to make their summary neutral and stick to the facts, they get blasted for concealing their bias instead of exposing it!
I imagine given what the poster's bias is, it really doesn't matter what their party affiliation, both republican and democrat are equally poor on tech and copyright issues.
THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS TO DO THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS with limitations on majority rule (its a republic.) This government no longer serves its purpose; in large part due to the people not taking the responsibility to run it and the officials not living in fear of the public they (should) serve.
A nation with a majority of Christians should do a lot about the welfare of the poor. Not the church running government, but the manifestation of those values in a majority. (Christian is actually a very vague label; but helping the poor took up much of the book)
--
The system formed by the people and their government allows the upward mobility that some greatly benefit from. Those that benefit the most owe the most to their benefactors.
The wealthy often and now days almost always owe a LARGE part of their wealth to the government. Its not legitimate money they made 100% honestly by themselves (Walmart and its investors for example.)
It is pure bullshit that these people are all self-made and way too many of these "self-made" people eat their own BS. Rural areas are full of these types who's communities are nearly all welfare subsidized by state/federal government who get the money from the city folk they think are so helpless.
The USA has a history of HIGH taxes (even 90%) on the wealthy and only until recent times has that been eroded to such extremes. One of the main reasons is that money DOES equate to power and influence this DIRECTLY undermines this form of government. Its about preserving the republic to knock down the wealthy; inequality can exist but there are limitations... Corporations now allow non-citizen entities to leverage near legal citizenship with the benefits of being not human and insanely wealthy. Corps are the dominant institution in the WORLD today as a result. Today's corps were NOT allowed to exist in the past, it started around the 1860s I believe.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You can mod me flamebait or troll if you want, but I could care less what Biden's record is. Obama proved to me long ago that he is not capable of being an effective and trustworthy president. For that matter, McCain is not getting my vote either, and I usually vote Republican.
Frankly, both candidates have strengthened my desire to vote... for someone else!
Frankly, unless there's a side-by-side comparison of the two presidential candidates and their VPs on tech policy positions, then I think a story only mentioning "Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI voting record" might make people think that the Republicans are a better choice for the next administration.
This story is lame. The Republican VP is almost assuredly going to support efforts to end network neutrality. So, let's compare VP voting records *after* the Republicans choose a VP, OK?!
I don't know what it is about the Slashdot editors. They made ignorant criticisms of Obama's FISA vote (the editors clearly did not understand the purpose of the bill, and the dilemma Obama faced) while ignoring McCain's cowardice in the matter. And now they imply that the Republicans might be better for the Internet? LOL! The Republicans LOVE censorship, commerce above freedom, and lack of voting transparency.
Yes, the Democrats have had their share of SHAMEFUL technology ideas -- and they've been strongly influenced by the likes of the RIAA and MPAA in the past -- but step #1 is choosing the lesser evil at this point. Step #2 is ???. In any case, our fight is against the ignorant masses, our fellow citizens, to get them to choose better people for public office. Voting Ron Paul won't win over the masses. In our electoral system, we need to incrementally improve government by choosing the lesser of evils, and we need to encourage the public to pressure people in government to make decisions that better benefit the general population.
We have the technology. Open source the government.
Whoever put this measurement together has a very frightening mindset. Take number 15, for example:
15. Creating nationalized ID card and linking computer databases
He's trying to make the National ID card be a good thing, for Christ's sake! That is, unless the scoring is like Golf, where lower is better, which doesn't appear to be the case....
Why don't you ask a few Conservatives if they would like to someday be in a position, where they have so many investments, that they cant remember them all?
what's funny is, back in 2004 the GOP savaged the dem candidate for being a rich pretty-boy who lived off of his rich-as-hell wife. they called him a 'gigolo' and pointed out that he and his wife had a pre-nup, and 'if his wife won't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours??'
4 years later, the GOP runs the same type of candidate - a rich pretty-boy who lives off his rich-as-hell wife, shuttling between his numerous mansions in a private jet. yet conservatives, apparently immune to irony, think that pointing out that the guy can't even remember how many houses he has is not only unfair, but that it just points out that the liberals hate capitalism.
the chickens of 2004 are coming home to roost, and conservatives suddenly hate the taste of chicken.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
What is going on here! Is it true that Obama was born in Kenya Africa. Is it true that there are no records of his mother giving birth to him at any hospital in Hawaii.
Is it true that his Grandmother, and half-sister have said he was in fact born in Kenya.
Is it true that Republicans have records to prove Obama was born in Kenya.
And is it true that he was registered as a citizen of Indonesia as a Muslim.
Is there any truth to any of this. Where is the major media on this story. Have they investigated this. Has any of the above been proved untrue.
If any of the above is true this is very serious.
What's up!
"You overlook the fact that the reason Georgia was not allowed to join NATO was precisely the fact that they had an existing border dispute with Russia."
Then NATO has become a farce administered by cowards. The whole idea was to keep free European nations free by guaranteeing collective security. Attack one, and the rest attack you in return.
If you're going to leave the nations you labored to set free for 50 years to the wolves in Moscow, then just quit pretending, and end NATO. Either live up to its purpose, or tell the EU "You're on your own now, good luck with that Putin guy".
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Reagan was a two time governor of California, a leader, of all things, the California Screen Actors guild, gave numerous presentations and did a lot of fundraising and organization building to really launch the right wing as it is today. It was Reagan that created the now defunct alliance between libertarian Republicans and religious fundamentalists that defined the Republican Party. So, Reagan stepped into the office already an effective leader, party builder and public speaker.
Similarly, Clinton did not have near the track record that Reagan did, largely because he won the election more than 20 years younger than Reagan was. But, Clinton started out with a stellar academic career (you know, Rhodes scholar), wheras Obama went to a no-name college. Clinton did basically build a machine out Arkansas politics, built of the modern DLC, (despised by the left), and, essentially built, in 1992, a political alliance of liberals and just enough fiscal conservatives to make his election winnable. I mean, I voted for Clinton twice, even though I am a staunch Republican, largely because the Federal deficit is a huge concern of mine and Clinton's book had a plan for building it up, and Bush Sr was the worst President ever (at least until his son came along).
In this election, honestly, the key thing is that neither candidate has a lot of real executive experience. McCain, for all of his experience, has always been something more of a one man show than a party builder, and Obama doesn't have any executive track record at all. If we were to have gone solely by genuine executive experience, then the best candidate on the Democrats was actually Bill Richardson - far too moderate to be elected by the liberal vetters. He was a popular governor, a party builder, a key member of Clinton's cabinet, and has done a bunch of stuff. On the Repblican, Mitt Romney was a successful governor AND businessman. But, as usual, the extremists on both sides trashed the genuinely most qualified people and we got this Obama and McCain instead.
This is my sig.
I wonder how many farmers will vote for Obama when he says the price of corn too high? How many miners will vote for Obama, when he says the price of iron is too high and there should be no coal mining at all? How many woodsmen will vote for Obama, when he wants to ban foresting? How many autoworkers will vote for Obama, when he wants the government to make them cars not everyone wants to buy? How many investors will vote for Obama, when he wants to raise their taxes? How many of the 400,000 Americans working in the oil business will vote for Obama, when he says that, a profit less than half of what Apple makes on iTunes is too much? How many workers who manufacturer for America's record exports, will vote for Obama, after he speaks of cutting off free trade? I mean, everyone rags on the Bush economy, but, the ones that are primarily getting screwed are those who live in cities anyway and cities were already for Democrats. There's plenty of farmers, miners, manufacturers, all who like that they are finally getting a decent value for breaking their backs in the fields, tunnels and factories.
This is my sig.
He could be just plag, er, quoting at length a speech by Neil Kinnock.
Ok, it's a cheap shot. It is also a reason to question everything he says.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Slow the hemorrhaging of money out of the country
The fact of the matter is, under Bush, US Exports have gone more than under any US PResident, EVER. But what's really stupid about this assertion is that you seem to think that rich people are going to magically stop pulling money out of the country the moment you make its investment return worse. That's utterly retarded. If I have a business in the USA that earns 10% a year on my investment, and Obama comes along next year, raises my taxes, and jacks me down to 5% a year investment, while at the same time Ireland offers me 15%, just where do you think that business is going to be, assuming that I do not close it down altogether?
Decrease the income inequality
Why this obsession with income inequality? Seriously. If you want a billion dollars, start a company that can make a billion dollars. If you don't, then don't bitch about your laziness, stupidity, or lack of luck. At least, if you tried, you had the opportunity to do so and that's a lot more than you get in other countries. Sorry, the whole idea where everybody gets that same crappy food to be equal from uncle sam's public cafeteria totally sucks. I don't like institutional soup for lunch. I want to make more money so that I can eat filet mignon and if some homeless guy smoked crack and can't eat that, that's not my fault, it's his.
This is my sig.
...But, Clinton started out with a stellar academic career (you know, Rhodes scholar), wheras Obama went to a no-name college.
So you've never heard of those no-name colleges "Columbia University" and "Harvard Law School" (where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review)?
Reality has a liberal bias
So you've never heard of those no-name colleges "Columbia University" and "Harvard Law School" (where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review)?
That's not much compared to Bill Clinton:
Undergraduate : Georgetown
Graduate : Oxford University (Rhodes Scholar)
Law School : Yale
Then, by the time Clinton's in his 30's, he's a popular governor of Arkansas, turns the state's economy around, is identified as a rising star nationally because -he's a good leader-, and then, runs for President, and wins.
What's Obama done in comparison to -that-? Nothing, really. I mean, he becomes a state legislature, and his biggest claim to fame there is redistricting the state so that more blacks could get elected to the leadership, supporting a bunch of affirmative action and pro-life stuff, and along the way, nearly depriving the entire state of electricity as part of a misguided plot to try and bankrupt the local utility. Illinois' economy sucks before and sucks after, the schools are still terrible where he's at.. nothing.. but he runs for Senate and gets in because in Chi-town he's got 100% of the black vote and splits the white vote with his opposition. IT's a good political strategy, for sure, but its not nearly the same caliber of education, leadership, or success that Bill Clinton achieved.
This is my sig.
And one of the most striking experiences of my political existence was listening to Biden deliver a speech only days after 9/11. I was a member of the Green party at that point as well as a college labor rights group. We'd made signs talking about how we were paying the Afghanistan government over $1 billion a year to stop drugs. We figured, being a senator, he'd just forget to mention it. Instead, he gave a 10 minute lecture on how the state of things came to be, including the billions in funding.
Biden is the chair of the foreign relations committee and was the chair of the judiciary committee. Look at this guy's votes and actions on women's rights, gitmo, FISAA, the US's role in the UN, and Bosnia. And he knows more about these than the senator in charge of commerce knows about "tubes".
Biden's first and foremost a diplomat (a strong internationalist...not a "coalition of the willing" kind of guy) and defender of civil rights/liberties -- Jesse Jackson even went on record saying his "clean" comment regarding Obama didn't make him a racist because of his strong leadership on the issue in the past. He's not well educated on tech law, but -- be honest -- how many of you could tell me who the president of Georgia was before this recent fiasco? Biden knows him on a first-name basis. Because that's his job and I dare say he does it well.
As a geek, tech is important, but isn't foreign policy and the US standing in the world more important this election? If you had a choice between hiring an expert in one or the other this election, which would you choose?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
The history of that bill is otherwise. While the vote was a lopsided 68/29/3 (y/n/not-voting), one must remember that it was filibustered, and overcoming a filibuster takes a 3/5 super-majority (on the US Senate base of 100), so the margin was more like 8 votes than 18, and wasn't a sure thing at all. It had previously failed, and the supporters had to "deal" in ordered to get the votes they needed. One wonders what deal Obama cut in ordered to get him to change is vote after an original pledge to oppose it if it included telecom immunity.
By contrast, as one of the drafters of the original FISA this bill was updating, Biden was opposed to the bill with the telecom immunity provision from the beginning, and remained so. He pointed out that McCain's (and Obama's as well, after he switched, tho that wasn't pointed out) position on this put him in the company of both Bush and Nixon in taking the position that the President is above the law. Further, he quoted himself from the original FISA debate in 1978, "it is not necessary to compromise civil liberties in the name of national security", saying that's as true today, in a time of war, as it was then, and calling the bill including the telecom immunity provision "a false choice -- national security or civil liberties."
While Biden's record on civil liberties isn't perfect (while he voted to extend PATRIOT in 2005, bad for civil liberties, he did at least vote against reauthorizing its wiretap provision in 2006, and he sponsored legislation that unfortunately died in committee that would have banned torture and interrogation techniques not authorized by the US Army Field Manual, which is pretty reasonable), it's actually more good than bad, better than most, unfortunately.
See this article at the Daily Kos, from which I borrowed somewhat liberally for the above, for more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/23/112722/071
I'm on record as hoping Obama might either reverse himself or satisfactorily explain himself on this, so I could again support him. I had been as close as I'd ever been to donating to his campaign, before this, but that vote ended all thought of that, and I was seriously looking into third party candidates and even considering for the first time since I could vote, just saying home for this presidential election, as I couldn't vote for McCain, Obama wasn't leaving me reason to vote FOR him (as opposed to against McCain) either (tho as I posted in response to someone else on another story, I'd have probably voted third party, likely Barr, because altho I don't agree with much of that platform, it'd shake up Washington and the still dominant two parties would have killed anything too radical, at least the first term... and because I take voting as a duty and would have felt guilty not voting... but writing in none-of-the-above as a protest would have been an option as well). While I don't believe Biden was chosen primarily for his position on this, the choice /does/ start the process, or at least signal that it might happen. I'm still not all that hopeful, but it's possible, and at least I have the option of voting Obama/Biden now, where before it was beginning to look like my only options would be third party or a none-of-the-above write-in.
We'll see.
Duncan
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
and if you use the program, he is your master."
R Stallman
From the way that the post read it sounded like Biden had a bad voting record on tech issues.
From the article/survey/whatever the 'scores' made it sound like he had a bad score (37.575). But when you look at the actual issues that he voted for or against it seems that the majority of his stances are really good. Really good.
He did vote against the CANSPAM thing. that can be explained in two ways: 1) He is against a federal law trumping a state law because some state laws might be more stringent than he expects CANSPAM to be and/or 2) he is from Delaware and most credit card companies, and other nasties, are incorporated and 'run' out of Delaware (damn).
I looked at George Allen (VA) who received a 78. He voted on only 9 issues. He voted against 2 (both of which Biden voted against), for 7, and there was no data for 7 more, making the total 16,
The cNet thing doesn't look valid on any level. It seems like they count a vote for or against but do not consider the legislation (ie whether it is really pro-tech or not).
Apparently Rezko made roughly a $54,500 profit on the overall property. Here's more on that story from FactCheck.org (a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, and generally extremely careful and even-handed in their analysis): http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
OMG. I looked at your post and has to double check my highschool history book. OK, it is about 15 years out of date but it is history which means nothing between then and now has change except for your incorrect interpretations.
Look up the term group stupidity. Anyways, our government is nothing more then elected managers who take care of the office they are elected to. They are not, and have never been required to do what we want. I'm not sure where you got that idea, I suspect it is from a bunch of idiots who don't know the difference between public service and serving in a restaurant. I will give you a hint, the difference isn't the government. The only chance we have is to elect people with home we agree with, people who have the wherewithal to avoid the bad decisions of mob rule.
Have you ever read the constitution? The federalist papers? Any of the works by any of our founding fathers on the formation of this great nation or the limits to power of the federal government? Are you just making shit up and saying whatever you think feels good?
It has never been the government's job to provide for the poor. The federal government doesn't even have the constitutional authority to do so. Roosevelt found this out when the supreme court told him he was stupid. FDR said, make me stop, and the supreme court decided to expand the interstate commerce clause to which the government used now to even justify paying for public education. BTW, the church doesn't run the government, Members of some churches might run the government but the church definitely doesn't. Judging from how much attention to history you have paid so far, I'm not sure you will understand that distinction so I will attempt to spell it out a little. You post on slashdot, if you were elected dog warden of your city or country, you would be the dog warden, not slashdot. Your church wouldn't be the dog warden, your would be the dog warden. Do you see the differences there? Associations with groups don't give those groups control. It give you the control you have.
What the hell are you smoking? I don't owe the government anything for my successes. It was all me, not some politician. I don't owe any more then my portion of the services I use. If you think otherwise, then shut up and learn something. Now of course I have a tax obligation but any 2 bit 3rd grade math dropout could tell you that 20% of $100 is 10 times less then 20% of $1000 ($10 verses $100 if you honestly can do the math). There is no reason why I should owe more then someone who hasn't applies themselves as well as I have and doesn't make as much money. As far as rates go, taking the same percent is acceptable but changing that because you don't know that it is already more is as ignorant as the idea that I owe more even though at the same percentage, I would already be paying more.
Watch what happens to Osama Bin Laden's name...
Bin Laden... can be combined into Binladen. And then, let's take out 'la', since Osama Bin Laden HATES L.A. He hates Hollywood, and specifically Lohan/Britney/Hilton trio. So, if you look at his name, you really should take out 'nla', since 'n' stands for NOT. It's more like, binladen, NOT LA.
What do you get?
Binladen turns into... BIDEN!!!
Naturally, Osama changes to Obama.
And now, you have Obama/Biden duo, which really stands for the same person... OSAMA BIN LADEN!
Have the tirrists won? You bet! They want to run the government! THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY! Oh, and WTC-7 collapse was detonated. The story about NIST is a hoax... It's what Obama/Biden wants you to know!
Do you have anything to support your claim that it sends a powerful message? If it does, it's a rather wishy-washy message, because while it may indicate some dislike for the major party candidates, what it tends to actually accomplish is to put the guy you dislike the MOST in office. I think that's the real, lasting message.
How much did Bill Clinton shift his policies to honor Perot's followers after they gave him the win over George Bush? How much attention did Dubya pay to Nader's supporters after they arguably sunk Gore?
I believe that simple mathematics supports my claim. If there are 1000 Green Party voters in my state, versus 1000000 each of Dem and Repub, I have the power to increase the Green Party vote by 0.1%, which is reasonably noticeable, whereas the increase from 1000000 to 1000001 is for all intents and purposes completely unnoticeable.
The idea that a 2000 vote for Nader sent a message of support for Bush is just silly. If I wanted to send a message of support for Bush, a vote for Bush would have sent that message more powerfully.
Re 2000, of course W is not going "reward" Nader voters because Repubs and Greens don't have similar political views (and probably generally greatly dislike each other). Obviously they are political enemies and not allies. The message being sent in 2000, in my opinion, was that if the Democrats continue to position themselves as Repub-lites, they cannot expect the support of those on the left. As of today, it appears that they are continuing to resist this message, so 2008 may very well turn out to be another administration of the clue stick, even though by all rights it should otherwise be a complete blowout for the Dems.
I do not find the argument that I should vote as others tell me to to be compelling.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Everyone's put the emphasis on hands-on experience as the determinator of
a successful office-holder w/out addressing the derivative of that experience,
which is knowing where the skeletons are and how to maximize them.
This is what tenure can deliver. For BClinton, as AK gov, it was exercising
control over an extremely corrupt State government (including Rose et.al.)
which, in time, lead to the origins of his relations w/ GHWB
(while GHWB was CIA director, then VP, and using Mena, AK as a support
base for the Contras).
The laundering that resulted from Mena, the roles played by the Gov's office
in spreading the wealth: OTJ!
That is what BObama (thankfully) lacks (on can only hope) and what Biden
may have to offer.
resist propaganda
The comments attached to the blog make me appreciate slashdot's moderation system and threaded presentation all the more. At least on slashdot, the stupider comments get modded down, or don't get modded up at all. Unfortunately, the comments attached to the blog make me want to move to Russia - at least they're predictably politically insane in only one direction. These people are all over the place. Some of them are living non-sequiturs, without any ability to think at all.
And they're all going to vote this fall. Marvelous.
Reading the comments, it becomes clear that McCain and the GOP are not running their campaign badly. They know very well that there is a significant portion of the population that will be swayed by that ad. Hillary will be Obama's Ross Perot. Just because people who can think aren't impressed with the current GOP ad campaign doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
I'm not going to disagree with you that Clinton was an extraordinarily accomplished man, but are you really saying that (Georgetown + Oxford + Yale) and (Columbia + Harvard + teaching at the University of Chicago) are not in the same ballpark? I mean, maybe, I'm looking at things too coarsely, but I would refer to both of those as "records of extreme academic achievement" or "histories of success at elite academic institutions."
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Because it's at the highest rate since the late 1920's. What happened then, stork? Something really Great.
Yeah, and what provoked the Great Depression. Let's see. The USA passed a bunch of protectionist legislation and the federal reserve tightened the money supply, foolishly. So, we cut off the world, they cut off us, and the result was a collapse in the world economy.
And what does Obama want to do? Geez, he wants to cut off trade and tighten the money supply. What happens after that?
Giant companies like IBM lay off thousands of American workers at a time while continuing to import H1-B workers.
I'm yawning at your xenophobia. I'd rather have workers coming to the USA from another country to earn 75k a year than stay overseas to get paid 5k a year.
Investment firms take crazy risks and get bailed out by the government when they crash and burn
It was actually Democrats that introduced the idea of Federal lending to investment and banking firms. What used to happen in the USA is that there were scores of banking failures during an economic downturn and mom and pop would lose everything. Have you ever seen "It's a wonderful life". We could make it simple. A bank can't lend someone money to buy a house unless it has money to lend.
Let's take a look at Bear Sterns. Let's say the Feds do -nothing-. What happens? Everyone who is invested or has a security at Bear Sterns, withdraws all their money at once, as they were doing. Bear collapses and those people who weren't first in line get their savings wiped out.
You know who is first in line. I'll give you a hint, it's not Mom and Pop at home.
Now, if one big financial services house goes down, what do you think people start doing at all of the other banks, like Lehman, or your local bank, or anywhere else - they start cashing out all of their money, if they get out in time. You have half the country with its 401ks sitting in some investment bank like Bear or Chase or someone else, and, if, all of those people pull their accounts at once, people get pennies per dollar on their retirement and the country takes a bath.
Imagine an america where people lose confidence in all banks of all kinds, where everyone withdraws their money from everything....you get -thousands- of bank failures, a country where 10% of everyone has cash hidden under their mattress or is converted to gold or some sort of a commodity, and 90% of the investment deposits are basically blown out and gone because the banks failed. That, my friend, is what made the great depression happen. National unemployment of at least 30% follows and hits 50% in large sections of the country. Farms don't get planted and food prices skyrocket.
So... geez, what do you do? In the aftermath of that mess, Roosevelt put in the FDIC and strengthened the Federal Reserve, so it can provide liquidity to the system, not so a few rich people keep their money - as they've already lost by investing in stupid securities, but so that the banks don't collapse, and people get to keep their assets.
yet the middle class is SOL on credit card debt and ARMs
Uh, how are you SOL on credit cards? Don't pay them. I got into trouble with them, and it wasn't George Bush's fault. It was mine, and mine alone. I'm not a victim, just someone that did something stupid. So what did I do? I just quit paying them until I got decent settlement offers out of each, and in turn, am paying then down. All that interest goes away, all those late charges go away, pretty much a better deal than you would get with any of these so called credit counselling agencies. Similarly, I bought my house with an ARM, but I knew it was an ARM and I refinanced before it reset. How could people not know they did something foolish.
Warren Buffet bet [forbes.com] Forture 400 CEO's a million dollars if they could prove they paid a higher tax rate than their secretaries. Guess how many have collected so far? Zero
Questions abound.
This is my sig.
That's not much compared to Bill Clinton:
You've got that backwards. Being a Yale graduate is not much compared to being the head of the Harvard Law Review.
What's Obama done in comparison to -that-? Nothing, really. I mean, he becomes a state legislature, and blah blah blah blah
How to Market Obama to Your Republican Friends. A Republican lays out reasons why Republicans should vote for Obama, and cites issues like Obama working to secure loose nukes in the former U.S.S.R., brought major transparency with The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and more. Try reading it, but feel free to keep spouting your cute little theories. I enjoy playing Jerry to your George Castanza.
The VP doesn't set White House policy but does have an impact on senate policy.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Look up the the term 'wisdom of the crowd'.
There are many arguments about the wisdom of the masses given certain conditions; group estimations being a strong point.
That being said, there are ALSO many ways to manipulate the crowd possibly just as many as there are to manipulate an individual (techniques differ at both scales.)
--
You say elected officials are just managers. They are PART manager! The VOTERS are the BOSS. Let idiot or corrupt managers go unfired and...
The manager does the boss's bidding so they keep their job.
Being insubordinate is part of most jobs; its results that often matter more in the end (for a competent boss.) One argument for having a term is to counter the problems of the crowd; mobs are stupid but they are short lived. Not to mention that detail work can't be done by the masses; general policies and job evaluation is something they CAN do (with help from the auditors & evaluators etc. from the 4th branch of government...)
---
You should read the part about AMENDMENTS; which BTW, >10 have been written from public movements (and some stupid ones like prohibition.)
The people have the power in this government. The republic only guards against a majority not a SUPER MAJORITY or a lasting one. It takes REAL RARE courage to defend the republic especially in extremely bad times. I like FDR. An amendment was the proper (but slow) process that should have been followed, no argument there.
Public schools BTW, are funded by states; but quite addicted to supplemental funding... Not all schools are; nor are all libraries (which are Ben Franklin's creation BTW.) The solution clearly is to change the funding structure; although, you still have issues with poor states.
---
You are so off. I didn't think it was written that badly, the error must be largely yours.
The mission statement for the USA doesn't say government not for the people but to only defend and enforce the law. Its vague and totally can include government services the people want. It is a vehicle for the people to drive how they see fit. (again, its MOST the people if you forgot the last section.)
The USA is supposedly a christian nation; or at least claims it... I've been raised catholic and learned how far out other sub-groups and denominations are from each other-- they have maybe a paragraph in common and that is it! If like I said, this is such a christian nation you would think those people combined with others would use government as a vehicle to help others; instead the vocal "christians" are the most violent etc. aside from wanting their version of a christian law (which is just fine if you have a lasting super majority.) The USA design is transferrable.
Oh, I am NOT a christian. BTW, I have no religion or associated group either. You imagined it. You should rethink my position (if your intellectually honest, you will..) you confusing the posts? I see quoted commentary that isn't from me in there-- an error on your part perhaps?
--
Those that benefit the most owe the most to their benefactors.
I repeat it. You owe society, you owe your parents, you owe your teachers, police, etc... it goes on and on. "On the back of giants," etc.
You may (as in might-- before you jump the gun again) be an ungrateful prick but the rest of us do not have to allow you to rise higher in our society to the point where you gain power to likely do us and the society harm (being a prick.)
OR
Instead you could object to the concept that government should be of the people, run by the people and for the people. That is another matter, in which case I would say you don't apply the founders general concepts entirely. I suppose then you would be ok with another organization that mimic's the government in nearly every way (believing in this system of government enough to apply it to another organization) except that some people could opt-out (the pricks.) If you are one of these types, then you are ready to think about mirrored systems th
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
While I agree with the rest pretty much, I disagree New Orleans is submerged because of Bush. New Orleans was subsiding before Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans is naturally subsiding, sinking, period. And will continue. A city should not be built in such a place. They didn't know it when it was first built but we know it now. Instead of simply rebuilding New Orleans it should be moved to higher ground away from land that is subsiding. Unfortunately much of the Gulf Coast around the Mississippi Delta is subsiding, especially the bayou.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The Democrats need to stop being a conservative party
Are you changing the meaning of "conservative"? What is your definition? Does it have anything to do with socialism?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
They didn't have anything against Gore remotely close to Obama's cave on telecom immunity.
Actually many did. Gore supports Genetic Engineering and many environmentalists oppose GE.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Got rich in a business subsidized by taxpayers Bush: oil & gas, baseball stadiums; Gore: agribusiness
Gore's family also made money from oil. Al's father, Senator Al Gore Sr worked for and owned shares in Oxidential Petroleum.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I suppose Reagan, and Clinton for that matter, were fully experienced and ready to take the helm from the moment they took office.
Both Reagan and Clinton were state governors before becoming president. So yea, they did have some experience.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No, but he has way more experience in foreign relations, economic policies, national security, campaign finance reform, than Obama.
McCain has little to no experience with economic policy. Other than fighting and being a POW, which I highly respect him for, I don't see what foreign relations experience he has either. Maybe I'm missing something. For national security he wants a police state where government can spy on almost if not everyone. Lastly his campaign finance reform was unconstitutional, the US Supreme Court upheld parts but not all of the McCain-Feingold bill or Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
On Obama:
He turned his back on his supporters and flip-flopped by voting for a bill that granted telecommunications companies immunity.
Before the vote I supported Obama as the Democrat presidential candidate but not afterwards. His pick of Biden as his running mate makes it worse. I'm glad I can vote for Bob Barr.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I am not knocking her, she is smart, touch and would have been a good choice.
As I said before, before Obama voted to give telcom businesses immunity, between Obama, McCain, and Clinton I'd vote for Obama but between McCain and Clinton I'd vote for McCain. I'm concerned about McCain but Clinton scares me. Now I'd vote, or not vote at all, for McCain over Obama. However this election I'm voting for Bob Barr.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Actually Obama wants to cut taxes. Here's OnTheIssue's webpage on Obama's Tax Reform.
Having said that, I still can't support Obama. This election Bob Barr will more than likely get my vote.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I've said several tymes, including in this thread, that this year I'm voting for Bob Barr. However that's not entirely correct, if Jesse Ventura runs I'll vote for him instead.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
A trillion dollars a year? If you are trying to make points with numbers and there is no question it is costing a lot, you should probably use the right numbers. The Iraq war has cost a little over $500 billion to date, over five years
You may want to check your facts. A quick search returned a "Washington Post" article saying "The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More". That's less than GP's trillion dollars a year but much more than your "little over $500 billion to date". "therawstory" has a breakdown of the costs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This is the great strength of out republic. We are to assume that the elected representatives are intelligent enough that they can discern through the group stupidity and find the wisdom of the crowd or perhaps operate on a level of information the crowd simply doesn't have access to. I support open government but I also understand that there are many complexed facets and some of them, the public just shouldn't know about in the present sense. I also accept that I don't know it all and my elected official, whether I voted for him or not, understand the complexities better then I do. A good example of this is the oft touted "Tax the Rich". Currently, it is the rich who provide some levels of jobs due to investments as well as providing investment capitol so non-rich citizens can create wealth through invention, services, tool manipulations, or business ventures (whatever) which in turn creates jobs and provides more of a benefit to society then taking their money and giving it to someone else. So while "Tax the Rich" seems to be the popular mob mentality of the "have nots", it is actually detrimental to their ability to "have" in the future if taken too far to an extreme. But because we have a republic, our elected officials can ignore the "they have too much money" mob mentality and ensure that their money is circulating throughout society which provides jobs as well as taxes from those jobs and the returns on the money.
The voters aren't the bosses. The voters are the final determination of if they are doing a sufficient job. If you look at the congressional approval ratings, you will see that they are the lowest they have been in a long time if ever, If the voters were the boss, they would have been replaced long ago. But something unique to this years low ratings is that the people traditionally always thought that someone else's senator or congressman was the problem and that their's was doing good work or trying hard or somehow wasn't the issue. This is why they continue to get elected. Now, people are claiming that their senators and congressmen are just as much of the problem. Here is where the public will have the final say. But in no way is the representative obligated to do what the public tells them to do on their say so along. They may make promises to get elected and failing to live up to those promise might get them booted, but on any other issue, there is absolutely no obligation, we are a republic, not a democracy. And more importantly, the public doesn't always know what is best for the country or position the official holds.
This attitude that the government serves the people is the exact reason we are having the problems we have now. It is the exact reason that the budget is astronomical in size and that the deficit is following. A public servant is someone working for the public service, not someone who serves the public. It has never meant someone who serves the public and it wasn't until recently that
He favored policies like NAFTA, and telecomm and financial services deregulation, that benefited the interests of the investment class over those of workers and consumers.
Everyone, including workers and consumers, should also be investors. People should plan and invest for retirement if nothing else. Social Security is only supposed to be a safety net.
Clinton was willing to institutionalize bigotry with his "don't ask don't tell" bullshit, willing to implement capital punishment, willing to bomb the shit out of other nations to advance American interests, and to continue Nixon's "War on Drugs" (even as he admitted to his own drug use).
Agreed but those aren't strictly conservative positions. Also Nixon didn't start the "War on Drug", he only gave it a boost. The war on hemp, aka marijuana, was started in FDR's administration with the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Opening up trade, the way it was done, is neoliberal and part of the Washington Consensus. And while they say it represents a "transfer control of the economy from state to the private sector" it was anything but that.
This is the legacy that Gore would have apparently continued; little wonder many liberals or progressives found the possibility less than inspiring and stayed home or voted for Nader.
I am a liberal, Classical Liberal, and though I wanted to vote for another candidate in 2000 because the election polls were so close I checked off Gore, I thought Gore was bad but not as bad as Bush.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I wrote another reply while watching TV.
probably has about the same error rate or parts that confuse you.
I was going to post the long reply but then I thought by the end I've got you pegged and it won't do you any good even if I mess with you in some parts (like bashing the constitution or federalist papers which you think are holy documents set in stone.)
I will say that again you got me wrong; although, if it makes you feel better I misunderstood you on the christian thing. I don't retract the christian comment, because its a perspective thing and you are so literal minded about so much stuff. (my reply had many points where I tried to point out how its not literal.)
I'll leave you with 1 line (for fun on my part, it clearly won't help you:)
Yah... I'm sure you pushed yourself out of your mother, slapped yourself, started breathing, and then ripped off the umbilical cord. I'm sure you are eaten up inside when you use the internet out there in your bunker ;-)
(internet came from government and running lines out to your bunker was forced by government.)
You don't worry about unchecked crime from those cops you do not think are needed or spreading fires because you are in your armed bunker right?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Yawn.. You are getting boring. It is quite simple, you are wrong. I don't care if your watching TV or playing card on the computer, wrong is still wrong.
Anyways, My mothers isn't the government now is she? And I'm pretty sure she has recieved compensation for raising me. But she is also the one who showed me that you have to succeed yourself and not depend on others. So in a way, some of the most important stuff I have learned, I learned from her. But I would have figured it out eventually.
As for the internet, Well, you see, I pay for my connection. I actually pay quite a bit for it. I also paid taxes when the government and Al Gore was creating the internet. I'm a bit older then your typical slashdot-er which is probably why I know the government isn't worth a damn most of the time. It is also probably why I have a better grasp of the concepts of this country then you can dream of. You know, the constitution and the founding fathers and federalist papers are set in stone holey documents. You can change America, there are provisions built into the system. But you can't claim it was the intent all along then ignore what the very people who risked life and limb to form this country as is they don't know anything about it. Thomas Jefferson said "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." This directly addresses your redistribution of wealth claim and shows that it was never the intent of the founding fathers. It was seen as taking a person's freedom away and rightly so.
As for crime and fire, I already explained, I pay for that with my Taxes. Everyone who lives on my road pays more taxes collectively to the state and country government to equal more then we receive in benefits. And don't forget, I pay additional taxes when I buy gas specifically to cover my use of the roads.
Remember Jefferson made a statement about how the constitution should be altered NOT set in stone.
It has been amended, ignored, and falsely interpreted not just out of the flaw in others but also because it has flaws. (If it were perfect and should be set in stone; people wouldn't know it was perfect or perfectly execute it.)
The federalist papers are not bad but they are NOT set in stone and they certainly are NOT anywhere near the level of the constitution or bill of rights they are written by a minority of founders and have a bias from the 'crowd' that founded the nation.
Most people DIE for nothing; It is not logical to take a position simply because a bunch of people and maybe a few respected ones where in the bunch. Its an appeal to emotion plain and simple.
You said you didn't need any government etc. I brought up the basics to make a point; you admit you depend upon government to some degree. However, you seem to think that you have some amazing ability to quantify the value of the services provided directly and indirectly to YOU. its all about YOU and literal thinking. The police and fire indirectly impact you by keeping fire and crime from spreading over to you; in addition to keeping prices lower because those direct costs to others comeback to you in the market, insurance etc. Then there are universities and other government funded orgs that create/invent things that are even less obvious/literal for people like you to make a connection to. These things are NOT easily quantified; and having' worked in local gov I can tell you that THEY EXPLOIT that quantification problem. (especially when they grant private monopolies because of this free market religion...)
I like jefferson a lot, but I don't agree with everything he says. The context in which that statement was made is also not the same as today-- and I'm sure given his wisdom in opposition of banking he wouldn't wholly apply that statement to bankers. Plus, corporations are NOT people (they are now, but not then) he could do his thing but exempt it from corps...
I suppose YOU think the homeless should pay the same amount as a massive land owner? because you don't like % taxes and want a fixed $ amount??? The people with the least can't afford as much and it hurts them more to kick them when they are down.-- this adds to bad economy, crime etc.
The argument for property taxes is that those with more land may use more gov services; which is a poor argument (except for fire.) I'm personally against property taxes which ARE used to discriminate; in addition, people much more NOW than in the past view property as an investment instead of a homestead. This has caused an increase in big-brother laws telling you how to cut your grass etc because it could lower your neighbor's property value. (along with stuff about black people/minorities which was cleverly put into keeping prop taxes high; in MY northern suburb we recently had a battle over some land where a few fools slipped out their true motives... although not overt racism it was association of a race with an economic "class" that was unwanted in the city. My city wouldn't even allow a White Castle because of the "class" of people associated with it. Being around city gov a while only made it even easier to see this sort of stuff.)
So you don't think public schools or libraries or universities are a worth while return? just police, fire, roads? mass transit? Majority representation will beat you there-- eventually privatized versions prove the public ones are better for LESS money. Public healthcare has been proven on most points as well. Public insurance can just be deduced as a math problem to prove it is better. Yes, corruption is a problem; but I've seen how monopoly profit costs more and delivers LESS than corruption and with the corruption people get FIRED but monopoly abuse has no recourse until it goes much further. (not again an absolute rule but I've never seen a local city ever do worse for any length of time; I have however seen intention
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If something needs changed in the constitution then by all mean change it. But don't ignore it in hopes the no one will care about it because you wil end up with others doing the same. Just like when people see cops speeding down the road, they think it is ok for them to speed down the road and when we bend the rules or pervert the constitution and the meaning behind it, we get warrant-less searches and detentions without habeas corpus. Now the federalist papers don't have the same weight as the constitution but they are important because they give us invaluable insight to the debate and intent of different clauses in the constitution. This insight led to the correct interpretation of the second amendment and the DC gun ban recently and was cited among other sources all through the ruling. So when there is some underlying concept that we don't play Robbin Hood with taxes, then we aren't supposed to be taking from the rich and giving to the poor with taxes.
I don't think you understand. I said I pay for the government services or I provide them myself. I am on the volunteer fire. I pay an enormous tax bill already and I don't use the services that I have paid for. I also mentioned that we have to pay the county for the sheriff's that patrol our streets. No one is giving us anything here. And if for some reason, someone else isn't paying their fair share, I am paying part of the difference for them. We are not running a budget deficit on a local level here. BTW, I didn't say I didn't need government, I said we don't take from larger populated areas which is what you were saying.
BTW, you mentioned universities, the state funded universities in my area cost 2-10 times more then the strictly private universities. This is in spite of a tuition freeze in the 90's that limited the amounts of increases in tuition the state assisted university could charge. In contrast, we have several private universities staffed by some of the same teachers as the other universities in which tuition is actually affordable to working people.