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."

Comments

All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[xulfer]

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.

Many have. Obama's tech-related voting record is certainly better than most candidates that come to mind. He's voted against telecom immunity, and FISA fairly vehemently in the past. Perhaps the vague language is merely a way to package both Biden/Obama's views into a single declaration? It was probably just a way to describe both of their technological goals without smearing their respective stances. Should that be the case, it's still the top of the ticket that calls the shots.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The problem is that you can't vote on actions until after they've been taken.

Personally, I'm in favour of a nice, simple system where if a politician makes a promise before an election and then breaks it, a court can remove him or her from office. I imagine we'd soon see some changes in the way manifestos were presented, and perhaps those who are not just puppets and actually intend to act according to their stated principles would get a bit more recognition since voting for someone based on their campaign pledges would actually mean something. Those who just say whatever the current audience wants to hear but never really promise anything would stand out by a mile.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Rocketship Underpant]

Hate to break it to you, but Obama voted *for* telecom immunity.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[nanoflower]

Against FISA and telecom immunity??? You mean for FISA and telecom immunity. Yes, he started out saying he was against them but when it came time to vote he voted to pass the bill that kept FISA going and gave the telecom companies the immunity they wanted. So this looks much like Obama's original technology statement. It starts out sounding great but when it comes time to actually start talking about what he will do things change until it finally bears little resemblance to the original plan.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[squiggleslash]

The GP was correct, he voted against telecom immunity in the past. In addition, in the most recent vote, he voted against telecom immunity each time the subject came up (ie for all of the amendments that were aimed at removing telecom immunity from the FISA bill), but voted for the final FISA bill (which was about a lot more than telecom immunity.)

Whether the FISA bill was a good thing is open to question, I was disappointed in Obama voting for it myself, but it's a stretch to claim he supported the telecom immunity aspect of it when he supported all the attempts to remove telecom immunity from it.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Time_Warped]

Which is why I am voting 3rd party this election. I do not believe either major party candidate is worthy of my vote. Do I think the 3rd party types have any chance of winning? Not really, but if third party candidates took 20% or so of the vote away from major parties, it might force them to do a reality check.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[TheRaven64]

I've also proposed this kind of system before (i.e. that a manifesto should be a legally-binding contract with the voters), but I suspect that the result would be candidates putting such fluffy terms in their pledges that the courts would never be able to determine whether they'd actually broken them or not.

Before New Labour (same as the old conservatives) came to power in the UK, they handed out 'pledge cards' with five election pledges on them. A very simple and powerful message. The Friday Night Armistice made a massive version of these, and each week in their first year crossed off the ones that they'd broken. It was depressing how quickly they all went away.

Democracy requires an informed electorate to function just as capitalism requires informed consumers. The same level of truth in advertising laws should apply.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[gfxguy]

The "Contract with America" worked really well in the '94 elections, though.

Honestly, there are two reasons I can think of why politicians in the U.S. won't commit to anything:

1. If lobbyists know they are committed for/against what they are lobbying for, they won't shower the politician with contributions and "gifts."

2. Legislators often buy the votes of their colleagues by promising to vote for the colleague's legislation if their colleagues will vote for theirs.

And then we need to keep one other thing in mind: riders. Legislation that gets ONE vote often contains extra pieces of legislation that has nothing to do with the original legislation. This is why I agree with notion that the president should have a line-item veto power, and I feel that way regardless who is in office.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[PopeRatzo]

So, you think John McCain is going to be better on tech issues?

I guess, since he invented the Blackberry and all. Now if he only knew how to use one...

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's a stretch to claim he supported the telecom immunity aspect of it when he supported all the attempts to remove telecom immunity from it.

How much more "for it" can you be than a YEA vote for a bill which contains it?

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.

The immunity is unconstitutional (see ex post facto) even without the 4th amendment violations.

Between FISA and the Patriot Act, why even have the 4th amendment any more?

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[gfxguy]

Which is yet another great example of why voting third party is not a "wasted" vote.

I'm sick of people telling me I'm wasting my votes (it won't be the first time I voted for a third party), and yet the same people whine about how bad the government is.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Shakrai]

This is why I agree with notion that the president should have a line-item veto power, and I feel that way regardless who is in office

I disagree. We've already made the Executive Branch much more powerful than the Framers intended it to be. Signing statements, refusals to testify, appointments to un-elected Federal agencies that can impose laws (err, "regulations") on the citizenry, warfare without a declaration, international agreements that don't need to be ratified by the Senate, trade agreements that don't need input from Congress, blah, blah, blah, blah.

You really want to make the Executive even more powerful? Are you nuts?

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Shakrai]

I'm sick of people telling me I'm wasting my votes (it won't be the first time I voted for a third party), and yet the same people whine about how bad the government is.

You aren't wasting your vote but if you live in a battleground state you really ought to consider the broader ramifications. Do you really think that if Al Gore had won in 2000 that we'd be in Iraq right now? Do you really think that he would have alienated all of our Allies?

You say your sick of people telling you that you are 'wasting' your vote -- I'm sick of people telling me that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are too beholden to corporate interests but there are differences on extremely important issues.

I've voted third-party myself when both major party candidates suck (as recently as the 2006 NYS Comptroller election) but I really don't think this is one of those times.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you all (including the editor) would read the page, current as of 17 September, it specifically mentions Network Neutrality as a guiding principle.

Seriously, the whole commenting section is debating about something entirely wrong. RTFA!

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[jezor]

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the Republicans still control Congress, by keeping it from passing anything substantive. They have 49 votes in the Senate, which makes anything the Democratic thin majority (49 + 2 independents, one of them Lieberman) does subject to filibuster (the Senate rules say 60 votes are needed to stop discussion), and the President has veto power, which can only be overridden by a 2/3 majority in both houses, so again Senate Republicans can keep any change from happening. Beyond that, regulations and oversight are the job of the Executive Branch through its agencies.

As for Pelosi, given that she (as Speaker of the House) would be third in line for the presidency should Bush and Cheney be impeached and lose their positions, I didn't blame her for saying it was off the table, as otherwise it would seem like a naked power grab by her. She hasn't, though, kept other Congresspeople from proposing impeachment. {ProfJonathan}

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[colonslash]

Who are the promising 3rd party candidates? I don't like Bob Barr at all- his page on Wikipedia makes him sound like he's not really a Libertarian - voting for the Patriotic Act, his stance on the drug war:

Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics, and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital. -Bob Barr, March 28 2002

, and this:

Religious freedom

In Congress, he also controversially proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military.

I forget which of those things he later regretted and begged forgiveness for, but he doesn't seem like a Libertarian at heart to me.

I think I'm still an Obama supporter until I see something better come along.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Shakrai]

George Bush fixed him, though. He'll never vote Republican again, has a "Teamsters for Obama" sign in his window now. He's retired, of course, since he's in his 80's, but he's still a union man. He's also man enough to admit that he got "suckered" by Reagan/Newt/Bush.

I must have met about twenty different people like your Dad when I was out on the campaign trail back in March (went to Ohio and worked with the Obama campaign). Gives me some hope that people are finally starting to wake up.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[HungryHobo]

It's a pity there's no realistic way that the voting system will be changed in the states.
It really is the case that when faced with 2 crap mainstream choices you can screw yourself by voting for someone you're really like to see in rather than the lesser of the 2 evils.

Here we have a vastly superior voting system called Proportional representation.
I'm probably going to make a mess explaining this.
It's a little more complex.

You number your choices 1,2,3,4,etc
so say there was 4 choices:

Rep:Jack Johnson:
Dem:John Jackson:
3rd party: Joe:
3rd party: Jill:

I just number them
Joe:1
Jill:2
John Jackson:3

Now say after the 1st count
Joe has 1000 votes
Jill has 2000 votes
John Jackson has 10000 votes
Jack Johnson has 11000 votes

Under your system Jack Johnson would get the seat and the people who voted for joe and jill would be screwed if John Jacksons policies were slightly better for them than Jack Johnsons.

Under PR the limit is 12001 votes to get the seat.
Now when it comes time to count the vote it's clear that Joe isn't going to get in no matter what so he's removed and all the votes for him move to second choices.
jill still isn't going to get in so her votes are moved to their second or 3rd choice.
most of the people who voted for joe or jill would prefer John Jackson over Jack Johnson which pushes John Jackson over the 12001 limit and he gets in.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[runlevelfour]

Smoking? You have to be kidding me. The only real powers the President has is the veto and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Congress and the Senate can check him/her every step of the way. My entire point is that the Legislative branch has a significant amount of power to put a stop to any President who styles themselves king or dictator, but they wont because there is no real opposition party. Bush has granted himself quite a few powers but that is more due to the complacency and acquiescence of the House, Senate, and Judicial system. No real effort has been made to put a stop to it. And to attribute that to "predefined outcome" is an excuse. If you see something shady going on, you at least *try* to intervene. You don't sit back and watch going "oh no I cant stop it".

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[jambox]

Come on, that's nuts! Circumstances change and a leader has to be able to adapt. What if he promises not to raise taxes, then WW3 breaks out and you need to pay to defend your own shores? Sorry, you voted for low taxes so go hide out in the basement. An extreme example of course but you take my point.

Also wouldn't have helped get rid of The Chimp. He got elected promising to be a douchebag and that's more or less what he did for 8 years.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[gfxguy]

Why would I feel betrayed? Bush wasn't part of the contract with America.

Bush has been a horrible president, and I'm voting third party. I've never much liked either of the mainstream parties or politics in Washington in general. If you want a real change, don't vote for Obama, vote for a third party.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[The AtomicPunk]

Yay - rationalization that your "team" is okay, because, after all - they're your team.

Please folks, there's no way you're voting for a democrat and republican and *really* thinking you're going to get change. They're all part of the same party, they're all buddies, and they all have roughly the same goals - take lots of your money, waste it, pass laws to control your life, invade other countries.

The OP is correct, any candidate for change has already been eliminated (Ron Paul, Mike Gravel...)

Vote third party. Any third party, for that matter.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, nice dream world you live in. If "congress critters" actually did that then nothing would get passed.... though that might not be so bad :P

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Shakrai]

The only real powers the President has is the veto and Commander in Chief of the armed forces

And the powers to make trade agreements. And the powers to sign agreements with foregin Governments that don't need to be ratified by the Senate. And the power to make war without Congressional approval. And control over the Justice Department. Do I need to go on?

Congress and the Senate can check him/her every step of the way.

If they have the votes. You realize that the Republicans can stop any bill they want in the Senate, right?

Bush has granted himself quite a few powers but that is more due to the complacency and acquiescence of the House, Senate, and Judicial system

Not surprising, seeing as how his party controlled all three of those things for the first six years of his administration and still retains the ability to lock-up legislation in the Senate.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[L4t3r4lu5]

Parent = Insightful.

You can't go voting for a bill which contains all of the things you were just voting AGAINST, and it's idiotic to think that there is any reason to believe this would ever be acceptable!

Here's a hypothetical situation for you; I draft a bill to reduce the criminal sentences for minor drug offences to fines (hefty fines, but still no prison time), and to revoke all patents on proven life-saving chemicals currently patented by multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies, but I include a clause which brings new legislation which states that terminally ill patients are not entitled to medical care of any kind, as it is quite simply a waste of resources.

If you're against the last statement, how can you, in good conscience, vote for bill which contains it? Voting for the bill in whole is exactly the same as voting for its constituent parts seperately. He should have voted against it until the parts he disagreed with were removed, and he's a coward for not sticking to his principles.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[nomadic]

I'm sick of people telling me I'm wasting my votes (it won't be the first time I voted for a third party), and yet the same people whine about how bad the government is.

Funny, I'm sick of third-party supporters telling me that the democrats are the republicans are "the same," which is an utter lie, and I'm also sick of being urged to vote for someone whose policies I detest (like Ron Paul) simply to make a statement.

I remember back in 2004 every political discussion devolved into people urging all of us to vote for the libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik. It was ridiculous how much support he got here, and the idea was because he was a self-identified libertarian we should all jump on his bandwagon. Now if you did a little background checking you'd find out he was a paranoid conspiracy theorist who explicitly promised to violate the Constitution his first day of office, but that's the sort of background checking that people didn't want to do. Voting strictly along party lines is stupid, whether the candidate is democrat, republican, or part of a third party.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[gfxguy]

I disagree... the media will always push some "significant" issue; last election was terrorism, this election is the economy... it's always something bad, the sky is always falling.

I do believe the country DOES have to hit some trough in order to have a viable third party, it's simply a matter of how fast we get there. I firmly believe one of the candidates will get us to the bottom faster than the other... so who do I vote for? The one that's going to make it long and painful, or the one that's going to make us drop like a rock? If I want a third party choice, I'll accept the rock in the short term so that in the long term I have a better choice.

I'm voting for who I want to vote for, period. If other Americans aren't going to use their votes to actually vote for who they think is best, they can kiss my ass.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[fabs64]

Good way to shut down a country, all hail anarchy!

And if the immunity is unconstitutional it won't be a problem as SCOTUS will strike it down yeah?

The american constitution didn't even manage to remain an upheld document till it's 50th birthday. It's time to just deal.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[LordKronos]

So let me ask you a question. Do you ever vote in elections? When you do, are the guys you vote for positioned such that you agree with them on EVERY SINGLE TOPIC THEY STAND FOR?

If so, then I can only imagine you are a politician yourself, and the only box you check on the ballot is your own name.

If not, then you either don't vote (in which case, you just lost all ability to criticize how anybody else votes) or you vote for the candidate that overall most closely matches how you believe (which makes you a hypocrite)

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Sebilrazen]

Why would I feel betrayed? Bush wasn't part of the contract with America.

Bush has been a horrible president, and I'm voting third party. I've never much liked either of the mainstream parties or politics in Washington in general. If you want a real change, don't vote for Obama, vote for a third party.

Depends, if you vote Libertarian, i.e. Bob Barr, you're voting for Obama in a sense. If you vote for Nader, you're voting for McCain in a sense.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but in this sad 2 party system - and yes it's still 2 party, the likely hood of a third party candidate getting the presidency is so unbelievable that it approaches zero.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[LordKronos]

Nice try, but I think most people would agree that the last thing outweighs the first 2, making it more negative than positive.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[azuredrake]

The immunity is not ex post facto. Ex post facto only applies to laws which criminalize something after it was done, increase the penalty to a crime after it was committed, or make it harder to obtain an 'innocent' verdict by raising the burden of proof after the date of commission.

Since the Telecom Immunity provision makes something NOT a crime after the date, it is not technically ex post facto law. Here is the relevant quote from Calder v. Bull, the US Supreme Court case which, in current case law, defines Ex Post Facto in the United States:

In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws and retrospective laws. Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective, but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law. The former only are prohibited. Every law that takes away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective, and is generally unjust and may be oppressive, and it is a good general rule that a law should have no retrospect; but there are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community and also of individuals, relate to a time antecedent to their commencement, as statutes of oblivion or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective, and literally both concerning and after the facts committed. But I do not consider any law ex post facto within the prohibition that mollifies the rigor of the criminal law, but only those that create or aggravate the crime or increase the punishment or change the rules of evidence for the purpose of conviction.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Kingrames]

Look, there are a few laws that must be passed.

Attached to each one are hundreds of laws that cannot be passed.

Until this process is fixed so that this cannot happen, Congress MUST reject every single such law. No exceptions.

"just deal" is how we ended up with 8 years of bush.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[h4rm0ny]

However, in voting for a third party, he is voting against the two party system which is the problem. Increasing the share the vote received by third parties reduces the consequences of the two party equilibrium. You'll never get a third choice so long as you keep accepting one of the first two you're offered.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[daniel.baker]

Agreed. In Wisconsin our Governor has the power of line-item veto -- and we recently had to vote on a Constitutional Amendment to redefine this power. The problem? Governor's have been creating so-called "Frankenstein Vetoes" by stitching together words and phrases to form new phrases. Giving the President this type of power (although the Presidential Signing Statements are perhaps a picture of what this could look like) is inconceivable.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Tenek]

This is the sort of thing that leads to deadlock. If everybody digs their heels in and absolutely refuses to compromise then nothing will get done (which I suppose would please the Libertarians to no end.) So we end up with things like "You have this thing which is important to you, and you suck it up with this other thing I want." Same goes for executive veto. When the President gets the bill, he has to decide whether to kill it because of some small aspect he doesn't like. (Incidentally, this requirement is removed with a line-item veto, and is a pretty hefty transfer of power to the executive branch.)

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[c6gunner]

It's a question of degrees.

Imagine a bill were to be proposed which legalized marijuana, allowed for gay marriage, forbade "abstinence-only" sex-ed and created a federal mandate against teaching ID in science classrooms, created reasonable constraints on domestic surveillance, and placed tight limits on political lobbying ... but also happened to legalize curb-stomping puppies. I'd probably put in a lot of effort to get the puppy provision removed, but if my efforts failed I'd vote for the bill anyway. The bill would do more good than harm, so why withhold my vote?

I'm not familiar with the contents of the rest of the bill in question, so I can't comment on Obama's decision, but I can certainly see that there are many situations in which a person would feel compelled to vote for a bill which contains portions to which he is opposed.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[NotBornYesterday]

Except reality is not that simple. Example: Politician 1 says he will vote for abc, but against xyz. Bill abc comes up for a vote. To kill it or to sneak xyz through, Politician 2 attaches rider xyz to it. Pol 1 is in an impossible situation.

Also, there is no room here that I see for a politician to honestly change their mind for the better.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[L4t3r4lu5]

You've taken my hypothetical situation literally. This was not the idea.

My point is that if you disagree with something strongly enough to vote against it every time the issue is raised, then "how can you, in good conscience, vote for bill which contains it? Voting for the bill in whole is exactly the same as voting for its constituent parts seperately."

Obama should have voted "Nay", and waited for it to be removed. All he's done is whinge for a while, then caved in and preached about the "lesser of two evils" or some rubbish.

Retroactive immunity should not exist, and he shouldn't have voted for it in any incarnation. End of.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[tha_mink]

IMO: Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!

Well, I'd like to point out that the United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. So, there's that.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Shakrai]

They'll go shit all over our liberties.

Yes, your "choice" here is which set of liberties you want them to go shit over. I really don't see how the third-parties are any better here though. Nader and McKinney will gut the 2nd amendment. Barr is talking a good game but he has a history of trying to repress religious freedom (Google 'bob barr wicca') so I don't believe a word he says either. I'm inclined to believe that Obama wants more gun regulation but not inclined to think that he's willing to spend his precious political capital to get it.... so he seems to be the best of the five choices that we have (from my vantage point, anyway).

So there's are differences, but damned if we'll know what the important ones are at election time :(

Well, going by his own history I'd say it's much more likely that McCain will continue the polices of GWB than Obama will..... if you think those policies have been a disaster the choice should be pretty clear.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[penix1]

That can, and should be, argued. I believe it violates the first, fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution. The first is a violation of a persons right to have grievances redressed. The fourth is a violation of a persons right to be secure in their person or papers against warrent-less intrusions and the fifth is a violation of a persons right of due process. All these have been circumvented by the immunity. I for one do hope it is being challenged but don't hold my breath that the SCOTUS will hear it much less rule on it.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[megamerican]

Funny, I'm sick of third-party supporters telling me that the democrats are the republicans are "the same," which is an utter lie

Not every democrat and republican are the same, however the leadership of both parties are almost always controlled by the same interests. That's why the "Republican Revolution" in the 90's did nothing and why the Democratic Congress has done nothing thus far.

Here is a good article explaining Obama's money cartel.

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse.

I won't bother looking up McCain's top donors because it'll be close to the same. Remember that McCain was also one of the Keating 5 (same type of scandal we see unfolding now except with a lot more money).

Neither are against pre-emptive war or leave anything off the table when dealing with Iran (including a nuclear first strike). Just listen to Obama's speech to AIPAC, which he gave the day after Hillary conceded defeat in the primaries.

They both want to "get out" of Iraq, which means keeping 50k+ troops in the permanent bases and the biggest embassy in the world. They both will add troops into Afghanistan.

Both support the NATO puppet Saakashvili (the guy who eats ties on TV and attacked S. Ossetia). Why is there a need to surround Russia with NATO and be belligerant towards them? Maybe you should read Obama's mentor and one time advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard to find out.

I'm sick and tired of hearing people say that McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term (not because it isn't true), but because no one talks about Biden running for Dick Cheney's 3rd term.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[rubycodez]

the blackberry has been cultivated for 2000 years; I believe you

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[noidentity]

So let me ask you a question. Do you ever vote in elections? When you do, are the guys you vote for positioned such that you agree with them on EVERY SINGLE TOPIC THEY STAND FOR? [...] If not, then you either don't vote (in which case, you just lost all ability to criticize how anybody else votes) or you vote for the candidate that overall most closely matches how you believe (which makes you a hypocrite)

It's a different situation. There WILL be a president/whatever elected, so it's just a matter of who, and one can either have some influence on this or not. In the case of something like the recent FISA bill, it could have been voted against with NO bill coming through. Congress isn't electing people for a position, it's considering whether to add new things.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Nerdposeur]

I don't think this is the same thing. It's impossible to find a one-issue candidate, so it's probably impossible to find a candidate I agree with 100%.

It's NOT impossible to write a bill which only does one thing, and it makes no sense to cram 50 unrelated bills into one and present it as "all or nothing."

"Raising the defense spending" and "allocating money for a corn museum in Iowa" and "funding preschool programs" should not be on the same bill. They should be considered separately. And congresscritters should demand that.

But I think they mostly prefer to scratch each other's backs.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[aztracker1]

What has Obama done to change anything? I mean, I keep hearing about Obama being about change, and about hope, and reform. But, what has he actually done about anything? Besides get elected, and sell some books. Honestly, the only candidate on either ticket that has demonstrated a willingness, and effort to really change anything is Palin, and I don't agree with her on quite a few things...

Beyond that, I don't think that change for the sake of it is a good thing. I also don't agree with the continued path towards socialization in this country. I take more of a Libertarian stance, and am very much a fiscal conservative, which makes it hard for me to ever vote for a Democrat. This is why I ask.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Firethorn]

It's also happened before; it's often called a 'poison pill'. There's been bills that even the original sponsor has turned against it due to an amendment that was attached.

Still, while this was a rather obvious version of it, how about something like option 3 is a renewal of the AWB? Some congresscritters will like it, some will be against it, and the NRA/libertarians like me will be screaming, even though before that we were meh of the bill beforehand.

Well, actually, the 2nd part would have had me reversing position - I'm all for legalizing drugs, but I DO believe drug patents are an important part of new development of drugs. It's essentially government confiscation of the company's assets. Now, adjusting patent rules, or restructuring the FDA/drug approval process, then we can talk. At least patents are extremely limited compared to copyrights today.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[AlpineR]

Most bills don't enact one binary action. It's more often a matter of degrees: "Allocate $50 million for preschool programs" or "Raise defense spending by $450 million". So even if you favor preschool programs, you have to decide whether $50 million is too much, too little, or just right.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[toddhisattva]

Do you really think that if Al Gore had won in 2000 that we'd be in Iraq right now?

Yes, absolutely. And if he had done exactly as well as President George Bush, he would be hailed as a military genius.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[samkass]

Any candidate who never bends to the realities of the situation would be a pretty horrible leader. Using votes on particular bills in Congress as evidence that someone supports or is against various philosophies is pretty disingenuous. Have you READ any of those bills?

Anyway, they're good books, and even if you end up rejecting the evidence you should at least be familiar with it.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[LordKronos]

My point is that if you disagree with something strongly enough to vote against it every time the issue is raised, then "how can you, in good conscience, vote for bill which contains it?

That's so simple, I'm surprised you failed to see the answer. In every previous case, that clause's cons outweighed the rest of the bill's pros. This time, for the first time, the balance went the other way.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[I'm not really here]

The Summary implies "Obama no longer cares about Network Neutrality!", but I say this is just spreading FUD (cue the "flaimbait" mods... sigh). The GP says both candidates are puppets, but the parent says (rightfully so, IMHO) that it may have been "merely a way to package both [of their] views...", and I think xulfer's hit the nail on the head.

Yes, the website has been heavily edited, but as I read the edits, I looked at it from a writer and editor's perspective. Nothing added seemed to take away from the earlier content (and much of it clarified issues not previously commented on), nothing removed seemed to indicate that Obama's stance on Network Neutrality had changed (both versions sate that "Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.").

Basically, when looking at this from a writer and editor's perspective, whomever is responsible for this content decided that to keep all of this content while adding the new content would be information overload. The editor kept the summary portions and removed the long multi-paragraph clarifications and expansion on the summaries.

So, to sum it up: The exceptionally verbose descriptions were edited down to succinct statements of political position, new political stances not mentioned previously were added (with verbose descriptions), and the whole thing was cleaned up to be readable and clear.

Nothing to see here... move along.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[LordKronos]

And what if you feel rejecting the changes leaves you in a worse position than accepting a few downsides? Why is it that you presume no change is always better than a change that has some downsides?

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[nomadic]

I won't bother looking up McCain's top donors because it'll be close to the same. Remember that McCain was also one of the Keating 5 (same type of scandal we see unfolding now except with a lot more money).

Campaign contributions don't automatically mean control, especially where campaign finance limits severely limit how much companies can give. I am an Obama supporter and I think McCain would continue the disastrous laissez faire, unregulated approach to the markets that inevitably cause these crashes, but while I hold a lot of things against McCain, the Keating scandal isn't one of them. I think there is substantial evidence to support the idea that he really didn't realize what he was doing, and he spent the next two decades trying to rectify his mistake (until he sold out to the right wingnuts in the early 2000s). I accept that our elected politicians will occasionally make mistakes, I just want them to realize it and adjust their behavior accordingly.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[mdarksbane]

But somehow it seems as though the democrats are failing at doing the same thing. Important bills (like FISA) that they should have been able to kill passed anyway.

If the republicans have the ability to stop things they don't like, why don't the democrats (with the same seat numbers) managed to do the same? The only reason I can think of is that they suck at standing together and being a useful opposition party.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[shma]

So let me ask you a question. Do you ever vote in elections? When you do, are the guys you vote for positioned such that you agree with them on EVERY SINGLE TOPIC THEY STAND FOR?

Maybe AC just votes for people who agree with the positions on the topics he feels are most important. Obviously if Obama really felt strongly about FISA immunity, he would have voted against it. He clearly didn't care that much about immunity, despite his words.

If not, then you either don't vote (in which case, you just lost all ability to criticize how anybody else votes)...

I'm pretty sure that there's no caveat in the first amendment that prohibits people from voicing their opinion if they don't vote.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Danse]

I take more of a Libertarian stance, and am very much a fiscal conservative, which makes it hard for me to ever vote for a Democrat.

Who's the last republican president that actually reduced spending? I wonder if you can name him. Google being the great equalizer, I assume you'll get it, but the point is that republicans haven't been a fiscally conservative party for a loooong time.

Here's a rather short, but interesting article that brings up some information that was surprising to me. It's almost like republicans get the reputation for being fiscally conservative just by claiming they are and yelling about how democrats are going to raise your taxes.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[JoJo's883]

Only on /. have I ever seen expressions of "curb-stomping of puppies" and "baby eating" used to make a point in a political technology discussion.. I will sleep better tonight knowing that creative debate minds are still alive and well on the web

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[Tubal-Cain]

OR Congress could start passing a bunch of one-topic bills.

I think I remember something about relief money for California orange growers hit by frost being pork-barreled into that bill that would have required Bush to withdraw from Iraq (and then he was criticized for not caring about the farmers). If Congress cares so much, they should make a separate bill.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[ArsonSmith]

If enough people think it'll do more good than harm then it will pass regardless of your vote. Still stick to your principals.

I suggested line item voting as a way to curb this. Similar to the line item veto for budgets to the president, but each line of a bill could be voted on as "for", "indifferent", "against". With 'for' meaning that it is required, by the individual congressman, for the bill to pass. If removed then the bill would need to be resubmitted, or pass from enough other votes. 'Indifferent' meaning that it is fine. You accept it but it can be voted out by others and the bill still be acceptable by you. And 'against' being that the entire bill is rejected unless this line is removed.

This way we'd know exactly what Obama's view was on the telcom immunity. I may have still passed, he could have voted yes to all the other parts and rejected the immunity part. There would have been no question. Of course, then it would make it more difficult to blur your views enough that you can say anything and it sound good and consistent.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[jbeach]

I'd just like to point out that "fiscally conservative" is not a phrase that accurately describes the Republican party in practice. Their proven record on spending and the budget every single time they get into the presidency is the exact opposite of that. Compared with Democratic presidents, who tend to set the agenda in ways that result in a more balanced budget, less debt, and better job creation.

One of the main reasons this is so is that a hallmark of conservative policy, "supply-side economics", where you cut taxes for the rich and hope that they spend it and juice the economy, simply doesn't work in practice.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[mattwarden]

Mmmmkay, well this is exactly what McCain is saying he will do: veto any bill that comes across his desk with ridiculous riders until Congress stops doing it.

"But if you do that nothing will ever get done!"

This is Congress we're talking about, here. Stopping the tortoise for a few minutes doesn't result in much lost ground. And if no one ever does it, then nothing will ever change.

Got it?

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[jeremiahstanley]

This is what the line item veto is for.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

[jlarocco]

The whole point of checks and balances in the government was to make sure very little got done and few things were passed. Our country only exists because the founding fathers thought being ruled from afar by a giant, overly powerful government was asinine. The original premise was that the federal government should be small, with very limited power, and should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.

The founding fathers would spin in their graves if they knew the Federal Register had almost 70000 pages last year.

WooHoo

[AvitarX]

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.

Re:WooHoo

[niiler]

Of course, if it's a choice between this and Sarah "kill all the baby seals/wolves/mooses cause it's manly" Palin, I'm pretty sure it's a no brainer. On a serious note, the new position actually does reiterate protections of net-neutrality:

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.

In fact this is his number one point under "Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets" as it was before. If you read the previous version, it goes from being a bullet point to being a full-blown lecture. Most people would stop reading. I suspect the ideas are all still there, only they are not being listed in so windy a manner.

Re:WooHoo

[TheP4st]

So, Dubya suffer from the same skin colour altering "disease" as Micheal Jackson?

It's not just NN

[Nursie]

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.

Re:It's not just NN

[Anonymous Coward]

From my reviewing, it seems that they removed details/explanation to make it concise. The overall meaning and principles remain the same as before.

Re:It's not just NN

[Capt James McCarthy]

Politician changes mind, big whoop.

I think what is really frustrating is the whole "Change" banner being waved by both parties. Change what exactly? Details please. Both have said "I'm going to fix the economy." Well, let's see the plan on paper and then let the folks chose which is better. Change for the sake of change isn't good nor smart.

The bottom line for most folks will (should) be who they believe will pull or put money in their pocket. No one feeds my family but me. So if you tell me to pay more taxes, I'll tell you to get bent. Call it selfish, and I'm sorry for being harsh, but you don't pay my bills.

Re:It's not just NN

[Anonymous Coward]

The main page got changed, not the actual plan pdf, which is available at the bottom of the page, and is the exact same as the old page was.

It looks like they just cut down the word count for people who want to glance, and hid the details a layer under.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf

Re:It's not just NN

[GauteL]

"Politician changes mind, big whoop."

Except he hasn't changed his mind, he has simply edited several points to make them more readable.

Re:It's not just NN

[Shakrai]

Change what exactly? Details please

Well, for starters Obama has (from the very beginning -- read Audacity of Hope) decried the deregulation that got us into this financial mess and been in favor of restoring some of the regulations that have been gutted over the last 16 years.

Both candidates have the details of what they intend to do up on their webpages. The only thing you can do is view those details and take their history into account when deciding how much you believe them (i.e: seems odd that McCain recently embraced regulation after spending two decades opposing it). If you are looking for "details" in the stump speeches or television advertisements you are going to be pretty disappointed though.

Re:It's not just NN

[EMN13]

Indeed, this is a non-story. The page still asserts that he's in favor of net neutrality. It looks like it's been edited; some new material was added and old material shortened to compensate.

There's no dramatic front-page worthy change of direction indicated.

Frankly, I think he should include a page on the details of various plans where possible, but the linked page is not that page. It's too long as is!

Re:It's not just NN

[oodaloop]

It's 'change you can believe in.'

That's Change IN WHICH YOU CAN BELIEVE!! If I ever run for president and try to appeal to urban elites, you can be sure I'll at least refrain from ending my campaign slogan in a preposition.

Re:It's not just NN

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, the page still contains
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.

So I think all that is happening is that he edited the actual text to make it more readable, without substantial change in his position (atleast) on network neutrality. The summary is just an overreaction and an unfounded attack on the VP candidate.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[4D6963]

They're all rich white men

You mean, except the one black guy, right?

America vs Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Every American election always reminds me of the phrase from Alien vs Predator.

"Whoever wins, we all lose." or something like that.

Re:America vs Freedom

[SQL Error]

10-second civics lesson for you: America has a president, not a dictator. Congress wields considerably more power. No single person, not Bush or McCain or Palin, not even Obama, has the capacity to wreck the country. Or to fix it, for that matter. Much less the entire world.

Re:America vs Freedom

[jacquesm]

sorry, but by the looks of it from the outside in you might as well have a dictator. Your president is ignoring the laws of his own country as though they did not exist (or at least do not apply to him), let's not even get started about the vice president.

That he has a lot of people enabling him goes without saying but it is a very serious situation nonetheless.

Re:America vs Freedom

[jacquesm]

For you to say 'Europe's ever-leftward growing interests' means that you have no clue about European politics.

There is a very strong right wing revival in Europe in full swing as you write this and it is a source of some concern.

As they say, 'education has a left wing bias', unfortunately the US of A does not even have a left wing to speak of. Nader, maybe... Not that he stands a chance of ever getting elected.

Winner takes all is the American way, this disenfranchises a very large part of the population, coalition government is the european way and it seems to work a lot better in getting some actual representation.

Re:America vs Freedom

[kellyb9]

WRONG. Congress is ALLOWING him to break and ignore the laws of his own country. The GP is right. None of this would've happened if Congress didn't give him that type of power he has. Blame Congress for where we are now.

Re:Lobbiest money.

[4D6963]

Last time I checked he didn't get any from these. But I would be surprised if you checked anything you just claimed either, so let's have it this way until someone can be bothered to check.

It's important... but...

[nahdude812]

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.

Re:It's important... but...

[Azaril]

Sorry but your implying that Barrack Obama is a force for change and integrity? The same guy who admonished FISA on civil rights grounds and then proceeded to vote for it, as well as earlier voting to support the PATRIOT act? The candidate who is against the war in Iraq but votes to continue to fund it? Barrack Obama is exactly the same as America has had in government for years, just with a cleaner, cooler image. If you can't trust him to stick to his policies on technology, how can you tell hes going to be better than Mccain?

And on your last point, net neutrality is important. Without a voice for the people, how can we hear about those issues? I mean its not like the ISPs or conventional media have their own agendas or anything...

Re:It's important... but...

[penix1]

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.

Nice attempt but overall FAIL! If you really believed in 3rd party politics, this statement is the most ridiculous in the lot...

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.

3rd Party candidates do more for public discourse than you are giving credit for. A vote for a third party is a vote for the ideals and message of that party and can sway the big two into discussing it at the very least especially if it looks like votes will be taken from them by the 3rd party candidate. 3rd party candidates do pretty well where they matter. Local elections effect people far more than national ones. That is where 3rd party candidates need to concentrate. Lastly, calling 3rd party candidates names is a sure way to get those that support them to switch off everything you say after the insults. Consider that on your next AstroTurf adventure.

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.

All well and good but that doesn't sway this 3rd party supporter especially since both parties are receptors of the industrial complex's money. The same industrial complex that is profitting so heavily off the wars and corporate welfare system we have come to love....

Because McCain chose Palin

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Because McCain chose Palin

[DrLang21]

While I don't think that's the whole story, there is definitly something to this. Even most well educated people are going to be dumbstruck by detailing tech policy. Ask any liberal arts major who's 30 years old what net neutrality really means and the chances are going to be pretty good that they either have the wrong idea or no idea at all. The community of people who wont glaze over when reading detailed tech policy is pretty tiny in comparison to the rest of the US population. That's why we often get paid more.

Re:Because McCain chose Palin

[clay_buster]

Palin may draw female voters from more income and educational levels than you think. We live in liberalville MD and we've been surprised how many folks may vote for Palin. It won't make a difference here because we're a reliably Democratic state that won't be visited by the candidates. I did like your dig on how only the uneducated would vote for McCain. It's not true but I'm sure it resonates well with your elitist crowd. I've wasted my vote on 3rd parties for the last 3 elections and will probably do so again this year to help them get public funding. It will probably have more impact on our future than a two main-line part vote would.

Re:Because McCain chose Palin

[Lumpy]

more educated does not mean smart.

I know many people with masters degrees that are dumber than a box of rocks.

So waving your educated flag around does not impress many people.

the GOP chose a woman simply because they want to get the "we want a woman in the white house vote" there are a lot of pissed Hillary supporters and the GOP hopes to high hell they will get them over to their side.

there is NOTHING intellectual about this presidential campaign. It's all about bullshit, which makes it typical.

Re:Because McCain chose Palin

[Chris Burke]

the GOP chose a woman simply because they want to get the "we want a woman in the white house vote" there are a lot of pissed Hillary supporters and the GOP hopes to high hell they will get them over to their side.

I have an extremely hard time believing that Hillary supporters are going to switch to supporting McCain because of Palin. I mean at least McCain just says the required "Roe v Wade should be overturned" mantra that every Republican must say even if they don't care about it. Palin is a full-fledged die-hard Pro Lifer. Basically the opposite of Hillary, except for having a double-X chromosome.

Sure there may have been some Republican Pro-Life women who were wishy-washy about McCain and are excited to see a woman on his ticket. Again, I doubt these women were supporting Hillary before hand. Basically Palin is a move to strengthen McCain's base, and very little else.

Net Neutrality Position Remains Unchanged

[Alt_Cognito]

"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.

WTF?

[Southpaw018]

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.

Re:WTF?

[Bicx]

I praise you sir for your calm and unbiased insight.

Re:WTF?

[CrimsonScythe]

If you look at method9455's user info, this submission is his/her only activity since registering, which is quite recently if you go by the user number (1368959). No doubt this is just another republican troll.

Re:WTF?

[CrimsonScythe]

Well, since the summary is clearly wrong, which is evident to anyone who actually clicked the link*, I have to assume the sole purpose was to troll. To be fair, though, I may have jumped to conclusions; it could just as easily be a libertarian troll. (Or even other politically motivated troll.)

* Verbatim from said link:

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.

Re:WTF?

[dpilot]

Don your tinfoil hats, please...

It appears that the media have decided that it's time for Obama to lose the election. There is nothing in the news now directly about Obama, none of his own words, there is everything in the news about his campaign with words like "beleagured", "desperate", and this "vague rhetoric" stuff. Coming out of the Republican Convention there was the "rock star frenzy" about Sarah Palin, until facts started to reveal that she is really something of a Dan Quayle. There was a brief news cycle of fact discovery about Sarah Palin, and now things seem to be over to Dog Pile on Obama. By the way, notice how Iraq has pretty much disappeared from the news lately? The one thing I did hear is that the central government is beginning to arrest Sunnis, essentially dismantling the "Anhbar Awakening."

It's certainly good that we keep being told about our terrible Liberal Media, because I surely wouldn't have guessed it from what I've seen, lately.

I had thought the media were trying to keep this a tight horse-race, because that enhances their own status and ratings, by keeping us watching. That doesn't appear to be the case. Coming into the conventions, we had a Democratic rock-star candidate against a Republican whose own party had very little enthusiasm for him. Coming out we have an invisible Democratic candidate and an energized Republican party, and as far as I can tell, it's largely done with media coverage.

Oh, and we haven't even see this year's "October Surprise" yet.

Re:WTF?

[prjt]

I don't think that, even if they try, the media will be able to disrupt Obama's grass-root campaign. Obama has run a very impressive campaign and have energized a lot of people that wouldn't care normally. No, I will not vote for him because I can't. I would though. He gave my a burst of inspiration and I and everyone I speak to wants Americans to vote for Obama, things needs to change.

Re:WTF?

[dpilot]

I guess I'll take a little time to answer an AC.

I'll give one example - the Iraq War. There was little-to-no significant questioning of the Bush administrations "evidence" leading to the Iraq war, and after it came out that the evidence was defective, and very possibly cherry-picked, with some possibility of outright fabrication, there was still no investigation.

The nation has gone to war on false pretenses, done incredible damage to our prestige and trust overseas, and those who presided over it have received no significant account for their actions.

One way I heard it... Perhaps reporters may be left-wing, but somewhere up the management chain it turns solid right-wing.

The other way I've heard, from several sources, is that it's not a conspiracy, it's PROFIT. The media has become so revenue and profit oriented that investigative journalism has become a thing of the past. It's much cheaper and more profitable to accept press releases and report them as news.

In other words, in the USA the Press is broken, and has abdicated its duty, as conceived by the founders of our country.

Re:WTF?

[magus_melchior]

Don't be too sure of that. The reports of inaccuracies, even reports of outright lies from the McCain campaign are increasing. In 2000, they were caught completely off guard by the Bush campaign's Hitler-esque tactics of lying blatantly and loudly. In 2004, they assumed that the same campaign wouldn't do the same bullshit again, and then there was the Swiftboat Veterans* for America.

In 2008, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, heck, even Saturday Night Live are laughing at the media's collective incompetence. I do think they've heard of the old Irish saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

No, don't use the Bush version. I don't want my IQ reduced by half.

* I have another name for those guys, but I'll restrain myself. If we get a Democrat in the Oval Office, I'll gladly call them what they are, since I won't be charged with sedition or disloyalty.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Actually the black guy qualifies in anyone's book as a rich white guy ... Unless you're totally obsessed with skin color.

millionaire - check
ivy league educated in law - check
wife and kids - check
lives in suburbs - check

"change" - well I guess not that much change. Okay, let me revise that, no change at all.

Obama is just another lawyer. One who doesn't have a principles stance of "freedom" but "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice".

Concise speech, soundbites

[tergvelo]

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 still supports network neutrality..

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

it does not matter

[FudRucker]

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

Re:it does not matter

[The AtomicPunk]

Although I'm sure you and I agree on how big of a jackass GWB is, you can hardly say he *created* the national debt. I think that honor is shared among a long line of democrats and republicans.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[4D6963]

Ha, but you're forgetting one thing. Well two actually, he can dance and he can jump! If that doesn't make him black, that makes him pretty fly for a rich white guy.

Re:Lobbiest money.

[oodaloop]

Well, McCain was the one who took the public campaign financing and is barred from raising money for his campaign now. Obama initially vowed to also take the public campaign financing, then chose not to and now has to raise it all himself. Of the two, it seems Obama is much more prone to being bought out or at least influenced by donors. Open Secrets shows Obama accepted far more money from large corporations than John McCain.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contriball.php?cycle=2008

Re:Lobbiest money.

[4D6963]

Yeah, if Harvard and the University of California count as big evil corporations. Refresh my memory, will you please, how many lobbyists work for John McCain again?

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[Shakrai]

OMG! Green leafy vegetables! How did it come to this? How can someone who eats rabbit food be this close to the White House?

Re:Lobbiest money.

[4D6963]

We can't even be bothered to read the summary, let alone the article, so sourcing our claims is quite a long shot ;-).

I call bullshit

[GauteL]

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?

Re:I call bullshit

[Tyger]

There needs to be a way to mod a story down.

Re:I call bullshit

[jefmes]

I came to this posting this morning ready to be pissed off, because Obama's tech stance is one of the first reasons I started supporting him. But I agree, after actually READING the comparisons, it looks more like a clean up of some of the points and the addition of Biden throughout the listing. There's nothing major in policy change there that would make me think differently about his stances. But yes, the proof is all in the pudding, and I'm glad there are sites like Versionista for comparison down the road.

Re:Payday Loan Advocate for Obama Significantly Re

[Dunbal]

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?

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[Shakrai]

Obama is just another lawyer

Could we please stop attacking lawyers just for being lawyers? Do civil rights attorneys bother you? Consumer rights attorneys? How about the lawyers who argued Brown v. Board of Education? How about Clarence Darrow (argued for the defense in the Scopes Trial)? What about John Adams (Founding Father)? What about Ray Beckerman (aka: NewYorkCountryLawyer)?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that not every lawyer is a RIAA extortionist.

Re:Lobbiest money.

[Shakrai]

Open Secrets shows Obama accepted far more money from the employees of large corporations than John McCain.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[PopeRatzo]

lives in suburbs - check

Um, Barack lives right here on the South Side of Chicago. And brother, let me tell you, this ain't the suburbs.

Also, he only became a "millionaire" in the past three years or so after writing a couple of best selling books. He only paid off his and his wife's student loans about five years ago.

He was never "just another lawyer". Ask any of his students from the UofC law school or the people at the community organization at which he worked, for about $29,000 per year.

Don't be a bozo.

Important Differences

[copponex]

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.

Re:Important Differences

[Uberbah]

1) Iran had a peaceful, democratic government. Until it was destroyed by the United States. If you want to complain about Iran's theocracy, start yelling at a mirror.

2) If you want to know the kind of personnel McCain would have in his administration, look at the staff he has running his campaign.

3) Racist bullshit. No, seriously, harping on Rev. Wright when white preachers say worse things every single Sunday is straight up "angry black man" racism. And what he said wasn't even bad: he was talking about how minorities had been horribly mistreated by the U.S. government - Wright grew up while the feds were experimenting with syphilis on black men. As opposed to guys like Falwell and Hagee who talk about how the U.S. is hit with hurricanes and terrorist attacks because God hates homosexuals.

And you are completely ignoring the hypocrisy aspect: in 2000, McCain called Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance". Now he can't suck up to their kind enough.

And chances are that Jeremiah Wright is a far, far better American than you. He voluntarily gave up his student deferment and went off to Vietnam for two tours of duty as a United States Marine, as opposed to the Bushco chickenhawks. And when he finished his second tour, he reenlisted as a medical corpsman.

4) Baseless crap.

McCain has flip flopped on every issue that made him a maverick to win the backing of troglodyte wingnuts

There, fixed that for you.

His nomination of Sarah Palin, a completely unvetted woman he met only once shows his impulsiveness makes him unfit for the presidency.

Fixed that too.

Re:Important Differences

[BraksDad]

...If you're serious about ending terrorism, you have to engage the enemy dipomatically and address the conditions that lead to it. ...

I grew up in the Middle East. I speak from some position of experience when I ask:

What historical evidence are you using to support this idea.

You can look back from today until the begining of Islam and find that Islam has been used as an excuse to ignore reason for as long as it has been around. These people do not want to be reasonable, quite the contrary. Their agenda is not one of increased security or profit. It is one of dominance and hurting others. If you want to reason with them then you have to provide them a sacrificial lamb.

Look up what they did to Tunisia back before the turn of the first millenium. They chopped down all the olive trees and took all the gold, then left for 30 years until the olive trees grew back. Then they came in and did it again. They could have easily left the cash cow alive, but they were more interested in destruction than profit or power.

There is a pattern and it is 1400 years long.

You are dilusional if you think talking with Iran will get them to put away their nuclear aspirations.

Until there are Islamic states that answer to something other than religious institutions, this will not change. That is where the Iraq plan has some benefit. If Iraq becomes a western style democracy, maybe the others will see that there is benefit to working WITH you neighbors instead of just feeling compelled to wipe them out.

I say maybe. It has never been successfully implemented in history so maybe doing something new till yeild new results.

FYI, the Europeans tried diplomacy before and during the great crusaids, you can see how that worked out.

Again, I as you to support your position on some sort of historical evidence because I believe the evidence strongly conflicts with you premis.

Re:Important Differences

[copponex]

No, he associates with black liberation theology nutcases, which are much worse. By the way, Jerry Falwell is dead.

Please elucidate, in detail, the difference between the idiocy of the Falwell and the 700 club, and "black liberation theology". Keep in mind, over a hundred people who have graduated from Falwell's Law school are in the Bush cabinet. And according to recent statistics, all evangelical private schools perform worse than public schools. I can't imagine the colleges are any better.

Obama is the not change, he's more of the same. More of the same soggy liberal nonsense that has been losing elections in this country for 40 years for good reason.

Ahh. So, you're anti-liberal. I'm okay with that, but are you voting for McCain? If so, why is he allowed to change position? Is it because he changed his worldview to match yours in order to get the Republican nomination?

More class warfare. More mindless entitlements. More appeasement. More tax and spend. More shady politics. More of the same old crap. If you think he's different or new, you're completely deluded.

There are one trillion reasons why "class warfare" is an important issue. Bush is now asking that we spend fifteen years of the Deptartment of Education budget to "fix" the free market. And no one is suggesting we reduce the trillion dollars we spend on the military every year? No one is suggesting that all of the assets held by the management of the corporations the government is nationalizing are seized and sold to offset the expense?

Strange... nothing shady about that... or any relevance to elite corporate interest being served by Washington...

Meanwhile, the child poverty rate in the US is over 20%. The child poverty rate in Denmark is under 3%, and they're closing to having zero national debt. Apparently, it is possible to have a society that takes care of it's citizens in a fiscally responsible fashion. Oh, nevermind.... this is all just soggy liberal nonsense.

Re:Important Differences

[jbeach]

I see your black liberation theology nutcases, and I raise you Sarah Palin - a fundamentalist theology nutcase who McCain would put **inside the White House**, and have her finger on the button should he die in office. Which based on his age has a 1 in 3 chance of happening - and that's not even taking into account that he's had cancer 3 times already.

Also that "soggy liberal nonsense" gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton. And the last 7 years of non-"soggy liberal nonsense" has given us a list of foreign and domestic policy disasters that now include the worst stock crash since the Great Depression.

So for McCain to be change from GWB, and Obama to be more of the same - well, that actually doesn't logically connect in any way. Really, it doesn't.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[that this is not und]

Well, Obama, as a representative of the Chicago Political Machine, isn't a particularly non-white candidate.

I mean, he was raised in Hawaii, by his white grandmother, who was a Bank Officer. That isn't close at all to 'the black experience' in growing up. He's no blacker than any other political hack from the Daley machine.

Vote with a list.

[Ostracus]

"Actually the black guy qualifies in anyone's book as a rich white guy ... Unless you're totally obsessed with skin color."

Or checklists.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[jacquesm]

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.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[that this is not und]

Okay, well. He fulfills the requirements of 'blackness' for racial stereotyping, or at least he fills in the checkbox on two items on the list, for the camera.

Sarah Palin was a star Women's Basketball player. In the 70's before women's sports turned into an 'entitlements' thing.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[theshowmecanuck]

That is being racially intolerant of his mother. Or does black plus white equal black?

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[theaceoffire]

Almost...

Except Barack's net worth is $799,006.

http://fortune535.sunlightprojects.org/lawmaker/507/


Maybe you were thinking of McCain? ($36,431,099)

http://fortune535.sunlightprojects.org/lawmaker/498/


And if you think you will get *any* change from an old man who has been in Office 30 years and only agrees with Bush *MORE* as it gets closer to election, I think you are misguided.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[Simon80]

Yes, but if all lawyers were good lawyers (crazy, I know), wouldn't the problem fix itself?

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[LordLucless]

You're right - it's just the 95% of them that give the rest a bad name.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[jacquesm]

I think the legal profession is a bit like a priesthood, it actually thrives on obscure interpretations of language and on serious consequences of failing such interpretations. It's like an arms race, if your opponent has a lawyer then you'd better get one yourself and so on. The end result is a legal system that is well beyond the average smart persons capability to interpret.

It should have never ever gotten this far.

If you simply removed all lawyers and let the parties argue their own cases exclusively we'd see two things:

- a significant drop in caseload
- a return to reasonable verdicts instead of verdicts on technicalities

Of course it's a pipe dream (especially in criminal law) but like with most extreme positions it has a grain of truth in it somewhere and it would be nice to be able to shift the 'middle ground' to the point where lay people would stand a chance against a seasoned lawyer, and where verdicts would actually make sense to an informed outsider.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[Shakrai]

He became a 'millionaire' because he wrote a couple memoirs? Huh? So writing a couple memoirs is a 'get rich quick' scheme that we should all engage in, it isn't a way for the politically connected to siphon in some green?? Well, then, I guess we should all write our memoirs.

So now we hate authors too?

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[jabithew]

Okay, well. He fulfills the requirements of 'blackness' for racial stereotyping, or at least he fills in the checkbox on two items on the list, for the camera.

Er, he also fits the white guy by racial stereotyping. Is it any wonder the blacks in America have such a crappy time if people question their "blackness" as soon as they start to achieve? It's like to be black is to fail from these posts.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[theshowmecanuck]

Do civil rights attorneys bother you? Consumer rights attorneys? How about the lawyers who argued Brown v. Board of Education? How about Clarence Darrow (argued for the defense in the Scopes Trial)? What about John Adams (Founding Father)? What about Ray Beckerman (aka: NewYorkCountryLawyer [

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. 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. There is a reason they get well paid... it takes forever to learn how to wade through the self made bullshit. I don't trust any self regulating industry very much. Yeah someone will make the 'don't you trust doctors' comment. Two things: the human body is complex on its own, the doctors can't help that and aren't the ones responsible for it being complex. But I still don't like the fact that they are the only ones on disciplinary committees. There is too much tendency to 'protect your own' than in taking a guilty party to task. 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. Job security.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[kperson]

I keep forgetting -- does having a wife and kids make you rich, or white?

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[aurispector]

US law schools churn out far more lawyers than we need, yet we have a looming shortage of family physicians since the insurance companies (i.e. their employers) don't want to be bothered actually paying them. The average salary for non-ivy league lawyers is far lower than you might think, particularly if you exclude the hapless drones working at the big lawsuit factories.

We will be able to do without lawyers once we can all agree to make and abide by the rules rationally, i.e never. We COULD do with fewer lawyers which could happen but probably won't.

I'd suggest we would do better with a major reform of the health insurance industry so every doctor doesn't feel compelled to specialize in order to make their investment of time and effort to become doctors (which is far more difficult than in law) pay off.

Re:All hail the new lump, same as the old lump.

[Shakrai]

Eh, I just don't see a line-item veto as anything more than a power grab by the Executive. Have the balls to veto the whole bill if the riders are that bad.

If you really want to fix this problem then I'd suggest starting with gerrymandering and not the line-item veto. If Congressional races were actually competitive maybe our Congress-critters would be more responsive to the citizenry.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why America will fall. As I see it, you just turned having an ivy league education into a negative point...

And, he's a rich white guy because he's got a wife and kids? Really? Couldn't think of anything else?

No, you're right. There's absolutely no change between a white child of privilege who's father and grandfather's influences gave him his education and career, and a guy from a single family mixed race household who went to college on scholarship, earned his admittance, and finished in the top of the class.

Congress creates bills, not the President

[billybob_jcv]

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.

"Change" is normal: Look at earlier campaigns.

[TerranFury]

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:

1. "You don't switch horses in midstream."
2. "Change!!"
3. "He said X, but now he says NOT(X); don't trust him."

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):

1. "Vote for new American leadership. The country needs it; the world needs it. John F. Kennedy for president."
2. "Jimmy Carter: A leader, for a change."
3. "Clinton-Gore: For people, for a change."
4. "[George W. Bush]: A fresh start for America."

"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.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[thedonger]

His blackness was questioned by other black people. I believe the quote was about him "lacking slave blood." [Charles Kenzie Steele, Jr.] And let's not forget that by having a white mother he is just as much white as black.

Funny how both sides can simultaneously make race an issue and denounce race as an issue.

Can't be bothered to vote now

[Dan667]

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.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[c6gunner]

It is called meta-color.

My colour-sampler puts him at #A67A61

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[CmdrGravy]

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

I'm sure you can have one of these things but it's hard to see how you would get both.

Vote with a college degree.

[Ostracus]

"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?

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[c6gunner]

We will be able to do without lawyers once we can all agree to make and abide by the rules rationally, i.e never. We COULD do with fewer lawyers which could happen but probably won't.

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.

Take drug laws for example. The US annually arrests upwards of 800,000 people for marijuana violations alone. That means you're creating 1.6 million opportunities for lawyers (prosecutor and defense) on an annual basis. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather open up that industry to farmers, pot-bar/"coffee-house" owners, and other related private ventures, instead of creating jobs for lawyers, judges, police officers, and criminals.

There are countless such examples - marijuana was just the first one to come to mind because I was recently discussing the idea with some friends in law enforcement. Eventually it evolved into a discussion about law enforcement as a whole, and the general consensus seemed to be that we just have way too many pointless laws.

If you want to have a society in which law and order are taken seriously, it's much better to have a few very important laws which you enforce with a high degree of success rather than having a whole slew of laws, half of which you can't effectively enforce, and the other half of which you can only enforce sporadically because you're forced to waste resources on stuff that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Not only does the current criminal code make law-enforcement less effective, but it makes the legal system unnecessarily complex, wastes taxpayer money on jobs that shouldn't even exist, and actually encourages crime.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[torstenvl]

What a troll.

The anti-lawyer rhetoric on this board is pretty ridiculous. In case you forgot, the drafters of every open source license are lawyers. Lawrence Lessig is a lawyer. Charles Nesson is a lawyer. The people representing the defendants in RIAA suits are lawyers.

Obama is just another lawyer ... who ... ha[s] a ... stance of ... "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice."

[citation needed] buddy. This truthiness crap is ridiculous. Unless you can prove the RIAA has employed Obama, that's libel. Watch yourself bub.

Give Obama a Break, and Your Vote

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Lobbiest money.

[LordKronos]

Exactly. Furthermore, Obama didn't say he would unconditionally accept public financing. He said he would accept it if he could come to an agreement with his opponent that it would be done in a fair way, with no loopholes being exploited. McCain refused to make such an agreement, and as I recall, McCain had already used a loophole to raise over $60 billion before Obama rejected public financing.

I don't get why people don't understand that the public financing is a sham. McCain can continue to raise all the money he wants...it just can't go directly to him. It has to go through the Republican party (as if they won't use it exactly how McCain wishes), or the state committes, or "independent" 527 groups that buy ad time on his behalf. So the only difference it makes is that donors redirect who their donations go to, and that McCain gets an $84 million bonus on top of all of that.

So please tell me in what way the public finance system is better than private financing? Everything stays the same except that the candidate gets an $84 million bonus from the taxpayers' pockets. The only way it makes any sense is if the candidates go above an beyond what the public finance system calls for in terms of restricting donations. That's what Obama tried to do, but McCain would have no part of it.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[tha_mink]

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

How about just smarter average people?

Re:FP!

[iserlohn]

You really have to question the submitters' motivation on this one.

If anybody bothered to read the diff, it is obvious that the page was re-written to improve accessibility, so that more voters can understand the issues. Long paragraphs were shortened and some of the details were omitted so that the page does not sound like a treatise.

Some of the items like immigration was taken out, I suppose, because it didn't belong on the technology page. A lot of the text was rearranged, I assume, for better structure.

If all you wanted to know about is net neutrality, then yes, a lot of the material that described the mechanism in detail is gone. However, this issue has been debated to death online and most people have less of an idea of how the internet works than Ted Stevens. I seriously don't think Obama has changed his stance on this, other than to put it on equal footing with other issues related to technology on that page.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[jonaskoelker]

Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves. [...] it takes forever to learn how to wade through the self made bullshit.

I've toyed with this idea. In common law, judges can, essentially, create laws by calling them rulings. If you cut down on the volume of the laws in the books--this may be non-trivial, we live in a complex world--you still have to consider all the case law. You can't really outlaw trials, or the world would disappear in a puff of disappear in a puff of disappear in a puff... ;)

So you'd have to abandon common law, or in some other way give very little influence to past findings. But, one might argue, that means that every part of every question that is raised more than once has to be answered without relying on previous answers, instead of relying on past answers and just looking at what's different this time. Seems wasteful.

Just a thought :)

I don't trust any self regulating industry very much.

I'd much rather have someone well versed with the ways of the industry regulate it, than some out-of-touch bureaucrat, as long as the regulating body is not shielded from the public will.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[SageinaRage]

If you removed all lawyers and let all parties argue their own cases, you'd immediately see a drastic shift in power to the upper class and more educated, who would actually know the law, and have time to study and interpret it. The reason we have lawyers is so that EVERYONE has an expert on the law on their side. Also there'd be a shift in power towards prosecution, since the state pretty much by definition has to have a lawyer, or at least one person who puts forward cases against a multitude of defendants.

"It's the Supreme Court, stupid..."

[Slartibartfast]

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.

Re:Someone explain why it's a bad summary please

[sofla]

If you visit the page, the information was not so much deleted as refactored. The old page had detailed bullet points after many of the paragraphs. The new page has split the detailed bullets to a second page (linked to at the bottom with a "read more" link) and then used the extra space to include information about positions on other technology issues (ex: biotech).

So, I believe it was tagged as "bad summary" (which seems appropriate to me) because the summary implies that the candidates positions have changed. This does not appear to be the case.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[Just Some Guy]

Could we please stop attacking lawyers just for being lawyers?

Turn on any TV channel less high-brow than The History Channel (and maybe even that one; I don't watch it because I'm not that high-brow). Wait 15 minutes. You will see at least one advertisement for lawyers who want you to get rich from asbestos exposure ("even second hand!") or to get you that social security disability check that "you know you deserve". This probably accounts for 90% of the average person's contact with the legal community. Can you really blame them for thinking poorly of the profession?

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[Killjoy_NL]

In the US, it usually makes you a man ;)

Secret Service (Re:Vote with a bullet.)

[HikingStick]

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...

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[Kirijini]

"it would be nice [if] lay people would stand a chance against a seasoned lawyer"

That's literally analogous to saying, "it'd be nice if the average person could every once in a while out-paint an expert painter."

Or better, "it'd be nice if a person who played a lot of guitar hero could out-play a real, expert guitar player." The relationship between what people think of the law and the way its presented in movies and tv shows, and how lawyers practice law is just about the same as the relationship between playing guitar hero and playing a real guitar.

Re:FP!

[GuyfromTrinidad]

I totally agree with you, right now it is all about telling your point in the simplest way possible and making that emotional connection (hence the heavy prevalence and inclusion of Science and Math two subjects that America ranks about 23rd worldwide at 7th and 8th grade level).

Re:Since when is quoting the Constitution trolling

[Frigga's Ring]

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.

Re:Line Item VETO

[Dare nMc]

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.

Re:FP!

[dgatwood]

The thing is, all this could be solved by adding a "Read More" link to expand out the section to include more detail. In its current version, it does look watered down to be more corporate-friendly even if that was not the intent.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[GarfBond]

McCain's income is missing his wife's, which should be fair game to include. All reasonable people would consider that "household" income anyway. Good job playing games with the percentages though.

Re:FP!

[adisakp]

If anybody bothered to read the diff, it is obvious that the page was re-written to improve accessibility, so that more voters can understand the issues. Long paragraphs were shortened.

The original page is a huge amount of text -- 5462 words on the page. This is like "War and Peace" for a web page. The new version only has 3319 words on the page and the text has been simplified.

The average person reads around 200-250 WPM for fifth grade reading material. For technically detailed information (the earlier version of the webpage), the rate can drop to 70-80 words per minute.

The first version had a large number of technical details and was extremely long. Assuming a generous 100 WPM for non-technical readers, it would have taken nearly an hour (54 minutes) to read. The new version is much less wordy and the technical details have been simplified a bit so if we assume a faster reading speed of at least 200 WPM, it will still take most people over 15 minutes to read.

What Obama really should do is make the web page smaller still - to the 5 minutes-to-read range and then have an extended document like the original page that you can download to read over an hour or two if you want the technical details.

Re:All hail the new lump, same as the old lump.

[geoffspear]

But it's a state issue. You'd need to lobby your state government to do it.

That would be the same state government that drew the horrible districts in the first place. Good luck with that. Especially since no state's going to want to be the first to do it, since the party currently in control of the state government would end up losing power on the national level. The only real way to accomplish something like that would to make it nationwide all at once, which would probably require a Constitutional amendment. Which would, of course, fail, since undoubtedly one of the two major parties would gain congressional seats in the first "fair" redistricting, and when it became clear which would benefit the other party would easily prevent the amendment from passing based on the short-term damage it would do to them.

Re:FP!

[MrNaz]

Yea, because of course, we don't want to make people spend more than five minutes doing something as inconsequential as choosing who gets to be the most powerful man on the planet.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[amabbi]

If you removed all lawyers and let all parties argue their own cases, you'd immediately see a drastic shift in power to the upper class and more educated, who would actually know the law, and have time to study and interpret it. The reason we have lawyers is so that EVERYONE has an expert on the law on their side.

Nice sentiment, but sadly, the upper class already has the power. I'm sorry, but a poor working man who is wrongly accused of murder has little chance of finding a lawyer who will get him off, whereas... well, OJ Simpson. An immigrant family-owned business has no real legal discourse if the large real estate conglomerate that leases the storefront of the business decides to screw over the family.

People talk about a health care disparity, which exists and must be fixed. There also exists a justice disparity that no one really seems to talk about. Given the proportion of politicians who made the practice of law their previous profession, I doubt this will ever change.

And one point that continues to irk me about Obama. As a soon-to-be doctor, one of the biggest issues that I'm concerned with is health care reform. Absolutely recognizing the need for universal health care and health care reform, I worry that many of the proposed changes will lead to short-term cost savings at the expense of long-term innovation. Looking at Obama's health care plan, he blames many elements for the outrageous cost of health care today-- the heartless insurance companies, the wasteful hospitals, the greedy drug companies. What party does Obama not even mention?

You guessed it.... the money-sucking lawyers. Coincidence?

Official reply from Obama campaign

[selfevident]

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

Yes, obviously an elitist

[Mark_in_Brazil]

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.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

[Shakrai]

That's why rich child killers run free because of "procedural error"

Umm, that's what's supposed to happen in our system. It's not limited to rich kids either -- criminals of from every social class get off all the time because the police or DA screwed up. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Or would you rather convict someone based on evidence that wasn't probably handled or that was collected without a warrant?

The entertainment industry loves Obama

[unassimilatible]

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?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion