Slashdot Mirror
Obama Significantly Revises Technology Positions
method9455 writes "Barack Obama has edited his official website on many issues, including a huge revision on the technology page. Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago, and the swaths of detail have been removed and replaced with fairly vague rhetoric. Many technologists were alarmed with the choice of Joe Biden before, and now it appears their fears might have been well founded." Update: 09/22 18:07 GMT by T : Julian Sanchez of Ars Technica passed on a statement from an Obama campaign representative who points out that the changes in wording highlighted by Versionista aren't the whole story, and that more Obama tech-plan details are now available in a PDF, saying "there is absolutely no substantive change to our policy - folks who want more information can click to get our full plan."
aw yeh.
They're all rich white men, regardless of their advertising.
When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises? Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago
He has to appease the big corps that are giving him money. What do you expect? He's running for President.
This is exactly what I wanted.
It has worked out so well before. Another white house run by a strong VP, taking advantage of the President's inexperience.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
in 5....4...3...2...
Change we can believe in.
See you all in 2012.
Who cares, bomb Iraq :D
http://www.lap.ttu.ee/~muhw/lyrics.php?action=show&id=93334
They've cut out about half the content, and large chunks about what they'll do for kids.
Either they've had advice that they shouldn't be promising definite things (makes it harder to weasel out of stuff later) or they're just cutting down the page size for some reason.
Either way, bit of a non story.
Politician changes mind, big whoop.
...Sesame Street :(
Every American election always reminds me of the phrase from Alien vs Predator.
"Whoever wins, we all lose." or something like that.
and the swaths of detail have been removed and replaced with fairly vague rhetoric
Which gives (rather odd) evidence that even politicians are capable of learning.
Disclaimer: I may add that I do not believe that the outcome of the US-elections will initiate any notable change, some evidence may be the unitedly agreed upon upstream redistribution of money from the (poor) taxpayer to (for short) the rich. Besides, I am not US-citizen and located in Europe.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
The technology stance is important, but there are a lot of substantially more important issues on the table right now.
We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity from before his political career started, and the candidate who has resorted to making bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies that in a non-political context would be grounds for a successful slander/libel suit.
When considering technology specifically, your choices are Obama, who at least understands technology well enough to have created a successful social networking style community site, and McCain who admits he barely even knows how to turn his computer on. If you're voting technology, Obama is the clear superior choice to McCain.
I know, 3rd party candidate and all that. I'm a supporter of breaking the 2-party system we have here in the US because I think it really hurts us; but to be completely honest, in this election it is down to two candidates.
It is extremely unlikely that a 3rd party candidate will successfully run for president until there are a fair share of 3rd party candidates in congress who can prove their chops in a way that makes the lot of them look less crazy (some 3rd party candidates look that way, it gives the better ones a bad name). If you support this ideal, trying to support it top-down isn't the way to get it to happen, it's got to be bottom up - local, state, and federal officials.
In the mean time, support a candidate who has the ability and perspicacity to restore our good will with the rest of the world. The way the economy is going right now, in 2 or 4 years, net neutrality is going to be a lot less important than food on the table and whether or not our troops are committing war crimes abroad, and whether or not our government is committing anti-constitutional crimes domestically.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
The far leftists from the Obama regime and the left-wing media camp are too concerned over McCain's old age while being in office..... So why haven't they taken a look at what Obama's life expectancy would be like if he were to be in office???
If Obama were elected, he would be a constant target for assassination from hate groups and other wackos. His daily duties would be consumed by security measures and de-briefing taking up his time in would be raising taxes and "saving the world."
Think about it, any vote to Obama puts him one inch closer to the grave.. Save a life, Save Obama 2008!!
When McCain chose Palin, he basically wrote off the urban and more educated voters to focus on the what has become the Republican base: rural and less educated voters.
The revisions to Obama's technology page are less about shifting policy and more about recognizing that, thanks to McCain's choice of Palin, this election is going come down to the rural and less educated voters.
Detailed technology policy isn't going to win over rural and less educated voters. To appeal to those demographics, Obama has to keep it broad and simple.
"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
Barack is completely behind net neutrality, where as McCain is not, but don't let the facts get in the way of the way you try and put FUD out there.
Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important
What the fuck are you talking about? It's THE VERY FIRST GODDAMN THING HE MENTIONS.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets
* Protect the Openness of the Internet
If you're a McCain supporter trying to weasel votes away on Slashdot, you need to say so.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
It looks to me like they hired an editor to cut the wall of text down to size. The first huge cut under the heading "Protect the Openness of the Internet" kept the main point while eliminating a massive unnecessary explanation. Readers who are unfamiliar with net neutrality would have been turned off by the wall of text anyway. Also, notice that Versionista doesn't track when blocks of text move to different locations on the page. There are a few paragraphs that simply got moved to other sections. This is just a sensationalist headline that doesn't really belong here. It isn't a "position revision." It is an edit that takes a very lengthy page & cuts it down to a more digestible size. Yes, there's new content, and yes, there are revisions. But on the whole, it's nothing to get up in arms about.
....he's still a far better option than a near-dead guy and a Hill-Billy MaryJane. Even if she can see Russia from where she lives.
Is that Obama will continue to change his position to suit the audience and the moment.
From his current page:
"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
He still holds the same position, he dumbed down the verbage because dumb people wouldn't understand his first version of his website.
and there'd be 500 hate posts all modded +5 /. is just as bad as digg
no matter who gets elected president the direction the government is going is the same, the rich & powerful will continue getting more money and power while whittling away at fair use and the rights of citizens, GWB created a debt that will not be paid off for decades...
it is the nature of all governments (including ours) to usurp more power and authority at the expense of the freedoms and rights of its citizens and it is going to take a hell of a lot more than a change of presidents to fix that...
Voting= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ
The Big Club= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw
Religion is Bullshit= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Carlin may be a comedian but his insight on these topics are on the mark
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Many of our leaders, such as Obama, are trying to limit the accessibility of short term, high demand financial assistance. Some areas are attempting to put legislation in place that would limit where these legitimate businesses can operate. Some states, such as Georgia and North Carolina, have out-and-out banned the industry altogether, and others are close behind. Across the nation, citizens are trying to have their voices heard by fighting legislative bans on the payday loan industry. The odd turn of events is that Obama and others are trying to eliminate an entire industry, losing thousands of jobs in the process and thousands more in potential jobs, during a time when unemployment and financial hardship is at the highest in recent memory, all in the name of political gain.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
If you are worried that he changed the content on his site, removing vast swaths of what he promised before, in order to defend going back on his initial positions, once he become president..do you really think he would care what was said on the campaign website if he was planning to flip positions later?
Presidential campaigns are like incremental releases of a software product. You get slightly better features but nothing revolutionary. Sales and Marketing usually prevents that so that people are back in line when the next release is out.
Rapid Nirvana
MAYBE it's going to be hard to enact a lot of programs, now that we have to bail out Wall Street to the tune of a trillion dollars. His new plan still says he supports Net Neutrality, this new version just seems trimmed down.
Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
You are all heterosexual straight people who exclusively prefer penile insertion into the vagina. Haw haw haw haw.
From his site:
Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
I have not thoroughly analyzed the differences but many of changes appear to be stating his same positions more concisely.
Is Slashdot now part of some political machine, releasing a highly charged yet fairly baseless "article" early on a Monday morning?
Or is it a mere attempt to drive ad revenue?
Perhaps there should be some balance here. Say, 70% ad revenue, 30% political positioning?
And this surprises anyone...why? Obama seems to find safety in vagueness, just like most politicians. Gives them more room to waffle later.
Change we can believe in!
When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises?
Why stop at politicians? There are plenty of people around who suffer from a word/deeds mismatch.
Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.
The people who can change things aren't running for president.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
This post is pretty much pure bullshit.
If you look at the revisions, Obama has shortened some bullet points to make them more readable.
He still lists what he supports, but he does not going into massive detail in each one of them.
For instance, his current stance on network neutrality is now (emphasis mine):
"* Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
Instead of:
"* # Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the Internetâ(TM)s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy. "
So instead of a massive (and unreadable) paragraph, it is now a very simple bullet point saying that Obama strongly supports network neutrality. How on earth is this "downplaying" network neutrality?
Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago
Here is a quote Obama's first bullet point in his updated and clarified technology position statement, the same paper that the /. summary claims that "net neutrality" is no longer important:
Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet
It seems like Slashdot sees the campaign as merely a vehicle for ad revenue. A correction in the Slashdot summary is warranted.
"vague rhetoric"
LOL
Welcome to Senator Obama!
have out-and-out banned the industry altogether
Seems to me there are an awful lot of bans, confiscations, laws, rules and regulations in "the land of the free".
I figure if you're dumb enough to get a loan at 25%+, you deserve to lose your money. Conversely if you're willing to lose your entire principal once in a while by making loans to people with poor/no credit, the 25%+ interest rate reflects this risk.
But will someone please think of the meth addicts?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Except an empty suit.
There are two new PDF links at the bottom of the page, where all the bullet points are expanded upon in greater detail. The Network Neutrality text (though removed from the main page) is now in the first PDF, verbatim.
WTF????
I would love it if your industry disappeared. Loan sharking (nice job on the wikipedia article, btw... totally non-obvious) used to be illegal. What you do for a living is called racketeering.
ahahahahahaahah!!!!!!!
Seriously, though, you're parasites who profit from the misfortune of others.
Take your online strategy and shove it.
Welcome to politics. Wishy-washy positions mean nothing in the face of issues people don't care(i.e. know) about, but lobbyists do.
What a surprise....
"My fellow America-" *blam* *blam* *blam*
I wish it wasn't so likely that some racist fuck will shoot him.
In my state (kansas), it's not merely 25%+; it's 391%. Just to put some things in perspective. Sure, you can sit there on your all-knowing libertarian ass, but until you've been there, you have no sense of perspective. It is predatory, period.
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
She made the willows dance
These are guesses, or even hopes. I agree that any of the viable candidates are going to serve the corporate interest, but there are important differences.
1. Obama will engage in diplomacy with Iran, and hopefully in covert ways with Hezbollah, Hamas, and the nationalist Iraqi forces. If you're serious about ending terrorism, you have to engage the enemy dipomatically and address the conditions that lead to it. Protip: killing more muslims with western weapons isn't helping.
2. His Administration will sweep out the Bush/Reagan Administration, while McCain would probably keep a lot of it. That's worth my vote right there.
3. Obama does not pander to Jerry Falwell or any of his imitators. It's America, so he has to recognize the religious element, but he doesn't associate with the fundamentalist nutcases.
4. Obama has shown his distaste of the Bush and Clinton Dynasties. Change is good.
Most importantly, Obama is not McCain. McCain has turned from a moderate Republican, who I would have seriously considered voting for in 2000, to a complete shill, pandering to evangelicals, touting proto-fascist military slogans, and most importantly, has shown the same inability to engage in serious self-criticism that has truly frightened the rest of the world in regards to the Bush Administration. McCain also claims to believe that the Iraq war has something to do with counterterrorism or the spread of freedom, which to any serious observer, is total fucking nonsense.
"Actually the black guy qualifies in anyone's book as a rich white guy ... Unless you're totally obsessed with skin color."
Or checklists.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Awwww poor baby is disillusioned now that he's found out all politicians regardless of party are the same.
American US President Hopeful changes his plan! Again!
Americans in Shock and Awe for no real reason WTF so ever!
Who really gives a damn!?
"You really want to make the Executive even more powerful? Are you nuts?"
Think of it as a fine-grained power to say no. Sort of a counter agent to the whole "lets lump it all together and vote on it" that causes so much grief.
Do away with the latter and you don't need the former.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
From a non-US point of view, it's an interesting game to follow this slashdot discussion and try to keep score for the two parties' spin doctors.
Is the grass also green?
...Support real campaign finance reform.
If the Democrats and Republicans and all the PACs and 527s that surround them are forced to play by rules that are actually reasonable in terms of making sure that more money != more votes, that's when third parties will start to have a real chance of getting into elected office.
I'm a liberal Democrat who believes in my party, and in Obama, but I know that the best way to improve both the Democrats and the Republicans is to make there be some more choices out there.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
oh.. wait a second..
The President can only approve/veto bills that are sent to him by congress. If congress kills a bill in committee, or it fails to get the required votes in either the senate or the house, the President's position is irrelevant. Put the pressure on ALL politicians - not just the Pres & VP.
I was watching campaign ads from previous American presidential elections here -- it starts with the Eisenhower campaign and works forward -- and I was struck by how many candidates used the same rhetoric. "Change" has been a staple campaign theme for a long, long time.
It seemed there were three major types of ads:
There might also have been a fourth, "Our candidate is a nice human being!"
Here are some examples of #2, "Change," below (I've quoted the last sentences from a number of the ads at the above URL):
"Change" is exactly what you can expect the opposition party to be selling in any election. The only reason Obama's campaign seems novel is that we have the collective memory and attention-span of a goldfish.
He better support net neutrality.
Okay, you're pitching a software project to me. You've taken a week to study the initial project outline. You come back with a firm promise to solve the design problems in a very precise way. You state that you will stick firmly to your proposed design come hell or high water - that any later inputs from me, my staff, my clients who will be using the software will not be taken into consideration. Your deliberations on design are finished. Your word on what you'll do is a sacred contract, accepting no further input, no revision.
I'd tell you to take a flying hike.
So political solutions are supposed to be amenable to a week's study (about all any one of the many issues a campaign issuing position papers can afford per issue), and contractual lockdown to every last detail of the first draft proposal of a solution?
Isn't that how the Iraq war was planned? Didn't we only start making progress once revisions to the original concept were accepted?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
you mean 'removes any stance he made and posts complete bullshit'?
Doesn't everyone realize Joe Biden is a COMPLETE BOOTLICKING MORON?
Mod me down if you want, the bloody Democrats are what's killing this country. Well, them and the Republicans too.
So, I'm voting SAVAGE/HYNEMAN '08!
Pax Vobiscum
Umm unless your name is Geroge W. Bush. Then you legislate by issuing Executive Orders!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Let me watch him hail a cab on South Michigan Avenue and I will tell you what his skin color is.
You know...is anyone *REALLY* that surprised by this? I mean, you do realize that Obama's received TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars from corporate donations, right? So why should we be surprised when he bows down to them? ---- I decided long ago (right after his pro-FISA vote) to switch over to Nader; He's at least consistent in his platform and doesn't go waffling around bigwigs like McCain and Obama do. ((votenader.org/issues)
Early on, I was really quite excited about this election with an actual candidate that seemed to have values I do and wanted to make positive changes, but it looks like the rich people have gotten to Obama. Whether the changes to the website are anecdotal or not, Obama voted for telecom immunity and choose Biden for VP. I don't think I am voting for the presidential candidate this time around (will vote in the other elections), and will wait 4 more years to hope a great man does appear (with a backbone and conviction) that wants to try to run the country. Things might be bad enough then.
That's because there wasn't one. "They mixed telecom immunity in with another bill" isn't a changing circumstance, it's a centuries-old political ploy that could have been seen a mile away and could have been countered easily: by both filibustering the poisoned bill (as he promised, for those of us who care about such things) and introducing an unpoisoned alternative.
Sometimes I wish Daleks existed in reality, and threatened to do what they do best to people that think (and speak openly as to proliferate those thoughts) like Shakrai.
What we really need is another president like Washington, one that takes the job because it needs to be done. Not one that lobbies for appointment of himself. One that also steps down voluntarily when the job is finished.
"Ummmmmm ... yes. Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves."
"Thou shall not murder" seems pretty clear and look what happened to that.
". Of course it would require much clearer and more straight forward laws and rules with less chance for built in loop holes for weasels to find their way through."
It's human nature to see what we can get away with. Just ask any parent.
"There is a reason they get well paid... it takes forever to learn how to wade through the self made bullshit."
Much like any technical profession.
"Lawyers on the other hand work with legislators to word our laws such that simple ideas and other things are too complex for the common man to understand."
What's complicated about the fact that some things can have subtle and shaded distinctions?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
that is reassuring.
He gives a link that shows his exact same page as before in pdf format. This is a shortened view that includes Biden's views. Obama's views are the same as they were before. Here is the link at the bottom of the page http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf
It's not just Bush - they all use EOs for good & bad purposes... http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
Obama's positions were vague before, and they are vague after; they have to be, it's the process. And it's not like you can sue the president for not sticking to his campaign promises.
What you should go by is what the candidates have done before with their lives. And, to me, Obama comes across as clearly the better candidate.
McCain has serious ethical problems, he seems to have a problem with his temper and making rash decisions, and I don't trust him with control of the military. I think he would also be a bad representative of the US to the rest of the world. Palin is even worse, both in terms of ethics and record.
....Then you don't pay much long-term attention to American politics.
I was wondering when B.O.'s new "handler" would quietly start pulling him into line. Stay tuned for more, especially after the election.
Regards;
I'm a right wing Republican whose endorsing John McCain but I am appalled at the way you liberals are once destroying yourselves and your candidate with your withering self doubt. We have on the right have a joke, that is, only Democrats could be so smart as to figure out a way to blow election after election and here you go again.
Can you please have some hope?
What Obama did with his web site was to basically rewrite it from the mishmash that it was into something more coherent. There is nothing substantively different about this restructuring. Obama has always been in favor of strong IP legislation, but, so what of it?
Do you really think that a man who spent his formative years arguing in favor of some form of socialism will suddenly turn his back on that?
Do you really believe that a man who has worked his entire life organizing his own liberal constituency into an election machine is suddenly going to come out looking like Reagan?
I mean, seriously, don't you think Michelle would kick his rear if he even thought of selling out?
I mean come on liberals. You are getting a guy whose is your best standard bearer for your commy liberalism in easily 40 years, if not since Roosevelt, and arguably all time. Obama knows well that which he argues and that's why on the right hate the son of a gun so much. If you are liberally inclined, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Obama is a committed idealist with the trappings of greatness about him and in spades. A minor shift in a political position or a rephrasing of a web site is not going to alter the overall thrust of this man's policy or his life.
So, don't lose faith because some staff member re-edited the web site. Obama is going to deliver for you liberals nearly everything that you believe in if he is elected. Obama is the real deal of liberalism. This is your chance. Don't f--- it up.
Now, quit whining, liberals, as you so often do, and get off your asses and vote for this guy. He's the best you'll have in your lifetime and now is the time to go for it.
This is my sig.
Ok, so the site has been redacted a bit. Is the alternative any better?
Mate - I ain't disputing it. :)
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The changes look cosmetic to me. Someone probably rewrote it and toned it down a bit to cater it to people with short attention spans. Intelligent people who follow the news know that Obama is by far the lesser of two evils and will vote for him. Idiots that vote for abortion or other religiously biased stances will vote for McCain and his new earth creationist running mate. However they may get a few more votes from people who choose a candidate at the last minute as they watch the debates and read up on them. For this purpose it makes sense to tone down some of the details in order to address the key issues and how he stands.
Saying "I support net neutrality" vs, I support Net neutrality and here is a paragraph supporting my stance, hardly indicates that he no longer supports it.
Despite the left's attempts to paint McCain as "Bush III" (rather laughable, really, although there are certainly many reasons not to support McCain) the libertarian candidate Bob Barr is the real flag-bearer for neo-con economic and social insanity.
Think about this - the LIBERTARIAN candidate wants to prohibit flag-burning by constitutional amendment. That's right, the candidate who supposedly represents LIBERTY wants a federal prohibition against you disposing of your own property, just because it happens to have a colored pattern on it that is meaningful to somebody else. He wants to MODIFY THE CONSTITUTION in order to protect a PIECE OF CLOTH - and in the process jettison the freedom that flag supposedly represents, along with the very concept of private property.
The closest thing to a real 3rd party vote these days is to write in Ron Paul. Post-Reagan Republican party values are essentially the opposite of the traditional Republic values that Paul still represents, and old school conservatism is now considered the lunatic fringe.
OK... Lets look at this logically... there are now two people running for president. John McCain and Joe Biden. Neither Obama nor Palin have the political capital or experience to be taken seriously. This being said both men are a problem when it comes to technology. In fact most of Congress is a problem. While the war is on McCain will not care about your privacy (this is being said by a Republican Troll by the way) and as the war fades away I am not sure what would bring it to his attention if he could even understand it; he's 72 years old. Biden, however, will sit as the tie breaking vote in the senate and he swings a big stick (the guy has been in office longer than I have been alive). If you are worried about net neutrality and privacy, worry about Biden. If you don't believe me call Phil Zimmermann and ask him what he thinks of Biden. Even Microsoft has had to lobby against him. I am talking about impact here and Biden will have the most. Ask yourself if that is good or bad. As for me if it weren't for that stupid flat tax I like many would choose Ron Paul if I were voting for net freedom. Thanks for your time... If you would like to reach me with comments please direct all correspondence to.. Winston Smith c/o Miniluv Room 101 "Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."... John Adams (Our First VP)
He might as well be a dictator to an extent, since he ignores constitutional limitations on his office and feels that he doesn't have to share any information whatsoever, and is generally unaccountable to anyone except Cheney.
It will be a good long time, if ever, before the damage he's done to our law is repaired.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
You're supposed to log out and into a different account before you sock puppet.
vote Third Party. FTW.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
My thought is that Obama is for slowing down my browsing pleasure with a lot of Flash adds saying how great he is!
I want those 8 seconds of my life back!
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Seems to me that the parent is just making a few valid points. Where's the flamebait, mods?
Honestly, while I care about the candidates' views on technology, I think long-term impact will be felt far more strongly based on who they appoint to the Supreme Court ("SCOTUS"). The reason I say this is because, by-and-large, republican nominees have been more willing to clamp down on civil liberties, with special attention to interpretation of free speech. (Alas, they've all proved pretty wrong-headed when it came to Eldred v. Ashcroft, a/k/a the unfettered expansion of copyright... but that's where the difference between interpretation and legislation comes in, and, alas (for this case), the SCOTUS isn't nearly as revisionary as the fundies would have us believe.)
So, anyway, I care about McCain and Obmama's positions. But I care far more that the Court is becoming substantially unbalanced, and worry that a republican in office will have decades-long influence over most every freedom we currently take for granted.
I generally can't bring myself to read the entirety of these types of threads. I usually give up after awhile, as I've done today. So can someone please explain why they believe it's a bad summary as it was tagged?
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
After reading the website, it sounds to me like the plan is to nationalize the internet in the U.S. With Democrats in control of Congress and the Whitehouse, all dissenters will be sought out on the net, located, and imprisoned.
The Fairness Doctrine will be implemented in tandem and our transformation to the Socialist Republic of America will be complete.
Next, the eugenics program will move into full swing. First, we'll begin terminating all pregnancies that "fail" genetic testing. Next, well move on to roping up all the genetically defective persons running around and do away with them. Of course, I'll put a bullet in the head of anyone that comes after my daughter, who happens to have Down syndrome.
For those who are lucky enough to be left, you will get free healthcare. However, anyone who costs too much will be euthanized for the good of everyone. YIf you have a good consitution, you may be able to wait out the year-long waiting lists for certain procedures or tests.
Everyone will be reassigned to new jobs, as the government sees fit.
Ironically, no one on the left will say a word. The ACLU will be silent. The media will not cover it. For once, Bush will not be to blame.
Long Live the Revolution!
It's a bit out of topic, but I have to link to The Onion for this.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
How does that apply to the idiots who voted Perot?
What about the ones that are lining up to thow away a vote on that other Texas idiot?
How about adjusting your statement...wait, adjusting your statement would destroy your argument.
If the "third party" is aligned with the Left, such as the Green Party, then yes it will draw off Democrat voters. If the party is aligned with the Right, such as the myriad of "Small Government, Law and Order" parties, then you will draw off Republicans.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
It's not watered down or vague -- its politically expedient. "Technologist" only were only needed during the primary and he needs to appeal to both sides of the issue now.
Y'all are probably wishing you voted for a proven flip-flopper than a promising flip-flopper now.
I'm not sure it matters too much who gets in. Yes, I know that one at least has the promise of change, I'm aware of that.
As I understand it, one of the aims of the neoconservative movement is to bankrupt the government, paying out to neocon interests in the process. When the government hurts enough, they will go to the corporations to help them and thereby be indebted to the corporations (ultimately fascism).
The current financial situation is so far beyond broken that it seems to me BushCo has won. They've successfully repealed enough legislation that the financial system fails. I'm in the financial industry, and without government intervention I can tell you we would have had another Great Depression. The government naturally steps in to help out, and they are forced to pick up the tab for these corporations (yes, I know it's supposed to be a loan. Look at the S&L crisis, "loan" is a farce)
Basically, the government is spending so far beyond the tax base now that we could see some serious inflation. I have to wonder if BushCo has already won, as the government may have a hard time recouping its already bloated losses.
Just a thought, really. I'm sure others with a deeper knowledge of economics could chime in on this one too.
-
And owning what,m 7 houses and 13 vehicles?
Barak isn't some common man, and nobody is claiming that except strawmen constructed by the flailing rightists.
It's not like Barack failed utterly at his job, and after 5.5 years of dealing with that failure, returned to divorce his loyal wife and marry a young woman.
That goes more to character than any amount of wealth.
Blar.
If you look at the bottom of the linked page, there are now links to two PDF files which contain a lot of the sort of details removed from the main web page...
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
I feel like this is the veil of the darkside here. Net neutrality and government accountability were cornerstones of his tech platform, now they've been removed in the last month. I just don't know if I can support that. Those issues are extremely important to me.
I think Joe Biden has influenced these changes. Who knew he was so in bed with the IAAs? That's special interest. That's bad for America.
This is a slap in the face to plenty of people who have been supporting Obama since before the primary.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Responding to hyperbole with pedantry. Then again, this is slashdot, home of the clueless gripper.
Blar.
I can't wait to see the discussion here on Slashdot once the government tries to subpeona the IP logs for this thread's Anonymous Coward author. After all, "Vote with a bullet" could reasonably be construed as a veiled death threat against one of the major candidates.
Somebody's gonna have a strange knockin' at the door real soon...
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Actually reading the page comparison, it seems like its not as bad as this article suggests. It still says he supports network neutrality, it just no longer goes onto a rambling long paragraph explaining it. It still says he wants to protect the first ammendment, it no longer goes into a tirade about porn. Basically, its been optimized to not put someone asleep.
Honestly!
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Since you mentioned John Adams, allow me to present his words on the topic of lawyering:
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
You know, you can call them Americans. Strictly speaking, everyone in the western hemisphere is a person from the Americas, but only people from the United States are called Americans. Everyone else would just be offended by the implications of being called American ;-)
What's the value of information that you don't know?
The problem of judging them on their actions is that they already are in power by the time you have something on which to judge them. It's just like having an IDS--it doesn't prevent an intrusion, it just lets you know that one has already happened.
While some people have always said one thing and lived another, I believe we are in an age where that behavior (a lack of integral integrity) is more readily accepted as normal. We expect politicians to behave that way.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Tag this story flipflop
He's a politician!!!! Just like all the rest.
Decide on the views:
If you're for gun-control, pro-choice, social programs, expanded government control and regulation of personal life and business. VOTE FOR OBAMA.
If you're pro-gun, pro-life, pro-fiscal conservative, pro-limited government - DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA.
If you want an honest Congressman, it's probably not going to happen until we stop electing them and start drafting people to the position.
The summary said network neutrality "is no longer as important as it was a few months ago."
Alarmed, I went and read through the comparison. I'm not so worried - yet.
It's still the first bullet point in the candidate's platform. They call it by name - "network neutrality" - quite specific. It appears to be his biggest specific concern. He put the bullet point on it at the top of his list, both before the change and after.
All they did was trim a description of what it is. That may be significant but you are really reading tea leaves. It may just as easily be good editing (bullet points shouldn't be 500 words long, or no one reads the next bullet).
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
GWB created a debt that will not be paid off for decades
you can hardly say he *created* the national debt
You are being disingenuous. You are talking about 'the' national debt (the sum of the entire debt of the US) while the GP was talking about 'a' debt (the debt of the Iraq war). There's a difference between 'a' and 'the'.
While one could reasonably say that Congress (which includes Democrats) equally share in the blame for the Iraq war and the resulting debt, we both know that's not that what you were talking about.
By voting you really cannot the change the substance, you can only change the look and feel for coming years.
true enough, but I would prefer a world without lawyers to one with 'good' lawyers and 'bad' lawyers.
I realize we need laws but the very large majority of the lawyers is simply parasitic to society.
It should be possible to get by with far far less of them then there currently are.
If we lived in a world without lawyers, we'd need to invent them. Or rather, we would invent them, and those who didn't get back on the bandwagon using lawyers would be at the mercy of those who did.
Consider: we have judges and juries to determine judgment in legal cases: but like anybody else these folks are human and prone to influence and mistakes. Plus not every case is clear-cut according to the laws. Add to that the fact that it's difficult to codify things unambiguously (this is why we have "legalese" - it's similar to the reason why computers have programming languages and mathematicians have their own set of notations) and in the case where there is an ambiguity, you need someone who understands that ambiguity and can work with it. And finally you need people who can write progressively less-ambiguous laws...
So if we got rid of the legal profession, then the "big evil corporations" would still have lawyers (even if they were rebranded as "corporate representatives" or something, they'd make sure there were spokespeople for the company who could make good, compelling arguments with respect to the law...) - All that would really change is that individuals would now be completely (rather than mostly) at the mercy of those who have studied law, or those who can afford to retain such individuals...
Bow-ties are cool.
Do you really think that if Al Gore had won in 2000 that we'd be in Iraq right now?
"He did."
(Well, really "winning" would have meant, you know, being able to claim the presidency... So maybe not.)
Bow-ties are cool.
Since when is quoting the Constitution trolling? If I had to wager a guess, I'd say, "when truth is worth less than opinion". Typically, that's what political news articles tend to be on Slashdot. Indeed, political posts anywhere tend to devolve into opinion-based arguments, but, for some reason, when this happens on Slashdot, I'm always a little disappointed. But then, your question was probably rhetorical.
line item VETO (if implemented correctly) would only give the executive more power, if the way laws were worded remained unchanged.
IE their could be no more submarine a good bill by loading it with crap. Granted it would technically only stop the party that didn't have the president behind them. However in congress/senate it is a negotiation IE the dems allow the repubs to stick in a rider, in exchange they know they'll get their chance next time.
By letting the (R) president veto Democrat riders, it will cause the Democrats to make sure and kill the Republican riders, before their bill gets to the Pres.
So my theory is that it should put a end to unrelated things put together in the same bill, just to be vetoed out.
Of course this doesn't work when you got a super majority in both houses, and president all aligned. Then again they can just then just pass the individual bills they want in that scenario without worrying about line items.
lives in suburbs - check
South side of Chicago is not the "Suburbs"
Recent millionaire (2-3 years ago) after writing a book.
Choosing to work as a public defense type of lawyer working for $30K a year, after graduating from Harvard.
So, no, you are wrong..
--
..........FULL STOP.
Looks like a wordsmithing to make it shorter and punchier. Bottom of the page still has a link to what appears to be the full original text, perhaps with even more details, http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf I haven't checked it word for word, but it looks like no cause for alarm.
Or, alternately, we could probably do without lawyers if we'd just simplify the damn legal code, and we could DEFINITELY do with fewer lawyers if we'd stop making stupid laws.
Alternatively, people could stop treating the legal system as a money bucket to be plundered whenever it suits them. The US took the lead in the pursuit of frivolous or vexatious lawsuits, and unfortunately, the rest of the world has, rather than eschewing this squalid and undignified practice, followed the example with glee and abandon.
The legal system and profession would have more respect if they were used as such. One is the product of the other, and the more the "system" (such as it is) is abused, the worse the situation will become.
It keeps there foreskin from slipping up over their head and suffocating them!
...it's not anything more than reading comprehension just like we've all been doing since the 1st grade.
:-)
;-)
I would normally consider it otiose to point out that this is Slashdot... But this is Slashdot, and the majority of readers fail to parse more than one sentence.
In fairness, this also applies to non-Slashdot readers. I have a number of acquaintances who, although educated to a high level, are incapable of satisfactorily answering an email consisting of more than one sentence.
On occasions, I'm a bit brutal about this: I split every point I want to make or receive a response to into individual one-line emails. It pisses people off, but it gets the message across...
From the campaign:
We've been updating the entire website to ensure consistency across the pages. The full tech plan is still available on the page, so there is absolutely no substantive change to our policy -- folks who want more information can click to get our full plan. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf
Right now this is the top comment in a discussion where it's completely clear that the article summary is wrong and the poster's comment is mostly irrelevant and somewhat inane. It's at the top of a tree of comments that get in the way of people seeing the raft of stuff correctly communicating what's going on with Obama's tech policy.
And yet it's moded "5, Insightful".
Definitely a strong candidate for "overrated" and possibly "offtopic", since "Wrong" is unavailable.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Obama & Dean struck a backroom deal which allowed (1) Obama to get the nod from the party's bigwigs and (2) Dean to replace the clinton's as the new democratic power broker.
The main problem for Obama is that he had to agree to take the old guard, in particular Biden, with him. All of a sudden, he has been reduced to a pretty face on the establishment. And now, the idealistic ideas he once explained clearly are now nothing more than vague lip service.
Obama is looking more and more like Howard Dean's puppet, with a tilt for Chicago-style politics.
2. His Administration will sweep out the Bush/Reagan Administration, while McCain would probably keep a lot of it. That's worth my vote right there. Ideological difference. I won't argue with you here, as I'm unlikely to change your mind as to whether this is goodor bad.
3. Obama does not pander to Jerry Falwell or any of his imitators. It's America, so he has to recognize the religious element, but he doesn't associate with the fundamentalist nutcases. Nothing wrong with the Hollywood fringe or racist extremist element like Jeremiah Wright of course.
4. Obama has shown his distaste of the Bush and Clinton Dynasties. Change is good. Obama has pissed all over these "dynasties" strictly for political purposes. He's already come crawling back to the Clinton's for help in his campaign. And if he kicks out all of the Clinton democrats, who's he going to be left with?
McCain, has not changed. He did have to pander to the right, just like Obama had to pander to the far left, in order to win in their respective primaries and secure donations. It's the media that has largely turned on McCain, and is so in the tank for Obama, it took an SNL skit for any of them to realize it.
But now that Obama has been caught astroturfing without required notices, consider how he'd prefer is opposition not have free access to do similar stuff on the Internet in four years. But then, paid advertisements without notices are already illegal.
Parent is nothing butastroturf. Either slashdot's liberal bias is real, or the sockpuppets are already running the show around here, like they are over at digg and reddit.
I don't think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn't even pass for news anymore
One of the areas where we're in danger of losing our competitive edge is in science and technology and nothing symbolizes that more than our space program
Science and Techology doesn't even pass for news.
Of course, this is sloppy logic strung together from previous Obama quotes. But yes Obama has flip flopped\changed his mind\evolved on this issue. Started with a delay of the Constellation program, to now saying that our current Administration has short changed NASA and he will continue to support NASA and Ares\CEV development to shorten the Shuttle\CEV gap. (this change occurred when he visited Florida. Coincidence?)
Yes, Barack Obama, by mentioning arugula, has shown he is the elitist among the major party candidates.
John McCain, on the other hand, is just chock-full of mavericky goodness and simple values, and isn't elitist at all, despite the fact that he and his wife own a private jet and 8-12 homes on 8 properties (McCain says he doesn't know... it must be hard to keep track), spent $273,000 on household employees last year, and THIS JUST IN: own 13 cars. Oh, and despite McCain's claims that he has only bought American cars all his life, those cars include a Honda, a Lexus, and a Volkswagen, and also in the family is the Prius he boasted about his daughter buying just last year when he was pandering to voters with different concerns.
Oh, and Cindy McCain may have worn a $313,100 outfit on the first night of the Republican convention and said you just can't get around Arizona without a private plane, but trust the people who brought you the Iraq war: she's as down-to-Earth and "simple folk" as they come.
Those "uppity" Obamas, with their one house, on which they got a better-than-average mortgage deal (gasp!) based on Obama's senate income and book proceeds, have one car for the family. And both Obamas paid for their education with student loans, with Barack, who was raised by a single mother and his grandparents, ending up as president of the Harvard Law Review. John McCain, the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, was practically the definition of a legacy admission at the U.S. Naval Academy.
Yeah, that arugula comment really tells the whole story of who's an elitist.
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
Obama can count his Houses(1) and Cars(1). Made his money the hard way...
While McCain married into wealth and doesnt know how many houses he owns(8-10) and cars(13).
yeah lets keep comparing.
Fact is McCain doesnt know how to use email...thats a big red flag.
Each puppet has a set of strings leading to the entity that is controlling them. Given the Democrats' cozy relationship with the entertainment industry, I seriously doubt that net neutrality or any sort of copyright or DRM reform will see the light of day.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Before I get ambushed. There are, in fact, one hundred senators in the united states. =)
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
TV / Movies / Music: Top Recipients
Hmm, nearly $5 million donated to Obama. Do you think the entertainment industry is donating all that money to Obama because he promised to reform the DMCA as more consumer-friendly?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The guy is so hypocritical he's self defeating, so let him speak for himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
All of those quotes are in context.
Compare the treatment of Obama with that of Palin. She's so incompetent she's not allowed to speak her own words, and anyone who states this fact is decried as sexist. There's media bias that swings right and left as usual, and this time they are at least attempting to be journalists.
The website clearly states:
"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
I know Biden voted on some net bills (the run down can be read at gizmodo), but I am confident that the revised website supports both Obama + Biden's views/plans.
Their family income was 1.6 mil last year, if I'm not mistaken. Is he counting his net worth separately from his wife's? Then McCain is practically a bum, with not a dime to his name, since his wife owns everything.
> How much more "for it" can you be than a YEA vote for a bill which contains it?
You can be among the Republicans who WROTE the bill containing it and you can be one of the sponsors of that bill.
> As a congress critter, if there is a part of a bill you don't like IT IS YOUR JOB TO VOTE AGAINST THE WHOLE THING!!!! That's what the whole "checks and balances" thing is all about.
That's why they create bills that are along the lines of "Bill to Give Lobbyists $1 Trillion and Protect Children from Terrorist Pedophiles." Obama knew this bill was going to pass without him, so he voted yes so that he wouldn't be accused of supporting the terrorist pedophiles. Yes, we need to fix that. And yes, they really would have accused him of supporting terrorists (and they still do...) if he hadn't voted for it.
I'm not excusing him, mind you. I wish he had stood up. But he's not the one who authored this. Bush and the Republicans caused the problem. I blame them first and foremost.
> The immunity is unconstitutional (see ex post facto) even without the 4th amendment violations.
It SHOULD be, but the Supreme Court gutted that part of the Constitution ages ago. It's only ex post facto to punish someone after the fact, not to free them. Unfortunately, they're PART of those checks & balances, so we can't just cut them out of the loop.
> Between FISA and the Patriot Act, why even have the 4th amendment any more?
Oh, I hear you. I agree! I want my rights back, but it's an uphill climb.
But when assigning blame, look to the people like McCain who supported it publicly along with his party. Yeah, McCain abstained. But that's because he hasn't voted on *anything* since March or something like that.
Either of the corporate douches still running are just going to do whatever the corporations tell them to. Obama is nothing but a black Bill Clinton, pandering to the intellectual left, and giving charming speeches, while he has no intention of:
A. Ending the Iraq War.
B. Restoring the Bill of Rights.
C. Restoring our rigged elections.
D. Breaking the corporate monopolies.
E. Arresting the known criminals in our government.
F. Fixing the Environment.
G. Fixing Education.
H. Ending Police Brutality.
I. Anything our founding fathers would have wanted.
Why isn't anyone talking about the obvious? Because every paper, magazine, radio, television, movie and internet channel is run by five corporations:
AOL/Time Warner
Bertelsmann
Disney
Viacom
Murdoch's News Corp.
We are their slaves already, and they have little regard for any life, human included. The only candidates the represented any kind of human interest at all were Kucinich and Paul, and the corporate news channels would not give them any traction at all, of course.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I really do have a long record of sticking up for my Republican boys on ./, but, I also try to call it when I see it. So yeah, I said that liberals should vote for Obama, rather than not vote at all.
I think Obama is aweful but, just because you don't like someone or their politics doesn't mean that you shouldn't just stand back and watch his supporters do something as stupid as sit out an election over a petty difference with their standard bearer.
Sure, it would work out better for McCain if they did, but, you know, its just a crummy way to win an election, IMHO.
This is my sig.
Why do I have to read Obama's books to find a time when Obama showed any inkling toward leadership?
Off the top of my head, I can think of a half dozen times John McCain has demonstrated leadership:
So, OK. Let's hear what, exactly, Obama has accomplished as a community organizer. Let's hear how he reformed corrupt Chicago politics. Surely if he intends to reform Washington, he must have done a great job back in Chicago. </sarcasm> Let's hear how he showed some leadership. Anywhere. At any point in his life.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
"if I'm also not mistaken, the entire neocon movement has been one designed to fleece people into thinking that they are liberals and are all for smaller government and conservation"
You're somewhat mistaken. Well not mistaken, but half right.
The other half is the socialist left saying we're going to help the needy. Instead, they take all the money they can and dish it out to their friends.
(See Charles Rangel for an example. See every other politician for another example.)
Essentially both parties are about fleecing the people.
"Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to
charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the
Internet's traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy."
How is this different from Net neutrality???
No one is forcing you to not pay the loan back, or take the loan in the first place. Caveat emptor.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
For everyone who thinks Barack Obama is a corporate whore and they think that McCain is a better choice:
1. McCain and Sarah Palin are good buddies with the guy who calls the Internet a series of tubes, Ted Stevens.
2. McCain and especially his running mate feel strongly that their religious beliefs should definitely play into any decision on science, going so far as to use their own personal religious beliefs to define their scientific policy in the past. Despite what they tell you this week.
3. McCain and Palin have been solidly against Net Neutrality since the very beginning, and are solidly funded by the major telcos.
As the .sig says... McCain/Palin '08. For those of you who haven't done any research into B. Hussein Obama's history, the dude looks great, dresses great, has a great haircut, and his rhetoric sounds great, but there's no substance behind any of it except a 20-year history of associating himself with certain people who... well, let's just say a potential U.S. president shouldn't associate with such people. Not to mention that his rhetoric changes depending on his audience at the moment -- but then again, he did promise change, right? On the other hand, you've got McCain and Palin. I don't agree with all of McCain's opinions, just so you understand, but Palin is just something else. If you want transparent government and all kinds of wonderful stuff like that, then Palin needs to be elected vice president. Because of her smart decisions, people in Alaska are receiving $1,200 checks in the mail! She goes after people who do unethical stuff, even people in her own party. So what do you prefer? Do you want a president who looks great but has a shady history, changes his story depending on the audience at the moment, and promises higher taxes? Or do you want the duo that Washington is so afraid of (because all those politicians in Washington know their bullshit is going to be exposed)... I think the choice is clear.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Blame Congress for where we are now.
You know, when a bank gets robbed, and the police department watches as the robbers get away, it's certainly a failure on the police side of things, but the primary responsibility still lies on the robbers themselves.
Not that you shouldn't try to address both problems, but ultimate responsibility for the crime is still pretty clear.
(Now, if the police provide the guns and the getaway car...)
Tweet, tweet.
Face it, you and probably the majority of Slashdotters are not "the average American voter". Would you think it smart of Obama to adopt your stance and lose the election because his web site turns off the majority of voters who visit it? Frankly, I can't believe anyone who would be that inflexible would be a good President.
As an Australian citizen, I would hope that I'm not the average American voter.
And yes, I concede that the average American voter is too retarded to read more than 5 minutes, and would rather get back to watching MTV. It is that fact that is the primary reason the US government has degenerated to the cesspool of corruption that it is today.
I hate printers.
He also has a section of detail on filtering of content, which sounds like filters and blocks at the client side, to protect free speech. That's my opinion, your right to free speech doesn't imply a right to make me listen. My reading of the McCain position is that he's "going to get the filth off the Internet." Oh, and he'll provide experts to tell you what's filth.
The very first line of your post was an attack on a person. Therefore, I have no need to offer you any more respect than you gave the person you were replying to.
Quite funny that it's OK for you to attack the person, but it's not OK for me to do the same.
I am an American, making a very healthy income taking advantage of the ignorance of the god-believing imbeciles who pollute my great land with their backwards natures.
Besides, citizenship in any nation is a business relationship. I don't get all butthurt when someone insults my choice of OS or automobile.
Blar.
Vague rhetoric for a vague, completely clueless candidate (and staff)!
As an American, I would like to present this opportunity to invite you to come live here. We could use more folks like you and fewer of the kind we do have. I understand the government of Australia would never go for the swap of one of our ignorant citizens for one of yours, therefore we will just shoot one random US citizen to eliminate any balance they might have provided.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
1) She opposes putting polar bears on the endangered species list due to potential interference with oil drilling, in a wildlife refuge, no less.
2) Her stance on sex-ed is abstinence only, and with her granddaughter you can just see how gloriously THAT worked.
3) She advocates teaching creation alongside evolution in science classes, which, if you're not braindead, should raise more than a few red flags.
4) She's the governor of Seward's goddamn Icebox, so she has absolutely on connection with mainstream politics at all.
5) Any public official stupid enough to maintain an easily compromisable email account deserves to get smacked with a trout, not installed into the office of veep.
I'm sure there are other problems I'm merely overlooking at the moment, but those five should be food for thought. And re: Obama's Weathermen connection, allow me to quote from Obama spokesman Bill Burton:
"But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."
This article is very unfair. Obama's campaign simply removed technical details and put them in a PDF document, this is a good idea as most non-techie readers' eyes glaze over when there is too much detail. Sheeesh!