Slashdot Mirror


Discuss the US Presidential Election

We made it. It's election day. Tomorrow we'll know. So for today's election discussion story, I'm throwing it wide open: let's discuss the election itself. Who are your picks and why. And also what about your actual experience voting today? Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?

1,912 comments

  1. I'm only going to say by cptnapalm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.

    1. Re:I'm only going to say by neoform · · Score: 5, Funny

      Psh. You know as well as I do that Palin's gonna start her 2012 bid tomorrow.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    2. Re:I'm only going to say by Theolojin · · Score: 1

      ... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but..."midterms" and "2012." It will never be over...

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    3. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      When Barack Obama is president, Slashdotters will finaly have girlfriends!

    4. Re:I'm only going to say by u38cg · · Score: 1

      What will be over? Have people been making a fuss about this election thing?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    5. Re:I'm only going to say by The+Assistant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      MidTerm elections would be in 2010!

      Midterms in college are probably being given right now, or maybe they're already over.

      Can't we have a break from campaigning for at least a year? I think we deserve it after having to deal with this for the past 2 years!!! Wouldn't it be nice if the news could actually contain some news? It's been a while since that has happened!

      VOTE, VOTE Quickly, and lets get on with the rest of our lives!!!!!

    6. Re:I'm only going to say by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Damn straight. We can finally get this 4 year arse fucking on the road. Bush has been warming us up for the last 8 years. Maybe this one will bring some lube.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    7. Re:I'm only going to say by Rei · · Score: 1

      Not if her nemesis, the Floating Head of Vladimir Putin, has anything to say about it. It's Alaska!

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    8. Re:I'm only going to say by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whether or not Palin decides to pursue a post-election career as a national-level politician, the real damage has already been dealt to the Republican party. Her meteoric rise is only a slight clue into the inner turmoil of the GOP.

      The 20+ years of neoconservative leadership has bankrupted the Republican party of its core conservative platform, and the pandering to the religious fundamentalists has turned off the moderates of the party. Those left are the ones who see Palin as more than she ever could be. She represents precisely the reasons why the Republican party is unable to attract new members and votes.

      Which is not to say that the Republican party and its conservative ideals are without merit. The country at this time is severely divided, and it has been the steady hand promised by Obama that has been able to attract voters this year. However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.

      That these pillars have been completely ignored in the actual implementation of policy is the primary reason so many are seeking answers elsewhere.

    9. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many votes will still have been counted for Bush?

    10. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, brother.

      We've got people here in CA standing on street corners with "Yes on 8" signs and YELLING at passing cars. Can you say "public nuisance"? As a libertarian, "no on 8" is a given, but I'd be just as annoyed by those folks doing the same thing.

      And an automated Bill Clinton has called my house about 600 times.

      It's bad enough having to deal with the media circus. Do they really need to invade my life too?

    11. Re:I'm only going to say by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.

      I'll miss it. I've grown up in this election, and when it's over I'll have no idea what to do. I remember when I was four or five years old, back around the time Reagan was elected and The Empire Stikes Back was drawing crowds, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had just started their campaigns. I remember coming out of the movie theater after seeing Back to the Future and seeing buses go by with competing Huckabee and Clinton banners on the side. I fondly recall during the first Gulf War and after September 11th the moving speeches by McCain and Obama.

      Remember the Wendy's "Where's the Beef?" ads where McCain was enjoying a big square burger next to Clara Peller with her miniscule competing burger? Remember Hillary Clinton's break dancing extravaganza? Or when Seattle Grunge Artists for Obama did their tour in the early 90s and Kurt Cobain called Obama "the real spokesman for our generation?" My whole life was shaped by these campaigns. Tomorrow I may have to get a hobby.

    12. Re:I'm only going to say by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree but I still think we should get to slap the Slashdot admins every time they stick a Politics story under News.
      They have a Politics category for a reason and I have it turned off for a reason!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:I'm only going to say by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well said. I voted democrat in 2 local elections today. The funny thing was that their platforms overall were more conservative than the republicans they were running against. WTF?

      Plus, it fits with my anti-incumbent strategy since congress has been such a disaster.

    14. Re:I'm only going to say by truthsearch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very good post. I think even if the party were to "fix" itself tomorrow, the bad taste they've left will be remembered for quite a while. I think it'll take at least 8 years before they can redeem themselves in the eyes of the public.

    15. Re:I'm only going to say by FireStormZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they are lucky... The Democrats little spat into socialized medicine (1992-3) cost them the house and senate for about 12 years. My only hope out of tonight will be the Democrats under 60 seats in the senate..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    16. Re:I'm only going to say by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

      Boy are you guys SCREWED

    17. Re:I'm only going to say by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Palin may have had a shot in 2012, until Tina Fey and the rest of the cast of Saturday Night Live destroyed her political career.

      Now she will always be linked to the SNL skits and not taken seriously. I would be surprised to see her make national headlines again. I don't know Alaskan politics, so it would be interesting to see if she gets re-elected up there easily or not.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    18. Re:I'm only going to say by bberens · · Score: 0

      Oh please. Out of Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin it's Palin who has the most executive experience. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand we're talking about a woman who believes in fossil fuels, but not fossils. She's not an intellectual sociotype and that's why people give her a hard time, but I don't think that's what we need to be focused on.

      It's also important not to be fooled by the 'steady hand' of Obama. He's still more of the same. Sure, he wants to nudge us to the left a little compared to McCain but neither one of these chumps is revolutionary at all. What Obama does have going for him is that he's charismatic. And hopefully he can help this country get out of this depression/funk it's been in.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    19. Re:I'm only going to say by Cryolithic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you fucking serious?? The only thing that destroyed Palin's career is Palin. "What political magazines do you read?" "Oh whatever has been in front of me over all the years, all of 'em" Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

    20. Re:I'm only going to say by jemtallon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, she probably thinks the world will end in 2012 so she won't bother running and instead spend her time getting ready to meet Jesus in person. Yay!

    21. Re:I'm only going to say by KovaaK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd say that Palin lost credibility among people listening any time that she went off of stump speeches and spoke her mind in an interview. SNL had nothing to do with it.

    22. Re:I'm only going to say by rrhal · · Score: 1

      You took her seriously BEFORE the SNL skits?! Dude ...

      That being said she stands a good chance of walking off with the Senate seat that may be vacated by Ted Stevens. If she's smart she'll stay out of it in 2012 and focus on 2016 (unless Obama's presidency is truely disasterous).

       

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
    23. Re:I'm only going to say by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "However, most people believe in... in free markets"

      I think that statement is very much open to debate after the last few months. A better statement would be people believe in regulated free markets. Completely free markets would just be handing all the worlds money to a bunch of wolves who are already using the global economy as a giant casino with all the tables rigged in their favor. The challenge is in figuring out the fine line between enough regulation, not enough and to much.

      It is certainly true that a number of the economic problems we have were due to government intervention in the markets, like Fanny and Freddy. Government interventions in markets are almost always bad. The current Treasury program to secretly pump $700 billion in to the pockets of the same system where they work is HORRIBLE.

      But credit default swaps, for example, were completely unregulated and a sterling example of what happens when you let greedy people do things without any checks and balances. They are an "economic weapon of mass destruction" where people were making billions writing insurance on investment vehicles when they had no mechanism to pay them off if they ever came due. John Cassano made something like $200 million, personally, selling CDS's as a contractor at AIG, When his house of cards collapsed AIG kept paying him $1 million a month because only he knew the entire history of his screwed up division. His tiny division of a couple hundred people took down a giant company of 100,000 people, and created a gigantic gaping hole in the economy its not clear even the Fed can plug if all the CDS's they wrote, come due.

      Just ask Alan Greenspan, champion of free markets and less regulation;

      REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

      ALAN GREENSPAN: That is -- precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

      He'd discovered that you couldn't trust people or companies to do the right thing when unregulated. He thought people and company wouldn't do stupid things, if it might end in the destruction of their company. He apparently lacked a basic understanding of human greed, in particular if people see an opportunity to make a lot of money in the near term, they don't necessarily care if what they are doing will ultimately lead to calamity, as long as they know they wont be the one paying the price for their misdeeds. They know that once they have their FU money in hand, it doesn't matter if they cause complete devastation in their wake, in fact in many instances they know the company they are intentionally destroying will give them a golden parachute as reward.

      --
      @de_machina
    24. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> Her meteoric rise

      Psssst... Meteors don't rise...

    25. Re:I'm only going to say by funkatron · · Score: 1

      One thing I don't really understand (I'm European) is how religious fundamentalism is compatible with a "small government" party. A lot of the things linked with religious fundamentalism in the US (such as tighter regulation of media so less offensive content is broadcast and some of the ideas about homosexuality) require a large amount of government intervention into people's lives. The two ideas seem to be fundamentally opposite.

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    26. Re:I'm only going to say by jemtallon · · Score: 0

      That charisma isn't just a novelty - it's one of his biggest strengths. People genuinely trust him and like him. The US is in desperate need of good PR and Obama could help us a lot with that. That's a big part of his platform, whether they mention it or not. He doesn't get worked up easily and he disarms people with his charm. That's a huge change from how Bush handles things and people seem to be responding well to it.

    27. Re:I'm only going to say by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      I fully understand we're talking about a woman who believes in fossil fuels, but not fossils.

      That's easy to explain: Teach The Controversy!

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    28. Re:I'm only going to say by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes I am really wondering about the antipathy against something that is perceived "socialized medicine".
      For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations. In parts it is not even effective, e.g. not providing all U.S. citizens with even basic health services.
      For a visitor of Earth, who doesn't look too deeply into the inner workings, he has to be under the impression that, given normal economic theories, the U.S. one is the most socialist system and the other nations have market driven ones (Ok... UK might be in a hard competition for place one in this race ;) ).
      But whenever someone is barely suggesting, one could have a look how other nations organize health care and at least pondering some ideas, he gets shout down with "Communism! Socialism!" immediately. So it's better to have a lower life expectancy, a higher child mortality rate and a bigger fiscal burden, and be ideologically pure than just implementing something that has been proven to actually work?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    29. Re:I'm only going to say by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.

      not been those things since the neocons took over the party. George W. Bush, whether you like him or hate him, presided over the largest expanse in government since FDR, bar none. He has increased the intrusiveness of government, and has basically trashed the free markets by, ironically enough, failure to regulate them with reasonable controls.

      I consider myself a small 'l' libertarian and I have previously voted Republican, but the last few election cycles I've voted Democrat because the Democratic candidates -- everyone from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama have seemed far more inline with my own views.

    30. Re:I'm only going to say by y86 · · Score: 1

      it fits with my anti-incumbent strategy since congress has been such a disaster.

      I agree, vote them all out on a regular interval.

      Term limits help dampen corruption by not allowing it to fester for years.

    31. Re:I'm only going to say by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes I am really wondering about the antipathy against something that is perceived "socialized medicine".

      Perhaps you should look at the details of the Clinton healthcare proposals for reasons to oppose it. Micromanagement of healthcare at a Federal level is not the key to socialized medicine.

      Come to that, micromanagement of anything is not a key to success.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    32. Re:I'm only going to say by corbettw · · Score: 1

      If only there were some other party that subscribed to the ideals of liberty and freedom for all espoused by Lincoln, Goldwater, and Reagan that the moderate Republicans could turn to in their hour of need....

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    33. Re:I'm only going to say by BornAgainSlakr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I disagree with you on one point. Most people do not believe in small/less-intrusive government and free markets. A true conservative does, but most people are not true conservatives.

      You can write off ~50% of people that are Democrats leaving you with, more or less, half the country that is Republican.

      As far as free markets go, most Republicans do not understand what ``free market'' means. Most ``free market'' people, especially those with kids, would completely freak out if we followed true free market principles and abolished the FDA. These would be the same people calling Obama a socialist while sending their kids to public schools.

      As far as less-intrusive government goes, most people are all for using government as a tool to impose their will. One side wants national health care, the other side wants abortion banned. One side is for gun control, the other side is for the PATRIOT Act. Either way, both sides are for government intruding on our lives.

      As for smaller government, national health care and the PATRIOT Act are very good examples of how neither side wants smaller government. They just want the parts of government they disagree with to loose resources so that the parts they do agree with can have more.

      --
      IANYL, IANAL, TINLA, IANAMD, IANAP, ...
    34. Re:I'm only going to say by exploder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have it ass backwards. Tina Fey is so hilarious as Palin because Palin is such a loony toon.

      --
      Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
    35. Re:I'm only going to say by HiVizDiver · · Score: 1

      /starts slow clap

    36. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vote, please.

    37. Re:I'm only going to say by Golias · · Score: 5, Informative

      Congress has been a disaster, so you vote to strengthen the majority party in Congress?

      I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    38. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing I don't really understand (I'm European) is how religious fundamentalism is compatible with a "small government" party. A lot of the things linked with religious fundamentalism in the US (such as tighter regulation of media so less offensive content is broadcast and some of the ideas about homosexuality) require a large amount of government intervention into people's lives. The two ideas seem to be fundamentally opposite.

      I've been wondering about that my whole life. Somehow hating gays means lower taxes... I don't quite see the logic.

    39. Re:I'm only going to say by PadRacerExtreme · · Score: 1

      Well said. I voted democrat in 2 local elections today. The funny thing was that their platforms overall were more conservative than the republicans they were running against. WTF?

      Plus, it fits with my anti-incumbent strategy since congress has been such a disaster.

      Based on your post, I assume you believe GW is the disaster? This is quite different from congress which has been democratically controlled for the last 2 years....

      --
      Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.
    40. Re:I'm only going to say by genner · · Score: 5, Funny

      If she's smart she'll stay out of it in 2012 and focus on 2016 (unless Obama's presidency is truely disasterous).

      Soo.....2012 it is.

    41. Re:I'm only going to say by mk2mark · · Score: 1

      And yet you're still here!

    42. Re:I'm only going to say by kno3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I get irritated by people who have the "I don't do politics" outlook. OK, you may not find it interesting, however it effects so much of yours and everybody else's lives, that it is just ridiculous to claim such a thing. OK, you didn't say that in your post, but to everyone, politics is news, and it effects everything which is featured on slashdot. Seeing as politics is so important, and this is the biggest night for 4 years, I think the slashdot admins are perfectly reasonable to have a discussion article about it on the front page, listed under news.

    43. Re:I'm only going to say by Golias · · Score: 1

      One thing I don't really understand (I'm European) is how religious fundamentalism is compatible with a "small government" party. A lot of the things linked with religious fundamentalism in the US (such as tighter regulation of media so less offensive content is broadcast and some of the ideas about homosexuality) require a large amount of government intervention into people's lives. The two ideas seem to be fundamentally opposite.

      It's a relic of the Cold War. Religious fundamentalists, like lovers of free-market capitalism, were (understandably) scared shitless of the rise and spread of (Soviet-style) international communism.

      Now that the "common enemy" is less of a factor, the alliance is beginning to crumble a bit. You will notice that President Bush did almost NOTHING to make the government smaller, and in fact vastly expanded it, content to allow the religious "conservative" movement carry him to re-election in 2004.

      For this reason, a lot of conservatives are looking forward to a McCain loss. A smacked-down GOP is going to be forced to confront a lot of these divisions and decide exactly what kind of party it's supposed to be, from now on.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    44. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steady hand, are you suggesting McCain is old?

    45. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume wrong. I'm voting anti-incumbent as well, and my incumbent just happens to be a Democrat. However, I'm not voting for the republican either. I'm throwing my vote away on a 3rd part candidate.

    46. Re:I'm only going to say by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Sometimes I am really wondering about the antipathy against something that is perceived "socialized medicine"."

      Well, when I explain it to friends I put it this way. I ask them how much they love going to the DMV to renew drivers licenses....new plates..etc.

      Then I tell them to imagine having to go to the DMV, and like with the above...wait often for hours in long lines with govt. workers who are drones that dont' give a shit, and yet have them in control of dispensing your medical care...what Dr. to see...what prescription to fill, etc.

      That usually gives them pause.

      I've seen how well the govt. does first had a few times...FEMA during all the recent hurricanes, I've worked govt. contracts, and seen the waste, red tape and incompetence.

      No...the govt. is a necessary 'evil' for some things, but, please don't put in in charge of my very living health!!

      You just have to budget in medical costs as part of your lively hood, don't live beyond your means, and you can afford health care. Most employers offer it....when I work for myself, I buy a nice high deductible policy, just for catastrophic problems (heart attack, etc)...and I stuff to the max my pre-tax dollars into a Health Savings Account...that can grow with simple interest, or even be invested. I pay for my normal Dr. visits, and meds...I tell them I'm paying for it, and they give me usually about a 15% or more discount.

      In the long run, this puts you ahead of the usual insurance thing, where you pay premiums, co-pays, etc.....I don't know why more people don't opt for something like I do. It isn't really that $$.

      But back to topic...no, I don't want the inefficiency of government, especially federal govt. dictating my health needs.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    47. Re:I'm only going to say by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations. In parts it is not even effective, e.g. not providing all U.S. citizens with even basic health services.

      It is all due to this strange, but widely held belief, that the person most interested in their health care is the patient him/herself. This does not always hold true, of course, and the opponents of personal responsibility reject proposals, that "leave the decision-making process up to individuals" (I kid you not!).

      When a fool, who used the freedom irresponsibly and chose a better car or whatever over health insurance, can't pay for care, he is presented as a poster-child for socialized medicine... And the case is made, for taking out that choice for good — along with others, lest they'll also be used to make decisions, that are worse than those made by the all-knowing, omni-potent, and benevolent government officials.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    48. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1, Troll

      For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.

      Citation required.

      So it's better to have a lower life expectancy, a higher child mortality rate and a bigger fiscal burden, and be ideologically pure than just implementing something that has been proven to actually work?

      I think the overwhelming idea is that given the way our government runs *anything*, it's impossible to imagine how they would provide health care for all citizens in any efficient manor. They can't even pave the roads properly and so I don't possibly see how they would manage health care either. And for what it's worth, it's not like you can't walk into any hospital in the united states and get treated with no money. You might not be able to get a physical but any type of emergency will not go untreated in this country. Even managed illnesses are covered.

      That's, of course, discounting all the other valid theories about what socialized medicine would do to the fabric of our nation. Increased taxes, less incentive for doctors to be doctors, less medical innovation, etc. etc. etc.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    49. Re:I'm only going to say by LWATCDR · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not at all.
      I do politics, I don't do Slashpolitics.
      I already voted. Slashdot is this giant pit of myopic zealots.
      What I don't find any use in is talking politics.
      I look at the issues weigh the pros and cons of each candidate and issue, then I vote.
      But I have never found much of any political value on Slashdot. I put Slashdot politics in the same bin as SNL and Fox News politics.

      BUT I AM IRRITATED BECAUSE SLASHDOT IS ABUSING IT"S OWN CATEGORY SYSTEM!!!!

      DISCUSSING THE ELECTION BLOODY WELL ISN'T NEWS!!! IT IS POLITICS!!!!!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    50. Re:I'm only going to say by mapsjanhere · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having lived in both a country with mandatory health insurance (Germany) and the US - there is a difference. If you're in the US, and have good insurance, you generally seem to end up in nicer facilities. Not necessary better care, but hospitals, at least in my area, seem to be in better shape.
      Having said that, I would trade back to the German insurance in a heart beat. Every time something is not covered by my US insurance, the out-of-pocket expenses balloon, and there is no way for me to get my insurance to expand their coverage. Add the lifetime benefit cap that prevents me from getting the help when I really need it, and it becomes a lot of eye wash.
      The German model is assessed as a tax, with a cap based on what you'd pay when you reach the "opt-out level" (You don't have to use public insurance in Germany if you can afford to buy your own, the cap used to be around 100k yearly income). The rumors of "don't get a bed for 5 years" are just bullocks, it's not any more difficult to get your doctor to see you in Germany than it's in the US. And at least insurance acceptance is universal, so if your employer switches insurance carriers you don't have to switch doctors.
      I'd love to see a universal HMO be established here, one that can't drop you like a hot potato if your get sick, or flat out refuse to let you in for "pre-existing conditions" if you change jobs.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    51. Re:I'm only going to say by eric_brissette · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I usually vote anti-incumbent, but this time around I simply chose not to vote for anyone who was for the bailout... which is almost the same thing anyway.

      Of course, this limited my vote for president to 3rd party candidates. In Maine, this means either Nader or a write-in.

    52. Re:I'm only going to say by VolciMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      spoke her mind in an interview

      feel free to disagree with her, but I'll take someone speaking their mind, and not the party line, any day of the week

    53. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US is in desperate need of good PR and Obama could help us a lot with that.

      Ten months ago, I would have agreed with you. I'd have said that was one of our biggest problems. But now, given the current state of the economy, war, etc...I think we need a hell of a lot more than charisma. I don't think either candidate has a true plan to deal with all the issues. I think they're both lying weasels that would say/do anything to get elected, and I believe we're not better off with one or the other. (Just like always) It doesn't mean I don't have my pick, but in the end I understand that this one vacant position getting filled doesn't have a chance to change *anything* that wouldn't have changed anyways.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    54. Re:I'm only going to say by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not much of a cunning plan. I voted to change whoever is currently there regardless of party.

      And when it comes to strengthen the majority party, I'm fine with it for now. The republicans need to be shown that the neocons and fundies are ruining the conservative party. The only way to show them is to have them lose big. I know it's a risky strategy since it could be hard to rollback policies that get through, but Bush and crew have led us to this.

    55. Re:I'm only going to say by Gotung · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Democratic "majority" in the Senate is possibly the weakest "majority" that there has ever been.

      It's really a tie 49-49 with 2 independents that usually side with the Dems.

      Add to that extreme fillabusters from the Republicans, and a Republican president that has threatened to veto pretty much every Democratic initiative and you have have a Democratic "majority" in congress that can't get a damn thing done.

      The current state of the union is not the fault of a 2 year weak Dem majority in congress, it is largely the fault of the Republican's near complete control from 2000-2006, and the gridlock they've created since.

    56. Re:I'm only going to say by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that statement is very much open to debate after the last few months. A better statement would be people believe in regulated free markets. Completely free markets would just be handing all the worlds money to a bunch of wolves who are already using the global economy as a giant casino with all the tables rigged in their favor. The challenge is in figuring out the fine line between enough regulation, not enough and to much.

      Do you realize the Fed was created in 1913, the big crash happened in the late 1920s. And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?

      Please spout off on more regulation. Greenspan hasn't been for free markets since he headed the Fed, the exact opposite of a free market entity.

      This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html

      http://www.amazon.com/Crash-Proof-Economic-Collapse-Sonberg/dp/0470043601

      http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

    57. Re:I'm only going to say by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Will the GOP regroup around a core of old-school conservatives or, after having so many driven off and endorsing Obama, will they form a new party? I was a Republican up until the 2000 primaries. Voted for McCain and, when I saw the dirty tricks come out from BushCo., I voted independent. Am registered Dem this time around. Has really pissed me off, the growing influence of the religious right in the GOP. I'm all for being left alone and just making sure that crime is taken care of and emergency response is kept active. Things have changed a lot since the '70's. Would really like a party that focused on the individual but not to the point of total anarchy that Libertarians want. Society does require personal involvement at a certain level.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    58. Re:I'm only going to say by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's the steady handOUT that Obama promises that has been promising that has been able to attract voters this year.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    59. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      One thing I don't really understand (I'm European) is how religious fundamentalism is compatible with a "small government" party.

      Fear is the uniting element. For years, the conservative party here has been using FUD to scare people into voting for them. Realizing that religious fundamentalists live on fear, it was a marriage made in heaven. Plus, the Republican party is no longer conservative. They may be morally conservative but no longer fiscally conservative. They were responsible for the largest growth in government since the great society. A shame really.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    60. Re:I'm only going to say by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      No, they have both been a disaster. Pelosi is worthless, GWB has led the republicans into the ground, and the overall country is a worse place because of both the legislature and the President.

      Take Barney Frank for example. Now here's a real gem. He fights against regulating FNM and FRE years ago when McCain and other republicans want to take a look at it. Now Frank is running on being the one who recently noticed FNM and FRE were in trouble. How does someone like Frank stay in office? He along with everyone else in DC needs to go. Obama isn't going to really change much of anything, and neither will 60 dems in senate. We need sweeping change. We need to replace everyone up there were someone new! We the people need to walk out on the floor point to the whole crew and say "You're Fired!"

    61. Re:I'm only going to say by JrOldPhart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would it be so bad if the government were able to do nothing?

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    62. Re:I'm only going to say by budcub · · Score: 1


      Well, when I explain it to friends I put it this way. I ask them how much they love going to the DMV to renew drivers licenses....new plates..etc.

      Then I tell them to imagine having to go to the DMV, and like with the above...wait often for hours in long lines with govt. workers who are drones that dont' give a shit, and yet have them in control of dispensing your medical care...what Dr. to see...what prescription to fill, etc.

      Its already like that. Well, not quite as bad, but close to it. My parents tell me that up until around the time I was born, when you got sick you called the doctor, and they came to your house to see you. They called this, a "House Call". Wow, unimaginable.

      When I want to see a doctor now, I first have to get past the receptionist, who schedules appointments. It takes a bit of luck to get an appointment that day. When I go in, I have to wait for a long time before a nurse calls me in. The nurse takes my vital signs, goes over my medical history file with me, asks me if I need a refill of a prescription that I took several years back (the answer is no) and plays like she's the doctor. Then I sit and wait for a while longer and another nurse usually comes in, and I go through the same thing all over again. Then I wait for a while longer and finally the doctor comes in, looks me over, and signs off on whatever the nurse has already diagnosed me with. My doctor is a nice guy but he's overworked like hell. The system is FUBAR, something has to give.

    63. Re:I'm only going to say by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      "For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.

      Simply not true. Health care is not a right. If it was, we'd all be indentured servants to pay for it.

    64. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Boy is my wife gonna be pissed.

    65. Re:I'm only going to say by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.

      Citation required.

      Here's one, a quick Google will show you a few hundred others all from the same dozen or so primary sources (US budgets, WHO figures, and so on from a few years). Last year, you spent $1, 975 per-capita on medicare and medicaid. A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    66. Re:I'm only going to say by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      I usually vote anti-incumbent, but this time around I simply chose not to vote for anyone who was for the bailout... which is almost the same thing anyway.

      That's how I started and then figured since it was almost the same thing to just vote anti-incumbent.

    67. Re:I'm only going to say by Altus · · Score: 1

      Consider that when the rest of the world generally likes and trusts US leadership, the dollar tends to go up. When the rest of the world doubts our president or is unsure of what our president will do the dollar tends to go down.

      PR can be very good for the economy. Faith in the government is a huge part of what keeps our economy going.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    68. Re:I'm only going to say by garett_spencley · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Micromanagement of healthcare at a Federal level is not the key to socialized medicine. "

      Even in Canada the public health care is managed at the provincial level. I wonder if many Americans who point to Canada as an alternative realize that. It's only a minor detail, but the federal government has little to do with public health care in Canada.

    69. Re:I'm only going to say by ericrost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which is not to say that the Republican party and its conservative ideals are without merit. The country at this time is severely divided, and it has been the steady hand promised by Obama that has been able to attract voters this year. However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.

      I guess I'm not most people then. I see that free markets CAN NOT work in situations where meaningful competition cannot exist. These things are best left in public hands. Electric utility deregulation is a very good example of this. Here in Illinois, we deregulated and now have Cilco the generation company making money hand over fist while Cilco the delivery company comes to the state with their hands out pleading poverty to jack our rates up 50%.

      I believe healthcare and related insurance is another example where meaningful competition is not possible. I also happen to be far more liberal than the average bear and believe that I can't see meaningful competition in things like gasoline below a certain level since I MUST drive to work and to function in America's misguided sprawl.

      I think it is IMMORAL that we live in the richest, most consumer driven society in the world yet we have children going to sleep tonight hungry, sick, and neglected. We should not stand for this as a people and I will vote my conscience.

    70. Re:I'm only going to say by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Informative

      For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.

      Citation required.

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

      Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.2% of GDP, second only to the tiny Marshall Islands among all United Nations member nations. The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017. In 2007 the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person.

      There are numerous cites in the Wikipedia article that you can read.

      I would argue that spending over $7000 per person per year in health care, yet having vast numbers of your citizenry uninsured is a powerful example of a health care system that is both expensive and inefficient.

    71. Re:I'm only going to say by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      The preceding post is what happens when amateurs talk about economics. They say things like "regulated free markets." That's like "fun cancer."

      Fannie and Freddie should never have existed. We should never have left the gold standard. AIG should have been allowed to fail.

      There. Gaping hole filled.

    72. Re:I'm only going to say by KovaaK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fact that I disagree with her isn't what made her lose credibility. It was the fact that she didn't know what the hell she was talking about when it came to a number of topics like

      • Newspapers
      • Supreme court decisions
      • Foreign policy (lives near Russia?)
      • Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (she thinks it is bad to spread nuclear power?)

      Those are reasons why she lost credibility. The fact that I disagree with her on topics of religion, abortions, economic policy, and so on don't affect her credibility.

    73. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this.

      It was the least efficient part I was concerned with.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    74. Re:I'm only going to say by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      ... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but..."midterms" and "2012." It will never be over...

      Bluto:What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

      Otter: Germans?

      Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    75. Re:I'm only going to say by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1, Funny

      I for one see no reason to plan past December 21, 2012 myself.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    76. Re:I'm only going to say by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's all quote the man who helped create the mess and has seen his legacy go from one of the most celebrated government officials of all time to one of the most hated. This man has a vested interest in putting the blame elsewhere and he played a pivotal role in letting things get to this point. Now we're going to ask him what happened?

    77. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      Consider that when the rest of the world generally likes and trusts US leadership, the dollar tends to go up. When the rest of the world doubts our president or is unsure of what our president will do the dollar tends to go down.

      I disagree with your basic hypothesis. You leave out the part where people will only like and trust the president when he's doing a good job, and not just spewing charismatic bullshit.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    78. Re:I'm only going to say by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1

      In Maine, this means either Nader or a write-in.

      homer simpson?

      --
      Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    79. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psh. You know as well as I do that Palin's gonna start her 2012 bid tomorrow.

      I was under the impression she had already started her bid, and was only waiting for the gate to open for filing with FEC. Did I miss something?

    80. Re:I'm only going to say by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is not to say that the Republican party and its conservative ideals are without merit. The country at this time is severely divided, and it has been the steady hand promised by Obama that has been able to attract voters this year. However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.

      I have a rather conservative outlook to life -- small "c", no vast ideology involved. I believe that it's best to approach things cautiously, make sure we don't leap in feet-first and screw things up before we even understand what's going on. I believe we shouldn't fix what ain't broke but this doesn't mean that there's not a better way of doing things out there. Sure, maybe 9 in 10 times the new idea turns out to not be a good one so we decide to not go ahead with it but there's always that 1 in 10 chance that it's a really good idea.

      I despise what big "c" Conservatism has become in this country. Right-wing media outlets actively seek to inculcate their listeners against logic and reason, giving them predigested talking points to hurl back in forth in shouted arguments where nobody is really listening to each other. To me, conservatism is about caution, prudence, relying on wisdom won through hard experience and tough lessons. The opposite of this conservatism is flighty, mercurial indecision, mistakes made from inexperience and the best of intentions gone wrong. The non-conservative sees a drowning man and jumps in after him to save him. And as we all know, a drowning man is going to try scrambling up the body of his would-be rescuer and get them both killed. The true conservative does not immediately leap to unthinking action but looks for a life-ring to throw the two of them, preferring meaningful action that will produce results to empty actions full of symbolism and nothing more. But what would the GOP Conservative do today? He would look at the drowning man and say "Fuck him, it's his own problem. Let him save himself," and walk away.

      And what of liberalism in this country? Why, the very debate has poisoned the word. Liberal is now an insult second only to child molester. "He's a liberal," the television ads sneer, as if that one word satisfactorily sums up every reason not to vote for someone. That's bullshit.

      What is a liberal? A liberal is someone who is unsatisfied with the status quo. He worries that his conservative friend is too comfortable with the way things are and sees a better future in the way things could be. In a healthy political environment, there is give and take between both positions. Perhaps the liberal reaches too far, perhaps the conservative isn't reaching far enough. Through vigorous debate the public is informed of the issues and will decide who they agree with.

      The thing about status quos, there's always going to be someone at the top of the pyramid quite happy with the way things are and there will always be many more people at the bottom wanting to change it. In this case, the conservative will want to exert every effort to keep things the way they are while liberals will want to bring about reforms, democratize the process, make things more fair. This is the crux of the matter, the heart of the conflict. Read Roman history and this back and forth feels utterly familiar. Change the names and dates and it could be pulled from our own newspapers.

      The people are abandoning the Republican Party because they feel they're getting screwed. In other countries, sovereignty resides with the wealthy and the people have no voice as a matter of law. In America, sovereignty resides with the people, not a king, not an aristocracy, not a priesthood. This is a country by, of, and for the people. And right now what the people are seeing is a huge screw-job, marshaling the resources of this vast land to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Wall Street is screwing us over. Polit

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    81. Re:I'm only going to say by demachina · · Score: 1

      "They say things like "regulated free markets." That's like "fun cancer.""

      All I can say is you are delusional if you think totally free markets are going to work in this world. You are going to end up with massive gaming of the system by a bunch of smart people with computers, and free market forces wont correct them or stop it. You, sir have an idealistic view of the world, that simply wont work in practice. You will end up with a few extremely rich people and everyone else poor, starving, living in slums, and pissed off. Kind of like the U.S. was around 1900 with a bunch of robber barons and everyone else screwed. It led to the rise of the Progressive Party under Teddy Roosevelt to try to rein in all the excesses of the free markets.

      --
      @de_machina
    82. Re:I'm only going to say by lluBdeR · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're exactly right: That is most likely how America would implement socialized medicine. It's also the reason you're in this mess in the first place.

      I live in Ontario (Canada). We have socialized medicine. I go the doctor of my choice and OHIP pays for it. I go to whatever hospital I need to, get whatever needs doing done and OHIP pays for it. I can have tests done at whatever lab is convenient for me and OHIP pays for it.

      Are our waiting rooms full? Yes, for two reasons: Free systems are abused and people are stupid. Instead of using the second hour they're sitting in emergency to ponder whether or not they really need to be there, they go off on half-cocked rants and diatribes that Americans misunderstand and use to fuel the anti-socialized camps. Notice how neither reason was government inefficiency?

    83. Re:I'm only going to say by Cornflake917 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would it be so bad if the government were able to do nothing?

      No, it would be totally awesome if the government wasn't able to do anything. I mean, look at Hurricane Katrina. That was so awesome when the government failed to prevent/prepare for/respond to that disaster. I just get warm fuzzies inside every time I think about it.

    84. Re:I'm only going to say by Vancorps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ironically the DMV lines in VT and here in AZ aren't long at all, I've always got right in not having to wait longer than 5 minutes.

      Of course DMVs are state managed, not federally managed so it's not really an apt analogy anyways unless you're trying to prove why universal health-care would work.

      In VT, all children have healthcare and it seems to be working out quite well so far. Of course that's a small scale as the city of Phoenix has a larger population than the whole state of VT. Still, I don't see why it can't work. The problem becomes less about how to individually pay for healthcare and more about paying for training to have more doctors and nurses since the load will increase if everyone is suddenly covered.

      That would be an argument to phase in coverage slowly over several years so the system has a chance to ramp up their resources.

      There are problems with all systems but I think the problems of a universal healthcare system would be easier to solve than the people today that go bankrupt after a major surgery they needed to save their life.

    85. Re:I'm only going to say by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      I am happy it will be over and idiots that think this counts as a slashdot
      story will stop asking lame questions like these

    86. Re:I'm only going to say by Snocone · · Score: 1

      For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.

      That reason is the U.S. legal system. Estimates vary widely, go Google the arguments yourself, but commonly agreed ranges seem to be that around 12%-16% of medical expenditure is directly consumed by costs of litigation and insurance to protect against its effects, while somewhere between 10%-25% is wasted on redundant consultations, unnecessary testing, and general CYA twaddle to reduce the likelihood of a malpractice conviction. (That one is necessarily a much wider range because people can reasonably differ on what is actually "unnecessary" ... but compared to treatment of similar illnesses in socialized systems, it's a lot closer to the 25% mark.)

      So basically, if you changed nothing but limited physician liability and ability of patients to sue to the levels which are allowable under socialized systems -- which is "slim", where it is not actually "none" -- overnight the expense would plummet and efficiency skyrocket.

      However, if you propose to any USian that they should have no more right to sue their doctor than a Canadian has to sue their government, or a Brit has to sue the NHS, etc., you are just not going to get very far, dude.

      And without that reform, U.S. health care is simply on a fundamentally different cost basis than anywhere else. There's lots of other little (and some not so little!) details to work over, but all together none of them come close to the U.S. culture of litigation as the real fundamental problem here.

    87. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      An American explained this to me a couple of years ago here on Slashdot, but unfortunately I can't find that post now. But here's the essence of it:

      The huge insurance bureaucracy which makes American healthcare so expensive may seem like a bad thing to us Europeans, but to Americans it serves an important purpose. Americans are willing to pay more than in other industrialized countries for their healthcare, not to get better healthcare (they know they won't) but to keep healthcare away from those who can't pay.

      This sociopathic tendency is what makes it so difficult for a European and an American to understand eachother in a discussion about healthcare financing. To the European it's unthinkable and to the American it's self-explanatory.

    88. Re:I'm only going to say by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      I would say it hasnt been the republican party's policies that have bankrupted them. It has been their lack of outreach. While the republicans were being smug in their conservative voter base, the democrats were making their platform look cool and trendy to the world. Go ahead look around, is it easier to admit you are a democrat or a republican? Even in my state, very very republican, it is almost a sin to say you are republican in public. Because it is equivalent to saying you are a close minded bigot who cannot think for themselves. While the cool kids are all democrat and free thinkers movers and shakers. me? Im an independent elitist, we are hated by all.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    89. Re:I'm only going to say by demachina · · Score: 1

      I'm not gonna bite and defend the Fed, dude, so your troll didn't work. It has served a useful purpose at times, in particular it was formed to try to stop the serious panics that were happening in the U.S. every decade or two prior to its creation. It was also a legitimate thing to create an entity that managed the money supply, had some visibility and supposedly served in the public interest. It sought to replace a tiny group of New York bankers, like J.P. Morgan, who had been doing the same functions behind closed doors at their own initiative and were often serving their own interests ahead of the intrests of the nation.

      On the other hand the Fed is composed of flawed human beings who pander to the interests more or less of a handful of New York bankers too. For all the good its done its probably done just as much damage. It has a kind of karmic balance in that.

      --
      @de_machina
    90. Re:I'm only going to say by bonehead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and you have have a Democratic "majority" in congress that can't get a damn thing done.

      This is exactly what we want, and why an Obama victory is so dangerous at this point in time.

      Every time the government sticks their nose into something, it turns into a steaming pile of shit. We WANT gridlock in Washington. We WANT them to be unable to get much done.

      It's simply WAY too fucking dangerous to have the same party in control of both the legislative and executive branches of government, regardless of which party it is. What people complain about as "gridlock" is actually one of the few things that keeps this country from going down the tubes even faster.

      Our founding fathers had a different name for it, though. They didn't call it "gridlock". They called it "checks and balances".

    91. Re:I'm only going to say by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      An essentially 50-50 congress (remember kids, Lieberman is a Democrat in name only) means that it's controlled by the Democrats? The fact the Bush can veto any bill passed by a slim majority means that the democrats hardly had any control in the last two years. Don't be to upset though, you'll be able to blame the Democrats all you want after today.

    92. Re:I'm only going to say by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      All I can say is you are delusional

      aka, "libertarian".

    93. Re:I'm only going to say by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't the "neoconservative leadership" in the Republican party, but rather those who have sold out. A great many Republicans ran on a platform of conservatism and then once they got into power they ended up taxing & spending as much if not more than their Democratic predecessors.

      It didn't help when the Republican party threw Newt Gingrich under the bus at the first hint of trouble, and have repeatedly shown a tendency of abandoning those folks just when the political heat gets turned up a little bit. Had the Democrats done this, Bill Clinton wouldn't have been re-elected for a 2nd term and Hillary would have been known only as a former first lady.

      I don't know if the Democratic tendency of sticking with their leaders no matter how corrupt or bizzare their behavior might be is good either, like sleeping with same-sex congressional pages or laundering money in the congressional post office.

      Both major political parties have shown a strong self-interest and haven't really cared about ordinary citizens except when it comes time to get their vote.

    94. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      I also happen to be far more liberal than the average bear and believe that I can't see meaningful competition in things like gasoline below a certain level since I MUST drive to work and to function in America's misguided sprawl.

      Um. Ok. Of course you *could* move out of the sprawl somewhere where you could commute with no petrol footprint. Ah...nevermind. That would require you to *do* something.

      I think it is IMMORAL that we live in the richest, most consumer driven society in the world yet we have children going to sleep tonight hungry, sick, and neglected. We should not stand for this as a people and I will vote my conscience.

      OMFG. OMFG. You must be a youngster. If you think it's immoral, then I assume that you're giving all of your non-essential moneys to the poor and volunteering all of your spare time to shelters, food kitchens, etc. But, of course, no...you're not. You just think that the government should take care of everybody. (I assume you think that by your comments) How about this...how about everybody takes responsibility for what they do and when the consequences pile up, suck it up and accept them. Can't afford to feed a child? Don't have one or give it up for adoption. Can't afford a car? Don't buy one. Bought one anyways, and now you can't afford health insurance...die already.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    95. Re:I'm only going to say by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then I tell them to imagine having to go to the DMV, and like with the above...wait often for hours in long lines with govt. workers who are drones that dont' give a shit, and yet have them in control of dispensing your medical care...what Dr. to see...what prescription to fill, etc.

      Or, like, going to the post office and waiting often for minutes in short lines with government workers who are helpful and fri... wait, that wouldn't back up your example.

      Or that other institution I stopped going to, er, what was the name? The one that sells you stuff but has unhelpful workers who don't give a shit, where you wait in long lines to buy anything, and which doesn't care what it sells you (working, non working, whatever.) What was that government institution called again?

      Oh yeah, Wal-mart.

      I think it's intellectually dishonest to find one example of a government department that's bad at its job (and then only in certain areas. Honestly, I don't normally have to wait for hours at any DMV I've been to) and treat that as typical, and ignore the fact the free market doesn't exactly produce the best results either. And, here's the thing, it's not as if healthcare is particularly well run at the moment. Who hasn't been through the "Who pays of this?" mill.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    96. Re:I'm only going to say by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I doubt many Americans know, nor do many care. Oddly enough, I do know that, but only because my wife's family used to summer in Canada.

      If HillaryCare had been done like the Canadian system, we might have been able to have a rational debate on the subject. As was, the way it was designed (both from the POV of the result of the design and the process of the design) left a bad taste in so many people's mouths that even the guys in favour of socialized medicine couldn't stomach it.

      Note, for the record, that I am in favour of socialized medicine on even-numbered days, and opposed on odd-numbered days. I can see the benefits to both sides of the argument, and the problems with both sides of the argument, and will argue either side depending on the mood of the moment.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    97. Re:I'm only going to say by Shotgun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Term limits are nearly impossible to implement in practice. Instead, of aiming at the head, aim at the heart of the problem. Push for all candidates to sign a pledge that congressional committee appointments will be by random selection.

      Ted Stevens stayed in the Congress so long, because he was able to "bring home the pork." Alaskans would be insane to drop a political figure that was able to bring in money from Florida to pay for things in Alaska. He was popular with Alaskans because he was able to get money to pay for things they wanted without raising their taxes.

      Ted Stevens was able to "bring home the pork" because he sat on powerful committees. But I ask you, why should Ted Stevens be any more powerful than Elizabeth Dole? Why should Alaska have more representation in Congress than North Carolina? Why should someone who's been hanging around for 30yrs have more control than the 'new blood' we periodically send in to fix things.

      Spread the power around. Randomize committee selection. Get to the real power and disburse it.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    98. Re:I'm only going to say by mclaincausey · · Score: 1
      Yeah, pay taxes for nothing, that sounds great! More bridge collapses and crappy emergency response, no education, and being completely vulnerable to any nefarious loons who want to perpetrate acts of terror against us. Sounds like paradise!

      What is with this lunatic obsession with killing off the government?

      --
      (%i1) factor(777353);
      (%o1) 777353
    99. Re:I'm only going to say by LatencyKills · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm going to disagree for one very fundamental reason: the congress makes legislation, the president in the end can only sign it or not sign it, and the leadership of the House (Pelosi) gets to ultiimately decide what legislation comes to the floor for a vote. When the democrats in congress were making all kinds of noise about getting the soldiers out of Iraq they passed legislation to do exactly that, and Bush refused to sign it. The Republican talking heads howled about the Democrats not supporting the troops, and the Dems folded like a lawnchair. Pelosi should have gone on TV, called the Republicans disingenuous pricks, said that legislation giving the troops all the money they could possibly need to come home was sitting on Bush's desk any time he wanted to sign it, and moved on to the next piece of legislation. The same thing happened with the renewal of the Patriot Act, and the telecom immunity, etc, etc, etc. The Democrats don't want to be seen as weak on defense, when in fact by failing to stand up for any piece of legislation they believe in or blocking something they don't they appear just plain weak.

      --
      Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
    100. Re:I'm only going to say by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

      The Federal Reserve also panders to big businesses. When the money supply is increased, big banks get the money. They loan it out to corporations and the likes. Small businesses and individuals who do not run these banks and corporations get screwed. They have to suffer and socialize the losses when the economy ebbs. During the flows, they see little of the expanded money supply. Fiat currency is a way to keep the poor and less fortunate down.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    101. Re:I'm only going to say by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      Then I tell them to imagine having to go to the DMV, and like with the above...wait often for hours in long lines with govt. workers who are drones that dont' give a shit, and yet have them in control of dispensing your medical care...what Dr. to see...what prescription to fill, etc.

      I'm really not sure that that's worse than giving that power to insurance companies. And at least with the government, you'd take the profit margins out of it.

      The core problem is that some available medical treatments are frankly too expensive to be worth it--but if it's your life on the line it's worth anything to you. Perhaps if you need a heart transplant after 20 years of smoking and steaks you should, you know, die. Or at least pay for it yourself--if you have to foot the bill for a treatment for $100K you might be more inclined to make better choices.

      Until that happens, we'll all have to share those costs. Since there is no upper limit on the expensive treatments that can be dreamed up, costs are going to continue to rise for all of us.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    102. Re:I'm only going to say by ThreeE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can call me delusional all day, but this country (the US) faces a global market. If you regulate our economy as you suggest (and who decides how much regulation is enough?), you will simply make our entire country non-competitive. We will all be equal -- equally poor.

      You are the idealist -- some people (often the smart ones you deride) deserve to be rich. Others deserve to be poor.

    103. Re:I'm only going to say by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And what's most amazing of all is that the US spends *more government money per capita* on healthcare than most other nations, ahead of Canada, Germany, and many others. Citation.

    104. Re:I'm only going to say by circusboy · · Score: 1

      I wonder if anyone else agrees with me that the short name for a deregulationist neo-con is "anarchist"

      --
      -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
    105. Re:I'm only going to say by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I agree. I thought it was wonderful that the current U.S. Congress has had its lowest rate of passing legislation in the past 50 years.

      The stuff that is getting passed is usually important enough and has enough consensus to really be worth getting passed, and the meat grinder legislation is usually not getting through.

      Sounds like a good thing to me.

      If anything scares me more, is a legislator who claims he is working by getting laws passed. A vast majority of the time of a legislator ought to be seeing that stuff doesn't get passed, or at least strongly questioning the rationale for change.

      When I've sat on legislative bodies myself, it amazes me how much just gets through out of sheer apathy of those who are supposed to be voting on the issues. Well, that and how powerful the "staff" tends to be in terms of setting and determining the agenda even though they don't have a formal vote. In order to get things done, I usually have to piss off a staff member or two along the way, and usually it is fighting bureaucratic inertia to even try. The bodies I've sat on are of relatively minor consequence as well.

    106. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This man has a vested interest in putting the blame elsewhere...

      ...and yet the quote you're referring to is him saying "oops, looks like I was wrong."

    107. Re:I'm only going to say by LordEd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then I tell them to imagine having to go to the DMV, and like with the above...wait often for hours in long lines with govt. workers who are drones that dont' give a shit, and yet have them in control of dispensing your medical care

      Yeah, my house was on fire and I had to wait for 3 hours before i got to the front of the line to ask them for a fire hose. If I could have paid for the firemen myself, I would have had my house out in 2 minutes!

      Then again, my insurance company might not have paid for them because that carpet was really just cosmetic and not really needed.

    108. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother with 2012, I thought the world ended on 12/21/2012 anyway.............

    109. Re:I'm only going to say by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you realize the Fed was created in 1913, the big crash happened in the late 1920s. And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?

      The Fed was created in response to numerous crashes and bank failures that had preceded it. Here's a thought - look at the economic history of the US post Fed and then look at it pre-Fed. Which economy was the more stable?

      This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:

      Since 2002? Obviously you didn't read the numerous Ron Paul Newsletters when it was revealed what vile garbage the man spouted during the early nineties. 'cos he was predicting economic collapses then too.

      If you sit there predicting economic collapses due to government intervention every day, then when there's a crash and it's in a country with a government, you are pretty much guaranteed to be able to claim you predicted the crash and that it was due to government intervention. Here's reality though: various unregulated banks sold crappy ARMs to people without checking (or rather, without caring) if they were able to pay back the loans.

      Is the solution to allow all banks, including the biggest, to sell awful mortgages to everyone and never verify they can pay the loans back, or is it to outlaw (regulate) those kinds of practices?

      (Or is it to blame ethnic minorities by claiming a law against discrimination which only affected regulated banks, and which mandated credit checks anyway, had some kind of role in this? 'cos despite the complete dishonesty of such an argument, that seems to be where the right wing are heading at the moment. It's the 1930s all over again, and I'm not talking about the American 1930s either...)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    110. Re:I'm only going to say by flyingsquid · · Score: 0, Troll

      feel free to disagree with her, but I'll take someone speaking their mind, and not the party line, any day of the week

      Give me a freakin' break. "speaking their mind"? She 'spoke her mind', and there was nothing on it. It's just gibberish. There are signing apes that can communicate more coherently. It's the same deal as Bush: her language isn't awkward because she has trouble finding the right words to express her thoughts, it's because her thoughts themselves are poorly formed.

      As for not speaking the party line, that's bullshit too. The only time she sounds coherent is when she's repeating pre-programmed phrases handed to her by Republican Party speechwriters. That's why she performs so well in speeches and in the highly structured format of the VP debate, but completely screws up in interviews.

      The Republican party gave her a remarkable opportunity to show her stuff on a national stage. Not only did she blow it, she helped take McCain and her party down with her.

    111. Re:I'm only going to say by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Palin may have had a shot in 2012, until Tina Fey and the rest of the cast of Saturday Night Live destroyed her political career.

      SNL can't write anything funny unless it's basically handed to them. Think about it.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    112. Re:I'm only going to say by Paranatural · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you that blind?

      This is *already* how it's done.

      I had the misfortune of teaching at a medical vocational school. The...people I taught have convinced me to never ever go to see a doctor if I can possibly help it. As an example, one of the courses I taught was Math. Wanna know where we started? Decimals. As in 0.5 + 0.5 = 1. They usually managed to muddle through that. Up next was fractions. The concept that 1/2 + 1/2 != 2/4 was something that took a whole lot of time and effort to pound through their heads. All of these kids were 18+ years old.

      I eventually left because the Administration of the school was pressuring me to pass students, because if we failed them they didn't get the tuition money to pay us. And because it's a for-profit institution, that's pretty much all the administration cared about.

      All of these type students are getting jobs in the medical industry, right now, at this moment. DMV workers are quite frankly of a higher caliber. And the main difference between DMV workers and the MAs and Coders (Medical Coders) I taught was that DMV workers actually have no particular reason to reject you from the system, whereas the medical students I taught will be pressured by insurance companies to not cover you. So that means you have the same caliber of people who would actually need to fight on your behalf to get you the medical coverage you pay for.

      To you, this is more efficient. To me, this is the height of inefficiency.

    113. Re:I'm only going to say by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      Good point. Also the seminal issue, abortion. I have consistently failed to understand how a "small government" party deems itself responsible to tell me what to do with my body.

      If they can figure out how to be really small government--less intrusion, lower taxes, less spending, less police state, less war--then they'll be a force to be reckoned with. Until then, they want to have their cake and eat it too--smaller government except when more governmental control suits their religious ideology.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    114. Re:I'm only going to say by Shotgun · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe you prefer a great father in Washington to take care of all your ills and order your coming and goings, but a great many of us actually have a spine and prefer freedom. We're called adults. We do things like say, "Hmmm? A hurricane is coming and I live in a coastal city below sea level. Maybe I should get the hell outta' the way?" If we decide not to get out of the way, we don't whine that someone didn't come to take care of our ills.

      The adults among us do much better when the government does nothing.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    115. Re:I'm only going to say by SimonGhent · · Score: 1

      You know as well as I do that Palin's gonna start her 2012 bid tomorrow

      Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world (and yes, I have check with them), please, please, don't ever let this woman anywhere near the driving seat.

      --
      simon
    116. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    117. Re:I'm only going to say by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would. The government exists to get things done.

    118. Re:I'm only going to say by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      And in a few years you will have the exact same situation. The problem isn't the actors, it is the stage.

      Push for your candidates to pledge to randomize committee selection in the legislature. Get rid of the powerlock that long time incumbents have. Once that is done, new people will actually have a chance of doing something that makes sense.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    119. Re:I'm only going to say by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It's the drama. It feeeeeds us.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    120. Re:I'm only going to say by Calibax · · Score: 1

      "Health care is not a right. If it was, we'd all be indentured servants to pay for it.

      Why isn't health care a right in the US? It is in most other developed countries. According to UN statistics, France has the best health care system in the world. I don't see them as indentured servants.

      Even the UK, where health care is certainly a right, has a higher standard of living than the US, according to a recent report by Oxford Economics, a consultancy firm.

      A healthy population that lives longer is more productive so it's good for the economy also.

    121. Re:I'm only going to say by dfarcanjo · · Score: 1

      I can't understand why this was moderated "+5 Insightful". It's really that much of a consensus that the election period wore you out? Or it was annoying or boring?

      I thought it was AWESOME! This has got to be the most interesting election ever. You've got candidates who are diametrically opposite in a lot of aspects, funny VP buddies, and enough discussions and arguments to satisfy all possible tastes. There were smart, dumb, biased, impartial, shallow, deep, all kinds of arguments about what would happen if this or that guy won.

      And the jokes - oh my! I've yet to be so grateful to a candidate for providing so many jokes like some in this election. I swear, normal entertainment took a step aside during the past few months, so funny were the stuff the candidates would say or the media would come up with.

      Seriously, I wish it would last longer. If only we could be sure to have this much fun every few years...

    122. Re:I'm only going to say by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      In general, Canada's provincial governments have much more power than the federal government.

      You know, how America's is supposed to work, and did work, until the 1860s.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    123. Re:I'm only going to say by Danse · · Score: 1

      No...the govt. is a necessary 'evil' for some things, but, please don't put in in charge of my very living health!!

      From what I understand of Obama's plan, you could still keep your regular health insurance plan. The idea is to make sure that there is at least some health care available to everyone and that all children are covered in some way. You can still keep your existing health plan. It focuses more on providing preventative care such as routine physicals and various types of screenings. This should help people catch problems earlier before they end up becoming much harder to treat and a lot more expensive, which we'll end up paying for when the person shows up in the emergency room.

      It makes a lot of sense. Existing plans continue. Everyone is covered for the basics, leading to better general health and lower costs to taxpayers for emergency care and hospitalization. The info on the full plan is available. As is the FAQ.

      McCain and Obama are presenting plans that have a lot more similarities than differences. They are both fairly vague, both in the reforms they will make, coverage they will provide, and how they will be paid for. A lot of that will be up to Congress to decide anyway. The plans seem to set the goals, and then they're going to have to fight to meet as many of those goals as they can. That's going to be tough in the current financial situation.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    124. Re:I'm only going to say by seyyah · · Score: 2, Funny

      You just have to budget in medical costs as part of your lively hood, don't live beyond your means, and you can afford health care. Most employers offer it....when I work for myself, I buy a nice high deductible policy, just for catastrophic problems (heart attack, etc)...and I stuff to the max my pre-tax dollars into a Health Savings Account...that can grow with simple interest, or even be invested. I pay for my normal Dr. visits, and meds...I tell them I'm paying for it, and they give me usually about a 15% or more discount.

      Well maybe it's time you move to a hood that is less lively. That'll help keep down the medical costs for problems like muggings and gunshot wounds.

    125. Re:I'm only going to say by BrainInAJar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And people who don't blow their money on stupid shit, but still don't make enough to afford to both eat, pay rent, and have healthcare?

      Just lazy I guess, let 'em die like a dog...

    126. Re:I'm only going to say by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I entirely agree, though I'm no Paul supporter.

      ANY regulation is too much. Government involvement caused the crisis we're in today, and what is the proposed solution? Why, more government involvement!

      Its like gun control --- lets try to keep guns out of the hands of citizens, and crime subsequently goes up. OMG - look at that - the solution is obviously more gun control laws!

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    127. Re:I'm only going to say by zizzybaloobah · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually think about how great it would be if Congress really did accomplish nothing.
      • No more bailouts
      • No more earmarks and pork
      • No more telecom immunity
      • ...
    128. Re:I'm only going to say by alzoron · · Score: 1

      You just have to budget in medical costs as part of your lively hood, don't live beyond your means, and you can afford health care.

      This same mentality would have also saved us a lot of the trouble of this financial meltdown. If all these people would have put aside the money they were saving from their super low rate mortgages instead of living frivolously they would have been prepared for a raise in their monthly payments. A lot of people seem to want to blame the banks for being deceptive, but come on, they're called " adjustable rate mortgages", not "low rate until you find a better one mortgages". You don't even need to read the contract to know they could change.

      Most of the world's problems would be lessened quite a bit if people would follow one piece of advice: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."

    129. Re:I'm only going to say by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      various unregulated banks sold crappy ARMs to people without checking (or rather, without caring) if they were able to pay back the loans.

      Actually, as GP said, due to CRA, banks were REQUIRED to give ARMs to people, regardless of their ability to pay them back. They then did what any business would do, and packaged them with real securities and sold them as a group, to try to offload the bad debt they were forced to incur. Investment banks purchased those, and that's how we got in this situation.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    130. Re:I'm only going to say by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      The closest thing we've ever had to a free market was in the 19th century, and we saw the greatest rise in standards of living and infrastructure in the history of mankind.

      Free markets DO work, as they are a natural law. Meddling with the economy is no different than trying to meddle with the environment, and the results are the same - typically, the opposite of your intentions.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    131. Re:I'm only going to say by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem is, our society in the USA is much different than those in Europe. Social health care works well when in smaller settings but what is going to happen at the level of the US? It is a much trickier situation than you make it out to be. Americans are all about abusing systems to their benefit and the US is slightly larger than most european countries where social healthcare has been working. We also have a greater global presence than many countries so our fiscal burden is put off by that. So social healthcare may work well in a state by state situation but you really need to look at what society you are comparing the US to. Just because it is proven to work for country X does not mean it will be proven to work for country Y.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    132. Re:I'm only going to say by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Yea, the government did a great job of maintaining the infrastructure. Oh, but even with all of those taxes the bridges collapse. And the highways decay.

      As for security from terrorists, sorry but shit happens. To be safe from that you could be placed in a concrete vault, underground. But then an asteroid would still be able to get you.

      No thanks, I will take my chances. I will not give up my freedom for security.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    133. Re:I'm only going to say by Ash+Vince · · Score: 5, Funny

      And in a few years you will have the exact same situation. The problem isn't the actors, it is the stage.

      Over here in Britain we have a saying:

      "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always get in."

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    134. Re:I'm only going to say by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Two points:

      OHIP isn't paying for anything. You are. OHIP may serve as an intermediary, but the money doesn't come out of thin air.

      Are our waiting rooms full? Yes, for two reasons: Free systems are abused and people are stupid.

      So how will it improve our health system to clog it with MORE stupid people clamoring for free care? We have way to many stupid people here in the US. OTOH, to many of us are aware of the obscenely fat-assed women pushing shopping carts full of pork and Twinkies to the supermarket checkout counter where they break out their book of Food Stamps. The liberals raised an unholy stink when the Republicans pushed for legislation in the 90's that would push people off welfare and into jobs. Nationalized health-care gives us visions of paying for them to get unhealthy, and then paying to keep them alive so that they remain a burden.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    135. Re:I'm only going to say by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As best I recall in recent weeks the EU with some degree of assent from the U.S. are talking about global market regulation. That is kind of scary in its own right, if you are going to have a global bureaucracy writing the rules. We are pretty much screwed at this point because thanks to computers and fiber optics the markets are already completely global and huge sumes are moving around in a heart beat. Thinking if you just get rid of all regulation that will fix everything is either naive or cynical. If you are a wealthy fat cat gaming the system I can see why you would want that though, at least until one of two things happen:

      A. A smarter, richer fat cat games the system better than you and cleans YOU out
      B. The global economic system collapses and you run crying to your government for billions of dollars to bail you out which is what most of your "free market rules" friends seem to be doing at the moment.

      The irony is most of you free marketeers only want free markets when you are making money, as soon as wreck the system with your greed, you seem to be the first ones running to the tax payers to save you ass(ets).

      "You are the idealist -- some people (often the smart ones you deride) deserve to be rich. Others deserve to be poor."

      That is a view point that has led to a lot of rich people being executed, most prominently Marie Antoinette when she told starving people to "eat cake".

      If you think your idealistic, Libertarian world is going to work where a few rich people clean everyone else out you really are delusional.

      I'll agree that lazy people deserve to be poor, and handing them welfare is wrong. Its just as wrong for hard working people to be robbed by a bunch of crooked fat cats which is exactly what you are advocating and seems to be more or less the system we have today.

      --
      @de_machina
    136. Re:I'm only going to say by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you prefer a great father on Wall Street to take care of all your ills and order your hirings and firings, but a great many of us have a spine and prefer collective action. We're called adults. The adults among us do much better when government works to curb the excesses of Drunken Gambler Daddy capitalism.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    137. Re:I'm only going to say by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Um. Ok. Of course you *could* move out of the sprawl somewhere where you could commute with no petrol footprint. Ah...nevermind. That would require you to *do* something.

      Actually, I live near the city center where things are, but the job that I have is outside of town. Also, housing prices near my job have spiked due to the number of people looking for housing near there, so I (like many people in other parts of the country) live where the housing is affordable.

      OMFG. OMFG. You must be a youngster. If you think it's immoral, then I assume that you're giving all of your non-essential moneys to the poor and volunteering all of your spare time to shelters, food kitchens, etc. But, of course, no...you're not. You just think that the government should take care of everybody. (I assume you think that by your comments) How about this...how about everybody takes responsibility for what they do and when the consequences pile up, suck it up and accept them. Can't afford to feed a child? Don't have one or give it up for adoption. Can't afford a car? Don't buy one. Bought one anyways, and now you can't afford health insurance...die already.

      Well, since you decided to ask. I do volunteer my time and was giving a good deal of money to worthy causes up until my financial situation changed recently. Glad you can ASSume though. I don't live in a glass house, which is why I stand up to throw stones. What, pray tell, do YOU do?

      God knows that ALL children are planned, don't you see that a social safety net provides a better and safer society for YOU to live in since desperate people do desperate things? I would rather be taxed and have less people on the edge of crime for survival than keep my spoils and have to build a fortress to keep the world out.

    138. Re:I'm only going to say by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Religion and capitalism are odd bed-follows. No matter which way this election goes, expect to see a major re-alignment of parties in the next 10 years. I hope the Republicans go back to being a small-government party, as that would be the fastest solution. Failing that, I hope the Libertarian or Constitution parties see a major influx of members.

      The Constitution party is the best platform by far, but Libertarians have more support, and their platform is much better than the current Republican one.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    139. Re:I'm only going to say by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Um. Ok. Of course you *could* move out of the sprawl somewhere where you could commute with no petrol footprint. Ah...nevermind. That would require you to *do* something.

      And, further, I commute on a motorcycle instead of inside a giant SUV so that my footprint is drastically reduced. Don't point fingers unless you know where they're pointed.

    140. Re:I'm only going to say by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.

      After eight years of the Bush administration, I think it's clear that the party has completely lost its way. To me, the Republican Party stands for corruption, for putting radical ideology ahead of competent government, and for racism and intolerance.

      So I'm glad to see the Republican Party thoroughly defeated this time around. The party has earned this with eight years of misrule, and they need to be held accountable. What worries me, however, is how the Democrats will govern, given a decisive majority in congress and control of the presidency. Power needs to be held accountable, and with the Republican party in such disarray and so little control over government now, I'm not sure how that will happen. Giving the Democrats free reign may not be a good idea- speaking as a Democrat, I know too well how my party can screw things up.

      For that reason, I hope the Republican party comes back- but as something different. I really hope that the Republican party will take a long look at the errors of the Bush administration, and learn something. I would like to see a Republican party that is in favor of good government, appointing smart, competent people from any party, instead of incompetent hacks. I would like to see a Republican party that is pragmatic, basing policy on fact instead of religion and right-wing ideology. I would like to see a Republican Party that is genuinely compassionate, and that appeals to people's aspirations instead of their fears and prejudices.

      Don't learn the wrong lesson from John McCain. John McCain embodies the best of the party. It was the rest of the party that dragged him down.

    141. Re:I'm only going to say by spun · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, every time the Republican controlled government sticks its nose into something, it turns to shit, because Republicans do not believe in government. When a party that believes government is good and can work controls things, things get better.

      The facts speak for themselves. The stock market has grown by an average of 8.4% under Democratic leadership over the last 100 years, but only 0.4% under Republicans. We can see plain as day what government can do when we believe in it, and how it fails when we don't.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    142. Re:I'm only going to say by PachmanP · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amen to that! At this point I almost don't care who wins as long as people stop talking about flag pins and all of this nonsense. I move to ban people from campaining prior to 3 months before the primaries and that the primaries be moved back so there is only 3 months between them and the general elections. I think if you can't convince me to vote for you in 6 mo then you shouldn't be running anyway.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    143. Re:I'm only going to say by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      To be safe from that you could be placed in a concrete vault, underground.

      Only if I get to go into vault #8... none of that silly water purification chip business...

    144. Re:I'm only going to say by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Can't agree with that.

      "The purpose of a system is what it does."
      Therefore the purpose of government in the US is to take money from the working masses for the support of government.

      What does the government do for us? Our infrastructure crumbles. We shore up failed businesses to the tune of $700 billion...

      Oh yea, and kill people in countries that did not attack us.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    145. Re:I'm only going to say by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      It is my own personal belief that the root of the problem lies in our monetary system itself, which by its very nature enables these types of crises despite all attempts to regulate against them (the regulators are always ten steps behind). In my opinion we need to rethink the basis of our monetary system completely to become something other than the triple combination of fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, and the use of debt as the basis for new fractional reserve loans which create new money. Until we get a handle on the present monetary system as described we are doomed to experience more meltdowns in the future that the regulators, despite good intentions and best efforts, will be unable to prevent.

    146. Re:I'm only going to say by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see a universal HMO be established here, one that can't drop you like a hot potato if your get sick, or flat out refuse to let you in for "pre-existing conditions" if you change jobs.

      That's the part that I truly can't see anyone thoughtfully disagreeing with. I've heard of insurance companies failing to cover things as "pre-existing conditions" in silly situations, e.g. you smoked when you were a teenager, were uncovered by insurance for 1 year in your 20s, and then get lung cancer in your 50s and they say, "Oops, it may have started in that 1 year in your 20s! Can't help you!" Whether that's exaggerated or not, I'm not sure.

      But what I've experienced first hand is being very sick and being denied tests that multiple doctors said I needed, because my insurance felt they weren't necessary. That's a really bad situation, because sometimes it comes up when you're least in a position to fight it. Try arguing with your insurance company when you're so sick that you're basically having trouble staying conscious. Go ahead. See how fun that is.

    147. Re:I'm only going to say by Mondrames · · Score: 1

      The problem with the rational expectation theory is that people just aren't rational.

    148. Re:I'm only going to say by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      My riches for a mod point...

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    149. Re:I'm only going to say by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      So it's better to have a lower life expectancy, a higher child mortality rate and a bigger fiscal burden, and be ideologically pure than just implementing something that has been proven to actually work?

      This touches on something I've been pondering this election. It seems to me somehow we have become more interested in preserving intangible aspects of government which cannot really be measured as opposed to the non-ethereal aspects like effectiveness. Take supreme court nominations for example, people seem much more concerned that "justice" is served (blindly mind you)- instead of the more tangible aspects of what sort of an interpretation of the constitution leads to the most effective and efficient government.
      Or take tax policy, we are much more concerned with some unmeasurable "fairness" as implemented in an inherently unfair system than we are with how effective the tax policy works to remove some of the income inequality and preserve the middle class.

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    150. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, the problem wasn't over-regulation, or under-regulation it was poor regulation. The government getting involved where it shouldn't and not getting involved where it should...

    151. Re:I'm only going to say by Jorgandar · · Score: 1

      It would be nice however if they "failed" to collect taxes from me.

    152. Re:I'm only going to say by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

    153. Re:I'm only going to say by RealityThreek · · Score: 1

      Citations are hardly required when discussing a topic on an internet forum.

      Nevertheless, the data you require can be found in abundance. I'd start with the World Health Report 2008 from the World Health Organization. Or even Wikipedia. The article on differences between the Canadian and US healthcare systems is a pretty good read.

      Whenever people compare a single payer system to the DMV, its a clue that they haven't even done basic research into it. We pay more per capita for healthcare than anyone and yet we're nowhere near the top in any measure of health care outcomes. We're also among the only developed nation that still uses avoids government run healthcare.

      And let's not even get into how the government ALREADY covers some 45% of our healthcare costs as it is through tax credits to employers.

      --
      :wq
    154. Re:I'm only going to say by jkorz · · Score: 0

      congress that can't get a damn thing done

      Oh how I would love a congress that didn't do anything. It seems that every time they "get something done" it ends up taking away more of my money and freedom. Cmon gridlock!

    155. Re:I'm only going to say by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      When you don't believe that government can solve a problem, your implementation will ensure that government will not solve the problem. Perhaps there is some middle ground which might regulate the health insurance industry to a higher degree which might help. (My premiums have doubled in just two years)
      While were at it maybe there is something which can be done to prevent people from going bankrupt trying to pay medical bills. I'm too lazy to find the source but I heard a number ~ 1% of Americans are at risk of bankruptcy due to medical expenses. If the most effective solution to these problems is to socialize medicine (as it appears to be in other countries) - count me in.

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    156. Re:I'm only going to say by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Informative

      It exists, and - from what I understand - Obama has it as the basis of his health care plan. The FEHB (Federal Employee Health Benefits) system is a group of about 2 million federal employees and retirees which has several "competing" plans which are offered by private insurers. They have different costs, and the government provides employees/retirees with 75% reimbursement up to a fixed annual limit. You can imagine that most of the options maximize the benefits to hit that limit mark. There are some cheaper plans, and some more expensive, as well. The group is a pretty good cross section of the US, since it has a wide range of employees, in a wide range of jobs, and includes all federal pensioners.

      As I read it, Obama wants to open enrollment up to "everybody" (I'm not sure how everybody is defined: citizens, legal residents, etc...), with financial assistance for those who cannot afford the various plans. Now, this is _not_ socialized medicine - it's just a very large group for negotiating purposes. It is still a private healthcare based system, with multiple providers. But since it acts like a group there is no penalty for switching plans, no pre-existing condition exclusions, and we presume "anyone" can buy in. The details are murky - how do we pay for those who need extra help (a family plan is about $12k/yr), how/when can you enroll (buying in right after you are diagnosed with cancer isn't financially sound), and will the plans be opened up for small (or any) businesses to purchase for their employees through this avenue. I mention the last because I run a small business. My premiums are affordable because we're all young and healthy. If someone in my office got serious cancer, I'd probably not be able to afford the new premiums. The FEHB system is more expensive than what I pay (bigger, sicker group), but not nearly as much as I could face if we had a major illness of one of the four in my office.

      BTW - preexisting conditions are no longer excludable in group plans in the US, and group plans cannot drop or exclude an individual within a group. With 2M existing "customers," the big insurance players can't afford to just ignore the FEHB program. If the program weren't already filled with the elderly (retirees), I woudl be concerned about rate increases, but it's already a sickly bunch, as far as health insurance groups are concerned.

      Oh, and as for socialized medicine - I think many people wouldn't know the difference. There are a very vocal minority who, on the other hand, actively seek out doctors with whom they have rapport. I'm one of those. If your experinces with healthcare are primarily the emergency room and whomever is on duty at the time, then socialized medicine looks just like private care. Just about anywhere you can find good doctors and bad doctors. In socialized medicine you get the luck of the draw - and that can mean very good care. In private care, you get a choice (to and extent) - and your care is predicated on how well you chose. We have outstanding care at the top because there is a financial incentive for it; by the same token, though, if you aren't rich, you're probably never going to see that level of care.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    157. Re:I'm only going to say by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      ... the democrats were making their platform look cool and trendy to the world.

      That's it! I've been trying to put my finger on the Obama hype (I don't see it myself, but I'm so jaded you could carve me into a dragon statue)...

      He's the iPod of candidates!

    158. Re:I'm only going to say by Golias · · Score: 1

      I can't say I completely agree with your analysis. The Constitution Party is rife with "social conservatism," and has been for a long time.

      But I am in favor of re-alignment. I voted LP at the top of the ticket (in spite of my reservation about both men on it), and voted MNIP (Minnesota Independence Party) the rest of the way down.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    159. Re:I'm only going to say by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      She thought that was a trick question designed to make her seem out of touch. That's why she said "all of them"... she probably figured the interviewer was hoping she said something like "The Alaskan Gazette" so she'd look like an ignorant person who knew nothing about the lower 48. It's no worse than Obama's verbal misstep about 57 states, really.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    160. Re:I'm only going to say by Tyrus+Perises · · Score: 1

      Me too! I went down there to help and that was some of the most fun I've had in years! I'm voting for McCain because I don't want the good times to end.

    161. Re:I'm only going to say by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I think the economic hasn't ruled out either free markets or regulated markets as reasonable or viable systems. At this point, I'm not absolutely positive which is better, but I tend to feel like some amount of governmental regulation, at least in terms of ethical business practices, is warranted.

      I'd argue instead that the crisis has made it clear that the that many of the so-called "free market enthusiasts" (not including Paul or Schiff in this group) are really in favor of subsidies and corporate welfare, government intervention in favor of guaranteeing specific businesses and business models, and then would like to refuse the government the right to track the effects of their intervention.

      Following that philosophy, you seem to end up getting the worst of both worlds. Companies don't get cleaned up by the market due to governmental protection, but they also don't get cleaned up by the government due to people insisting that "the market" will clean up the mess.

    162. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "enough discussions and arguments" you mean "the same damn rhetoric we hear in every election ad naseum" then I agree. There was plenty of it to "satisfy" everyone. And it was on the internet, on television, on my phone, and even on my street corner. But none of it. Absolutely none of it, had anything to do with the actual policies that will be put in place by the next president. The "hot" issues are never, ever resolved because they are political suicide. But they get passed around as if those are the only issues that matter.

    163. Re:I'm only going to say by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      Health care isn't a right anymore than cable TV is a right. If cable TV was a right, we'd all be indentured servants because we'd have to pay for everyone's cable TV!

      I don't believe that the UK has a higher standard of living than the US -- but even if it does, you are talking about averages. It is easier to have a higher standard of living in the US than in the UK -- you just have to work for it. Not everyone does.

    164. Re:I'm only going to say by Onan · · Score: 2, Informative

      By most quantifiable measures (lifespan, infant mortality, etc) the US appears to be worse off than most other industrialized nations. This indicates that the US healthcare system is less effective than others.

      As established above, the US healthcare system is more expensive than others.

      In this context, I think that "more expensive and less effective" is a pretty sound definition of "less efficient."

    165. Re:I'm only going to say by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      What post office are you talking about!!!??? Certainly not any I've ever been to. I mean they tend to have short lines but that doesn't mean it can't take redicously long to get simple stuff done. I suspect though for both the DMV and the USPS, the wait times are very much a function of time of day. If you go when everyone else typically goes then things take forever. You sneak in other times and it's fine. Problem is everybody goes at the times they go because that's when it's convienent to go. You don't think medicine will be like that?

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    166. Re:I'm only going to say by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      The thing is we already have selective socialized medicine.

      My medical "insurance" is taken out of my paycheck just like taxes before I even see the money. Those people that work in jobs that don't provide insurance are obviously in a different boat.

      Then when one considers that 44% of all medical care is paid for by the government, and the fact that the government sets the prices that the "insurance" companies will pay.

      I dunno, I say cut the middle man. Something like 20-30% of our health care costs go to these insurance companies.

    167. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that many issues in the United States are coloured by race. More than you might think. As an outside observer, I sense that part of the aversion to public health care is a desire on the part of whites not to share hospitals and clinics with blacks.

      Of course, hospitals and clinics in America are desegregated, and they have been for decades. But generally speaking, whites have better Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) than non-whites, because they generally have better jobs. (An HMO is like social medicine, but it's run for profit, and not universal. Usually, your employer pays for your membership in an HMO, but you can buy your own way in if you choose. None of the HMOs are large enough to approach the size that a single-payer would be in a socialized system. An HMO is like your government-run system writ small, with a profit motive in the mix.)

      If the States were to bring in a government-run, single-payer system, then the somewhat weak de facto economic segregation of health care would be removed. This is extraordinarily unlikely ever to happen. There will always be private, for-profit clinics in the United States.

      In this election, the Democrats are really only proposing legislating a new requirement on employers above a certain size to provide a minimum level of care to employees. It's not actually socialized in any meaningful sense, and it will keep colour barriers in place.

    168. Re:I'm only going to say by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      Congress is a disaster mostly because of Filibuster and Signing Statements. Getting Filibuster proof majority get's rid of one obstacle. Getting rid of Dubya gets rid of the other.

    169. Re:I'm only going to say by pluther · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree!
      Let's get some News back in the news!
      Who cares about the economy, or the wars, or human rights abuses?
      Let's get back to discussing who Brittney Spears is going to be marrying next!

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    170. Re:I'm only going to say by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      Well, how much of that is because Americans cry "socialism" any time the government does try to do something?

      Canadians bitch about their government too, but are more forgiving of things that can be seen as "socialist", so the government is more or less pretty well run

    171. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.

      Those sound like the tenets of the Libertarian Party to me. In the 16 or so years since I started paying attention, the Republican pillars seem to have been "Down with gay people," "Down with book-learnin'," and "Immigints, I knew it was dem! Even when it was the bears I knew it was dem!"

      If I can't have a country with more than two viable political parties, I'll settle for one in which the Republican Party falls to pieces and is replaced with a new party. Any new party. Can we bring back the Whigs or the No-Nothings?

    172. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing was that their platforms overall were more conservative than the republicans they were running against. WTF?

      It's called politicians will say anything to get elected, regardless of being honest. The term "flip-flop" has been (over) used the past 3 elections now to describe just that.

      "I voted for the war, before I voted against it". "I support abortion, but I against it." "NAFTA's bad, memo to Canada, just kidding!".

      Hell, I knew this about politics before I even could vote!

    173. Re:I'm only going to say by 2short · · Score: 1


      "I think the overwhelming idea is that given the way our government runs *anything*, it's impossible to imagine how they would provide health care for all citizens in any efficient manor."

      Citation required.

      "They can't even pave the roads properly "

      Since this is the federal government, you must mean the interstate highway system? Having recently driven all the way across the country at 60 mph without hitting a single pothole, what are you smoking?

      "it's not like you can't walk into any hospital in the united states and get treated with no money."

      Yes, you can walk into the emergency room, where treating you will cost me (a taxpayer) ten times as much as if I just paid for your health insurance so you could make an appointment at a primary care office.

      "That's, of course, discounting all the other valid theories"

      Well, I'm going to go ahead and discount your theories as long as you keep discounting the rest of the industrialized worlds actual experience, okay?

    174. Re:I'm only going to say by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      People talk about free market like as if it is an anything goes. If that was true, why was "Wealth of Nations" and "The Theory of Money and Credit" such massive works?

      Free market theory theory of economics, IMHO, isn't about what the government shouldn't do, it is about what it CAN'T do given the nature of an economy. The government can be a normal competitor, and one with BIG money, but it can't make bad businesses successful. Money doesn't create wealth, no matter how much you give away. We can redistribute wealth, and that costs money. Doing useful work is the only thing that improves the 'wealth of a nation'.

      Sure, people are greedy, but people are driven by greed to do really great things. Greed can always lead to corruption, but what? Somehow our politicians are above that? What country have you been living in? At least greedy businessmen have something to loose. I think the most important thing we can do set high standards and educate people. And the balance? Employees are greedy, and nothing is more greedy than a consumer.

      I don't get this whole "how much regulation is enough?". No amount of the wrong regulation is going to work. We need to look at what types of regulations can and can not work. Price fixing DOES NOT WORK. Taxes need to be product and revenue neutral. Regulations need to be equal, but the government needs to know its place. Mises says that one of the few roles of government that it can play that are different than any other large consumer is the handling of broken contracts. In particular, when someone provides goods, services, or money today to get goods, services, or money in the future, and one of those parties fails to meet their obligation, then the government can intervene to see that the failing party is treated fairly in the liquidation of it's assets as appropriate. That is why this bailout thing is such a nightmare! Businesses that have proven not worthy of survival, for many different reasons, need to die. The government needs to ensure that those businesses are liquidated in a fair manner. Instead, they are being propped up? Why?!?

      Now I know that isn't all that is happening. Anyone can buy these loans, and if the government wants to get into that business, then they can be an equal player, but buying any loan under its fair market value makes little sense.

      The place where there can be a problem is when government tried to drive the market in a direction it doesn't want to go. I think a great example of this is the drug war. We spend tons of money, for a number of different reason to artificially reduce the supply of certain drugs deemed unsafe. What happens? price goes up. That isn't regulation, that is just manipulation. Regulation would be oversight into ensuring drugs were made cleanly and that customers knew what they were getting. Government could give oversight to certification programs that have various standards, just like the FDA, BBB, HUD, and such. If someone is brewing drugs in their bathtub, they should be shut down for the fire hazard. If a place has quality equipment that is well maintained, doctors, clean needles, safe rooms, and counseling services, not only should they get an A+ like the health department does for restaurants, but nobody is going to buy from the drug dealer on the street corner. And I thought this was all about keeping people safe. It has worked in European countries that have adopted this, and I think Canada has a similar program, and that was exactly the result. Also, a good number of people cleaned up, not to mention drug crime virtually disappeared. How can we keep saying that the type of regulation we have today is working when the number one cause of accidental death in this country is from overdose prescription drugs?

      Free market says the best players win that give the customer what they want with quality and at a low price. Government has the power to encourage the best business, and that is the type of regulation we need. We can also use a lot of it. But the current ideology in regulation is

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    175. Re:I'm only going to say by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      ok I will bite and freely admit I am a democrat here.

      The reason congress has not done anything is because the republicans have filibustered everything so nothing can get past.

      They have filibustered at least 60 times and this is unprecedented. The republicans have become quite extreme and feel very threatened.

      So yes I voted straight democrat to weasel these guys out so we can get things done. With Obama (sorry republicans)as our next likely president we need both houses to work with him and not filibusterer and cry to the media its the liberals fault for being incompetent.

      Its crazy and I feel that the neoconservatives have their own agenda that they viciously oppose anything else and it doesn't matter what it takes other than to get their way or no way.

    176. Re:I'm only going to say by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I think the overwhelming idea is that given the way our government runs *anything*, it's impossible to imagine how they would provide health care for all citizens in any efficient manor.

      Ummm... the government manages a giant military, can put people on the moon, invented the internet and GPS, manages the largest economy in the world, and you're going to hold road construction against it? It's not even the same bloody level of government.

      You might not be able to get a physical but any type of emergency will not go untreated in this country

      Which is why 911 gets calls every four hours because the ambulence will give them one dose of asprin for free to treat their baby's fever. And so poor people just learn that is the only way to get medicine. It'd be cheaper to just have an office they can visit for free non-emergency care.

      That's, of course, discounting all the other valid theories about what socialized medicine would do to the fabric of our nation. Increased taxes, less incentive for doctors to be doctors, less medical innovation

      All they are is theories. They haven't been demonstrably proven. Well, I suppose taxes would go up, but the question is would they go up as much as health insurance premiums are right now? And given that so many people want to be doctors and are not allowed to be, are we worried about less incentives? Is there even any evidence that the government will lower doctor's fees? And since lots of medical research is carried out with federal grants, would there be less incentive. Or look at prospect theory and understand why having the government sponsor reasearch will INCREASE the bang for the buck, instead of it being all driven by results.

      For goodness' sake, the same people on here who make fun of the religious for hanging onto their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence have no problem doing so with their philisophically based economics theories.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    177. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      Actually, I live near the city center where things are, but the job that I have is outside of town. Also, housing prices near my job have spiked due to the number of people looking for housing near there, so I (like many people in other parts of the country) live where the housing is affordable.

      So you are as responsible as anyone else for the "sprawl" then eh? -- since you're feeding it and all.

      God knows that ALL children are planned, don't you see that a social safety net provides a better and safer society for YOU to live in since desperate people do desperate things?

      Yes, a social safety net is great. We've already got a bunch of them. There's a social safety net every step along the way of life in America. There's child services, there's welfare, there's housing assistance, there's medicaide, etc. Where's the problem?

      You said it was IMMORAL that there are hungry children in our rich nation. I called bullshit on that since it's not up to me when your child eats. Plus, I called you a youngster, when I really should have just said that you're simply naive. If you think that the government can and should insure that every single person is taken care of regardless of their ability or desire to take care of themselves, then I don't know if we can actually converse.

      Well, since you decided to ask. I do volunteer my time and was giving a good deal of money to worthy causes up until my financial situation changed recently. Glad you can ASSume though. I don't live in a glass house, which is why I stand up to throw stones. What, pray tell, do YOU do?

      My point was, I assume you're not doing everything that you could possible do to feed every hungry child either. Go ahead and lie about it, it doesn't make it true. And by the way, that doesn't make you bad. Just a hypocrite.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    178. Re:I'm only going to say by demachina · · Score: 1, Informative

      "The closest thing we've ever had to a free market was in the 19th century, and we saw the greatest rise in standards of living and infrastructure in the history of mankind."

      It was also a century of one panic after another, robber barons, massive monopolies, labor exploitatio and it ended in extreme concentration of wealth and power in their hands. It ended in the progressive movement and labor uniotns to try to correct all the excesses and imbalances it created. The robber barons for example were using their railroad monopoly to starve out the farmers that had to rely on them to move their hard won crops to market. Corporations were abusing child labor and paying starvation wages.

      It was also a period in which a vast continent rich with natural resources was opened and exploited. We were literally hauling billions out of the ground in gold and silver.

      You can't reliably say the expansion in the 19th century was just because markets were free.

      --
      @de_machina
    179. Re:I'm only going to say by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was called the 'industrial revolution', and the lack of regulation meant only the factory owners actually benefited from it.

      Libertarians saying that the solution to bankers' greed is less regulation so can be even more greedy make me laugh. No doubt if they were in a hole, they'd agree that they weren't digging hard enough.

    180. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The checks and balances the founding fathers envisioned were about three coequal branches of government checking and balancing each other so that good ideas could move forward while bad ones could not. It was never about two political parties locking horns to make sure nothing could get done.

      Gridlock is NOT checks and balances. It's dysfunctional and ineffective government.

    181. Re:I'm only going to say by Tenek · · Score: 1

      Come January, Ted Stevens will be exactly as powerful as Elizabeth Dole. Oh yes.

    182. Re:I'm only going to say by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd like to point out that the lack of prevention and preparation for that disaster falls as much, or more, on the state and local government than on the federal government. On the state level, New Orleans should have been one of the primary concerns; on the level of the city, there should have been nothing else going on. On the federal level, they had to worry about multiple other states and cities getting hit in addition to everything else that was happening. And yet Bush gets blamed. How does that make any sense?

    183. Re:I'm only going to say by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      Why do people insist on blaming the democratic congress for this companies woes? Is that a scapegoat or what? Republicans had a rubber stamp congress for 6 years and created all this crap. Now Dems are bailing out all of the republican mistakes as usual...

      Im not saying Dems are perfect, but most of the time, they are the lesser of two evils.

    184. Re:I'm only going to say by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      I think the overwhelming idea is that given the way our government runs *anything*, it's impossible to imagine how they would provide health care for all citizens in any efficient manor.

      The size of the manor, as well as it's layout, will greatly determine the efficiency of any health care operations occurring within it. It might be hard to find one that fits 300,000,000 people though. /snark

      PS - The Federal gov did a pretty damn good job with the interstate highway system, for example. Seems to work well...

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    185. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also seems to understand that not every answer can or should be a yes/no question. His ability to discuss the details of an issue are a big plus for him to a lot of people.

      Yes, there are those who want someone who thinks with their heart, but I prefer someone who uses the old gray matter.

    186. Re:I'm only going to say by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      I'll vote for Palin as long as it's Michael Palin.

    187. Re:I'm only going to say by Jumper99 · · Score: 0

      Last year, you spent $1, 975 per-capita on medicare and medicaid. A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this.

      Who's point are you trying to prove? Medicare and Medicaid ARE Gov't run programs. So we spend more on healthcare when the Gov't runs it. Isn't that what the point of the previous post was?

      --
      The opinions expressed here are not mine, but those of these dang voices in my head.
    188. Re:I'm only going to say by jpm242 · · Score: 1

      2012? I'd say she'd have better luck trying out for 90210.

      --
      --- Worst tagline ever.
    189. Re:I'm only going to say by aztektum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ideally it isn't the Federal governments job, but instead the States and the people that live there if they want to continue living there in safety.

      Unfortunately this systems has become so twisted in order to keep us suckling off "Big Brothers" teet.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    190. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not flamebait. Mod appropriately.

    191. Re:I'm only going to say by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't have been modded as flamebait, but the problem with your stance is that 99% of the people who espouse it are liars. They want the government to get out of the way -- but only so far. They like having "corporation" defined by law to their advantage, they like the government banning unions, they like government laws against competition and for monopolies (contrary to the spirit of the visionary they pretend to worship, Adam Smith), they like the government setting up courts to enforce things the business way, they like having the poor and rich equally forbidden from sleeping under bridges.

      I sometimes think how fun it would be to define a section of the country and say "here, we will remove all government from this area" -- let those so-called adults go there and run it for themselves without the "benefit" of government -- I wonder how long they would last before the gangs and rough justice send them running back?

    192. Re:I'm only going to say by nschubach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or pay less taxes for more freedom and the ability to defend your home/community without being penalized for shooting a trespasser or a bank robber... it's your choice.

      You could even take some of that tax money you get back and let the local government use it to maintain some of those bridges you use on a daily basis. Besides, who do you think has a better finger on the state of these bridges? The State and local authority or someone 200-3000 miles away? Who do you think would be better suited to respond to an Earthquake? Someone in California, home of the great fault line and schools that study it, or someone in Chicago who's felt a few shakes in his life? Localized disaster recovery would be better suited fro whatever emergencies arise for the area in just about every case.

      Also, look how well the Dept. of Education has done. I mean, bureaucrats running education have done wonders for our children's education. I hear they are giving passing grades to all the children so they feel good about themselves.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    193. Re:I'm only going to say by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      I ask them how much they love going to the DMV to renew drivers licenses....new plates..etc.

      Have you been to an emergency room?

      It's far, far worse.

    194. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      Citation required.

      Here
      Here
      Here
      Just a start.

      Since this is the federal government, you must mean the interstate highway system? Having recently driven all the way across the country at 60 mph without hitting a single pothole, what are you smoking?

      Ok. I was joking there, but never the less. Touche.

      Yes, you can walk into the emergency room, where treating you will cost me (a taxpayer) ten times as much as if I just paid for your health insurance so you could make an appointment at a primary care office.

      Ok. So since our government has proved to be so smart handling medicaid at a reasonable cost, you'd like to have them handle all health care?

      Well, I'm going to go ahead and discount your theories as long as you keep discounting the rest of the industrialized worlds actual experience, okay

      Why is it fair to compare the way that the rest of the world does health care in a vacuum. Germany has good health care, sure, but they also pay around 50% tax.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    195. Re:I'm only going to say by blindd0t · · Score: 1

      The funny thing was that their platforms overall were more conservative than the republicans they were running against. WTF?

      Sadly, it would seem that "conservative" and "liberal" in politics now refers to religious views rather than the interpretation of the United States Constitution. It's truly upsetting and disappointing to see this incredible distortion.

    196. Re:I'm only going to say by tfoss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?

      I can't totally parse what you are trying to say here, it seems pretty jumbled and at least partly demonstrably wrong.

      Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were gov't entities, then were spun off into non-gov't corporations (though everyone thought they had some sort of special unspoken gov't back-up), then were placed back in gov't conservatorship recently. They are not the cause of the financial upheaval going on. They actually got into the sub-prime market late and in a lesser way due to legal restrictions that other companies did not have.

      The CRA has been blamed by many on the right largely because it is about the only way to tie the financial shitstorm directly to Democrats. Unfortunately, the argument simple doesn't hold water. Are you really suggesting that a law passed 31 years ago caused no problems for 3 decades caused a sudden and dramatic panic? Do you have any evidence to offer to support that? Do you even know what the CRA really requires of lenders (and which ones)?

      encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?

      Baloney. The CRA doesn't *require* any risks, and in fact CRA-regulated loans are not the ones that have been causing problems.

      This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:

      And by gov't regulators who warned of problems back last century. It is not difficult to forsee that when bigger mortgages are given to a whole lot more people with a whole lot less ability to afford them, at predatory rates & conditions that there will be problems. Many people on the left (and some on the right) called for better regulations, yet we can thank Greenspan for undermining pretty much anything meaningful.

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    197. Re:I'm only going to say by nschubach · · Score: 1

      So you think replacing one system (Medicare/Medic Aid) with another (Obama's Magic Plan) will change that?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    198. Re:I'm only going to say by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Ummh? You haven't actually seen that dynamic duo of Olberman and Maddox in action have you?

      I always find it humorous (well, humorless actually) how liberal drone on and on about yelling and talking points as if O'Reilly actually represented anyone. Well, fine then. Have it your way. The left is represented by a sneering bubble-heads that are afraid to be confronted by anyone with an opposing view. Or did you think the yes-men those two have on their shows constitute an open-minded view?

      I've spent most of this campaign season hitting the "last" button on my remote, flipping between Fox News and MSNBC. I gave up on MSNBC towards the end, as their 'reporting' was mostly repugnant idiocy that ranged from illogical to vitriolic, but seldom settled on anything resembling sanity.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    199. Re:I'm only going to say by ericrost · · Score: 1

      So you are as responsible as anyone else for the "sprawl" then eh? -- since you're feeding it and all.

      The situation regarding housing prices was in full swing before I moved here. I chose to reduce my impact by buying an affordable house built in 1934 rather than having a contracting company build me a tiny one that I would need to relocate away from the moment I decided to procreate. Sorry, but I find $200k for a 1200 square foot home a bit unacceptable for an ~$70k/year salary. I ended up in the community I live in after a nearly year long job search. My skills are in demand here, I don't choose that, it chooses me.

      Yes, a social safety net is great. We've already got a bunch of them. There's a social safety net every step along the way of life in America. There's child services, there's welfare, there's housing assistance, there's medicaide, etc. Where's the problem?

      If we had a proper social safety net, we wouldn't have children dying of neglect in the most "advanced" nation on Earth. That's the problem, I stated it before you asked. We rank 29th amongst industrialized nations (behind such greats as Cuba mind you) in infant mortality. How can you live with that and not be outraged?
      I play the hand I'm dealt, but that doesn't mean I can't work to change things by voting my conscience and seeing to it that those on the county board and city planning commission know my thoughts. You can take me for naive, but I simply think you're jaded, lazy, greedy, and cruel.

    200. Re:I'm only going to say by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

      I would caution you that there is a difference between abuse and plain incompetence. Of which I would say this "politics = news" fiasco falls into the latter category with regards to Slashdot's current editors.

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    201. Re:I'm only going to say by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Too bad your vision of what universal health care would look like has no resemblance to the actual proposals put forth by ANY candidate.

      Government run health-care like the Europeans use would never work here, and nobody is pushing it, except perhaps Michael Moore. It's a bogeyman argument brought up by people who want to win elections by misleading people.

      In truth, universal health care comes down to two things -- making sure that every person is allowed to buy insurance, and making sure everyone can afford to buy insurance. McCain's plan, for example, tries to address this by allowing insurance companies to operate across state-lines, hopefully fostering competition. Obama's tries to address it by allowing anyone who doesn't already buy insurance through their employer's plan to buy it through the same plan government employees use.

      Neither of these proposals has jack shit to do with changing how one obtains medical care. The "DMV of Doctors" is bullshit. In fact, I wish they would stop talking about this issue as "health care." The issue is really about health insurance.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    202. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      Ummm... the government manages a giant military, can put people on the moon, invented the internet and GPS, manages the largest economy in the world, and you're going to hold road construction against it? It's not even the same bloody level of government.

      Cool. Great military and decent space program. (BTW, talk to a Marine and ask them how smooth the military runs) How's the IRS working out for you? And the TSA, how's that for a government program. Oh yeah, and social security, how's that looking lately. Freddie Mac? Fannie Mae? Why would Health care be different?

      For goodness' sake, the same people on here who make fun of the religious for hanging onto their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence have no problem doing so with their philisophically based economics theories.

      My main point is what has the United States government done, including the military, that hasn't ended up being a corrupted mess destined for failure and reform? Can't we spend time just reforming private health care? How about figuring out how come it's way more expensive (administrative costs and malpractice insurance) and just go about fixing that? Why do you just assume the United States government can deal with it just because Germany can?

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    203. Re:I'm only going to say by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also worth bearing in mind is that the 2 independents are completely different from each other:
      Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is a real honest-to-goodness socialist. He's far more liberal than any Democrat.

      Joe Lieberman (I-CT) was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 but now is one of John McCain's strongest supporters.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    204. Re:I'm only going to say by Grant_Watson · · Score: 1

      Only if I get to go into vault #8... none of that silly water purification chip business...

      As someone playing through Fallout 2, I salute you!

    205. Re:I'm only going to say by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      Or, like, going to the post office and waiting often for minutes in short lines with government workers who are helpful and fri... wait, that wouldn't back up your example.

      You obviously aren't going to the same Post Office I'm going to.

    206. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      If we had a proper social safety net, we wouldn't have children dying of neglect in the most "advanced" nation on Earth. That's the problem, I stated it before you asked.

      I disagree with your premise. Furthermore, I think it naive of you to assume that because we are a rich country, we can wipe out neglect. It's not societal neglect, it's personal neglect. It's irresponsible individuals that neglect a child, not irresponsible government.

      We rank 29th amongst industrialized nations (behind such greats as Cuba mind you) in infant mortality. How can you live with that and not be outraged?

      Because it's a shit statistic and can't be trusted. Particularly since the entire world doesn't make the measure using the same measuring stick. From here...

      While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country." [2] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s

      I play the hand I'm dealt, but that doesn't mean I can't work to change things by voting my conscience

      Good, vote your conscience.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    207. Re:I'm only going to say by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      ...But credit default swaps, for example, were completely unregulated...

      Quite the opposite, they were regulated badly. They were being required to give loans to people that they would not normally give loans to for the obvious reason of "can't pay them back." Under premise that these people just needed to be given a chance.

      Well there's a reason they weren't getting the loans in the first place and now we have to suffer the government involvement.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    208. Re:I'm only going to say by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Because it's a shit statistic and can't be trusted. Particularly since the entire world doesn't make the measure using the same measuring stick. From here...

      While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country." [2] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s

      Pay close attention to what you copy/paste, the last sentence refutes your point (I was reading the same article).

      However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s

      So, since the early 1990's its a perfectly valid statistic since the exact concerns outlined above were addressed in reporting countries that are compiled to generate data.

    209. Re:I'm only going to say by nschubach · · Score: 1

      In general, Canada's provincial governments have much more power than the federal government.

      Which is precisely why we are in the world of hurt we are in now. So many people rallying for Govt. Health Care don't see this. They think, "Other countries can do it... so can we" without looking at the underlying problem with how our government has evolved into a centrist organization and "localized view" politics. (It works for me and my family, it should work for you. Here is a family mold you must fit in and here is the mold your physique must fit in otherwise you are a terrorist.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    210. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      By most quantifiable measures (lifespan, infant mortality, etc) the US appears to be worse off than most other industrialized nations. This indicates that the US healthcare system is less effective than others.

      If they were all measured fairly, I'd agree with you. For example...

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    211. Re:I'm only going to say by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Congress was hard for me. Voting for Steny Hoyer was tough. In the end, my son persuaded me. I felt that it was good that he got out of the way on supporting renewable energy as part of the bailout, but the whole thing was like pulling teeth to get that stuff through, and we still have not seen real climate legislation.

      Voting for president was just a matter of habit.

    212. Re:I'm only going to say by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      However, if you propose to any USian that they should have no more right to sue their doctor than a Canadian has to sue their government, or a Brit has to sue the NHS, etc., you are just not going to get very far, dude.

      You can sue the NHS as the link show, it happens regularly. However, the culture in the UK, is less litigation happy than that in the US (although unfortunately we're moving in your direction).

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    213. Re:I'm only going to say by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      If we got rid of the insurance companies in the first place, there would be nobody who could afford the unrealistically high medical fees that are charged these days, thus the doctors/hospitals/pharmaceutical companies would be forced to lower their prices. Period, end of problem. It is the evil insurance company with the seemingly bottom-less pockets that allows the prices of medicine to be so artificially high and as thus is not necessary.

    214. Re:I'm only going to say by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 2, Informative

      BTW, the Post Office is a private enterprise and NOT government controlled.

    215. Re:I'm only going to say by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      How about if they failed to keep roads, sewers, garbage collection, etc. from working

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    216. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realize the Fed was created in 1913, the big crash happened in the late 1920s. And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?

      Please spout off on more regulation. Greenspan hasn't been for free markets since he headed the Fed, the exact opposite of a free market entity.

      Some regulation would have been awful nice when it comes to credit default swaps, which are the real reason that the banks were making all those crazy loans to people with little to no evidence that they could repay them. They thought they were insured by the likes of AIG. But since credit default swaps had been deregulated back in late 2000, AIG was able to insure all those securitized loan packages with no disclosure and no requirement for a capital reserve in case the loans did default. Wonder who's genius idea that was?

      So, if AIG fails, then the domino effect starts and banks and other institutions holding these securities start failing too. Pretty soon we're all screwed. And these things were AAA rated by the ratings agencies too. Might want to look into that little problem too.

      People are always going to do what's in their own best interests, regardless of what kind of damage it does to others. There seems to be no consequences for doing things like AIG and the banks were doing, thinking that they could just keeping raking in premiums and selling securitized loans for as long as it worked, and then the individuals walk away with their profits while the companies spiral downwards, taking the rest of the economy with them. Taxpayers get stuck with the bill. That's not even socialism. That's much worse than socialism.

    217. Re:I'm only going to say by Sique · · Score: 1

      The EU has more inhabitants than the U.S., and about everyone in the EU is covered by universal health care. So that argument doesn't hold.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    218. Re:I'm only going to say by Golias · · Score: 1

      Given that Obama is likely to win with less than a 5% edge, just as every election since the Elder Bush vs. Dukakis has come down to a "photo-finish", I think it's ridiculous for anybody to go off about how either party is damaged beyond redemption. They both seem to be able to capture just under half the electorate as a minimum in election after election, and it always comes down to which party machine has the better get-out-the-vote drives.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    219. Re:I'm only going to say by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I guess that the editor could some how think that "Hey lets talk about the election" is news and not politics...

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    220. Re:I'm only going to say by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Isn't FEMA somehow responsible for that ?
      And Bush is clearly responsible for what happens in Florida. Jeb Bush I mean...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    221. Re:I'm only going to say by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      It's not just malpractice lawsuits but personal injury suits too. If you think personal injury suits are out of control, you should support universal healthcare. The vast majority of lawsuits are for medical expenses. The pain and suffering claims are just padding to pay the lawyer's contingency fee. In other countries, people just don't sue each other for medical bills. If you have good disability insurance, you don't need to sue for lost work either.

    222. Re:I'm only going to say by RpiMatty · · Score: 1

      Another view is that the Banks who were "forced" by the CRA to give out "subprime" loans (following CRA rules) found them to be profitable, and the risk was no worse compared to prime loans.

      Then a bunch of greedy wall street people realize they can make money by getting into the subprime market.

      According to law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton
      "More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision"

      And here is a link to a study showing this as well.
      It also shows that CRA banks were more likely to hold on to the mortgage instead of sell it as a security
      http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

    223. Re:I'm only going to say by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      Then I tell them to imagine having to go to the DMV, and like with the above...wait often for hours in long lines with govt. workers who are drones that dont' give a shit, and yet have them in control of dispensing your medical care...what Dr. to see...what prescription to fill, etc.

      The US alternative to apathetic government drones seems to be actively antagonistic insurance claims adjusters with financial motivation to deny care in as many cases as possible. The DMV may not be motivated to move me quickly through the lines, but at least they are not rewarded for refusing me a license

      Even in countries with truly socialized medicine, there remains a market for special services. You can almost always pay a premium for extra attention, extra fast service, or whatever else. You will, almost certainly, still be able to save up for that liver transplant, or buy catastrophic coverage to pay for it. Universal coverage means you don't have a financial motive to forgo minor treatment, and you catch small problems before they turn into catastrophes.

    224. Re:I'm only going to say by emotionus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its not exactly a scholarly source, but http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4965034.stm [BBC]

    225. Re:I'm only going to say by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      Which is done by the state not the fed. Who knew?

    226. Re:I'm only going to say by Brian.Kirby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and added to that, she'll probably lose the hotness factor before 2016.

    227. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is not to say that the Republican party and its conservative ideals are without merit.

      Am I the only one that shat myself with laughter upon reading the juxtaposition of "Republican party" and "conservative ideals?" These things have not gone together for at least ten years (I'm not saying the dems are conservative, just that neither party walks that walk); paying lip service to conservatism does not make your party conservative, not the same way that, oh, say, running a fiscally responsible administration would.

      And before anyone argues the point, "starving the beast" is an interesting idea, in the sense that it's "interesting" to try to get your wife to spend less on shoes by maxing your credit cards on a goddamn yacht. Where by "interesting" I clearly mean "fucking retarded," as in, it might keep her from spending money on shoes, but you're still fucked a lot more than you would have been if you just ballsed up and told her to stop buying the damn shoes in the first place.

    228. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having the Democrats win big by itself, will just make the Replubicans more left wing to appease voters. If you want a conservative party, vote conservative. The Republican party will notice their conservatives are going to a third party. "Hey, if we would have kept those votes, we might have won."

    229. Re:I'm only going to say by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Checks and balances...The voters are the check and balance when one party controls both the executive and legislative branches. Bad job, and they are out. Like Bush and the repugs.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    230. Re:I'm only going to say by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I'll respectfully disagree. And this search brings up references to stores like this that suggest otherwise.

      In the interest of fairness, this search doesn't really bring up anything to suggest otherwise, except lists of excuses and speculation, with no actual numbers to back them up. (e.g. "The democrats just inherit the years of prosperity and growth from the republican president that they replaced")

      In recent history (last 50-100 years), the economy has fared far better under deomcratic presidents. The whole "republicans are good for the economy!" BS just doesn't hold true.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    231. Re:I'm only going to say by nitebriar · · Score: 1

      Medicare and Medicaid is most of the problem in the US. We spend most of our money in health care on preventing the end. Most other countries spend their money on preventative medicine. Preventative medicine is cheaper and includes life style changes. The US needs to become better balanced to preventative and remove many of the government regulations that bloat the cost of health care and decrease the availability of treatment.

    232. Re:I'm only going to say by frieko · · Score: 1

      I think what GP's trying to say is that every time she lost sight of the teleprompter she degenerated into incoherent jibberish. That doesn't demonstrate the courage to speak one's mind, that demonstrates that she probably can't wipe her own ass without the help of a campaign aide.

    233. Re:I'm only going to say by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      I think we have some common ground on some things.

      However, don't blame us pro-free market people for your "B": the bailout. No one forced the government to do it -- certainly no pro-free market person. You (the government) should have just said no.

      Your view is the classic view held by Karl Marx -- no insult intended. You advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat. Again -- no insult intended -- I realize that these terms are thrown around by the right today as hot button buzz words (I voted for Obama). But it is descriptive of your viewpoint -- which I believe is fundamentally wrong. Capital doesn't just concentrate in 20 people on the planet in a truly free market.

      Marie Antoinette aside, some people should not be as wealthy as others. Your world view leads to the least common denominator -- which is pretty brutal.

    234. Re:I'm only going to say by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

      You want to ban campaigning? How would you do that in a way that does not violate the 1st amendment?

    235. Re:I'm only going to say by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      You're just wrong. An illustrative anecdote: I live in Minnesota, and we've got MinnesotaCare which isn't perfect but is, to my knowledge, the best system of its kind in the country. I'm not rich, far from it. For most of my adult life I have been uninsured, and when I did have insurance it was completely inadequate, over-expensive insurance through my employer. Copays, waiting periods, "I can get this kind of filling for a cavity but not that one," just all kinds of ridiculous shit.

      Now I'm self-employed and under $INCOME (but certainly not below the poverty line), and I'm eligible for MNCare. It is by far the cheapest, most hassle-free health plan I've ever had.

      (sorry, I'd like to continue this but I really have to go vote right now, I may pick this back up later)

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    236. Re:I'm only going to say by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Consider this: the Dems will need to have their hands untied at least to some degree to clean up some of that steaming pile of shit that Bush has left. Or would you rather have his legacy remain forever?

    237. Re:I'm only going to say by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you generally, but it took Obama two years to convince people that he was the right man for the job. I don't know if he convinced you personally, but he convinced a lot of people.

    238. Re:I'm only going to say by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      And if you're poor and don't have a car, or are elderly and can't easily move, you just drown? Fuck you, you arrogant prick.

    239. Re:I'm only going to say by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, as GP said, due to CRA, banks were REQUIRED to give ARMs to people, regardless of their ability to pay them back.

      The CRA laws and regulations literally mandated adjustable rate mortgages, and explicitly forbid the banks to consider creditworthiness? Do you even believe that yourself?

      The CRA basically says that depositary banks have to extend credit to ethnic minorities on the same terms that they do to white people. The Clinton-era regulations encouraging "subprime" lending set credit standards for subprime loans that the GSEs would purchase. These loans did pretty good, so a bunch of non-CRA private lenders decided to get into the subprime market, made loans that didn't measure up to the GSE standards, and packaged them in the private market. The GSEs then freaked out about losing market share and got careless about what they'd buy.

      And remember, this mortgage stuff is a drop in the bucket compared to the losses in the swap markets. Basically, you're skipping the biggest source of losses in the crisis, and putting blame for a secondary one on the wrong folks, by completely ignoring facts about what happened. Congratulations, you're a hack.

    240. Re:I'm only going to say by Myopic · · Score: 1

      You don't want people to sit on committees that interest them, and match their strengths?

    241. Re:I'm only going to say by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      no, I don't want the inefficiency of government, especially federal govt. dictating my health needs.

      The irony here is that it had been repeatedly shown that countries with socialized medical care can provide better care for the same money than the US. So, on the whole, it's really more efficient. Of course, it may be that the US federal government is particularly inept - but then, maybe, it's better to fix the government to the point that you can entrust important stuff to it? Given that they are already responsible for your foreign policy, it might be a good idea in general.

    242. Re:I'm only going to say by khyron664 · · Score: 1

      Regarding the high expense of the US health case system, part of the reason for that is....other nations. The US pays for almost all of the medical R&D that is required to develop a new drug and bring it to market. The US also houses the vast majority of the medical companies that create said drugs.

      The reason the US pays for the majority of the R&D costs is the because other nations refuse to help pay for the costs to develop a drug. When a drug company goes to secure exclusivity on the drug they developed, these countries "negotiate" the price way down by threatening not to honor the drug companies patents. Not having the patents honored means generics can be developed before the drug companies ever make back the expensive R&D costs for the drug, let alone any profit. Yes, there is no right to profit but there needs to be some profit potential or no one will create any more drugs.

      The reason most of the drugs are developed in the US is because other countries have passed so many laws that it is difficult to develop drugs in other countries.

      So, if other countries want to rag on the US about health care costs, how about ponying up and paying your fair share of the R&D costs?

      Sorry all if this sound inflammatory, but every time there's a discussion about US health care costs no one mentions these issues. This isn't the sole reason for the US health care system cost, but it is a significant factor and it should be addressed somehow. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing from people in countries outside of the US about how little they pay for drugs when their country is part of the reason the US pays so much more.

      Other issues such as HMOs, doctor fees, lawsuits, not for profit drug companies, social health care, etc are issues for another post. :)

    243. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah because the bridges were top notch already right. Just like that giant bridge collapse that happened not to long ago. FEMA did wonders during hurricane Katrina as well too. Perhaps the local government can focus on local issues with some federal funding and the Federal government can be the purse strings and deal with foreign policy. The Federal government is just too out of touch with the rest of the country. On a local level a Governor and state legislature knows what the state needs. In fact, it is their primary concern. A State senator or congressman only has a minority say and has to balance their state's needs with appeasing representatives from 49 other states. Not the most effective way to put your states interests first.

    244. Re:I'm only going to say by Myopic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "truely"?

      Dude, get Firefox, and it will put a little red dotted line under boneheaded mistakes like that. Then you don't have to undergo the ridicule that people like me will heap on you.

    245. Re:I'm only going to say by The+Assistant · · Score: 1

      If he only has 6 months, and it took him 2 years, he could have tried again next time to finish getting his message across.

      Tying up the media for 2 years to get his message across is a bit excessive, and distracts us, and our money, from other pressing needs.

    246. Re:I'm only going to say by Myopic · · Score: 1

      the magical thing about casinos is that they don't have to rig the tables for the odds to be in their favor. this is very much like capitalism. if you are rich, you have a big advantage, even if you don't cheat.

      whether that is good or bad is open to debate.

    247. Re:I'm only going to say by VickiM · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it won't be enough to satisfy you, but the World Health Organization Report of 2000 showed that the US has the highest healthcare costs of all 191 member states, per capita. Also, we ranked 37th in performance. While that doesn't say that it's the least efficient, it isn't pretty, either. That may have changed some over the last 8 years, but I have my doubts it's changed much.

    248. Re:I'm only going to say by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Your underregulated economy has already brought your country in a very uncomfortable position in the global market - we are now at the point where leaders of other countries are seriously discussing between themselves the idea of revamping the system behind global economy so that it is less US-centric (to prevent such strong "waves" from the mess that the US makes).

    249. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Germany have health care centers open on the weekends? Our growing wave of urgent care centers (they specialize in non-emergency room things like colds, sore throat, etc...) dispense with all the BS and give quality care at affordable prices (with or without insurance) during convenient times.

    250. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, she'll just start to target joe twelve-pack instead.

    251. Re:I'm only going to say by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 1

      ~Yeah, I take several trips a year on that "steaming pile of shit" called the interstate highway system. Boy, is that thing a piece of crap, being able to get me across 6 states in 8 hours of driving, and enabling commerce to move goods across the country in a matter of days. And when that guy at work broke his back and the company dropped him like a hot potato? God, It just pisses me off that the government stepped in and gave him disability...I mean, the guy could still _blink_ for cripes sake! He could do work that way, we should have just let him starve if he didn't want to show up anymore! And don't get me started on that damn rural electrification project. Those friggin' farmers don't need lights! And if you even mention the Coast Guard...~

    252. Re:I'm only going to say by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      When do you think it happened?

      I think it happened in the last few weeks before the primary. Hillary's hate. McCain's hate. I think Obama saw this as something that was only going to help him, but really sad that he could not have had a real fight debating technical issues.

      He is great at the "Hope" "Change" speeches that get all the idiots drooling over him, but he also really has the ability to get down to specific details and argue their merits and set out a clear vision such as his "A Call to Renewal" podcast from 2002.

      I said it to myself around the primary that Obama was a great gift, and the best we could really wish for to lead this country... but we don't deserve him, and our petty BS is going to break a really great man. I know this is just what some really hate hearing, but he reminds me of John Coffey from The Green Mile; he was this miracle given to us that by our greed and hate we would destroy for our own selfish, petty reasons.

      Now is he broken? Maybe. Could he just need some rest and recover soon after today?

      I have Hope.

      On a separate note, I hated him a LOT up till recently for supporting the bail out, and further for supporting the PRO-IP Act. But going to give him a chance, and hope it plays out well, like Lessig or Patry being given the position of Internet Czar. Preferably Patry cause I know there is already a position of Internet Advisor Obama has made for Lessig in his cabinet.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    253. Re:I'm only going to say by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia:

      Idiot is a word derived from the Greek "idiotes" ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual") ... "Idiot" was originally created to refer to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters.

    254. Re:I'm only going to say by krondell · · Score: 1

      Uh, what's so insightful about that? Is there something going on that day I don't know about? Other than the winter solstice? That's not "rapture" talk is it? I can't think of anything (that isn't batshit crazy) that would make me abandon all my "plans", which extend well beyond 4 years into the future.

    255. Re:I'm only going to say by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1

      So it's not a government action if it takes place on the state level.

      It's just a happy group of elected representatives governing the people of tha-- oh wait...

    256. Re:I'm only going to say by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

      If you regulate our economy as you suggest (and who decides how much regulation is enough?), you will simply make our entire country non-competitive.

      "how much regulation is enough" is exactly the question on the table, and just as it's foolish to say "as much as we can muster" it's foolish to say "none." There is some optimal balance, and that's what we're fighting over. Any argument that leads to either extreme conclusion is simply flawed - we've seen ample evidence that zero regulation leads to excessive risk-taking (particularly since the individuals that stand to profit off of high risk deals have very little to lose if the company whose money they're gambling with goes under, as we're seeing right now, with execs at disastrously failing banks returning home to humongous piles of money, earned from the past few years bonuses when these stupid risky bets happened to pay out), and that high regulation stifles markets. Arguing that any regulation at all will make our entire country non-competitive makes no more sense than arguing that any freedom of business will make our entire country corrupt.

      The same argument holds for taxes, btw - if your bullet point can be used to argue that you should ALWAYS lower taxes on the rich, or ALWAYS raise them, no matter what the current level, then your point is not worth discussing. Unfortunately most of the arguments presented on any of these issues continue to apply regardless of the level the "knob" under discussion is set to, which means they're all worthless.

      I think each party needs to stop pushing as hard in they can in the direction they want and start trying to show us the equilibrium point that they really want to get to; it would seriously increase the quality of political discourse in this country, and would end a lot of the straw-man arguing that takes place.

    257. Re:I'm only going to say by evilbessie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Er the rest of the world knew this 8 years ago, why do you think the rest of the world makes fun of the american system (well in Europe we certainly do).

      What most amuses me is that the republicans like to paint the democrats as "tax and spend", where as I see the republicans as "and spend". At least the democrats generate income before spending it. Which is how in 8 years, mostly prosperous years, they've gone from the largest budget surplus in american history see here to the largest budget deficit in history see here

    258. Re:I'm only going to say by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      HA HA HA HA HA!!!

      The part I will miss is making so much money on intrade.com. Oh well, I am sure there will be other exciting predictable events with lots of haters I can profit on. Technically the California gay marriage ban closes end of December and not with prop 8, so I can probably make some more money off those haters too. Woot!

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    259. Re:I'm only going to say by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      How's the IRS working out for you? And the TSA, how's that for a government program. Oh yeah, and social security, how's that looking lately. Freddie Mac? Fannie Mae? Why would Health care be different?

      The IRS seems to work fine. I can understand people disliking them because they are the ones who collect the taxes, but other than that, they seem to operate well. Social Security seems to be fine, the earliest complaints are in 2027, and I doubt will be the crisis everyone expects. It's doing better than my 401k at the moment certainly. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae may be th only thing preventing a horrible depression.

      But you are right, the TSA is insane. One counterexample.

      But tell me how good your HMO is. Do they let you see any doctor? A specialist right away? Do they make you wait for treatment while they cross the i's and dot the t's (reversal intentional). I've seen most of the problems that people assume exist in a "socialized" medicare system in every HMO. It's called bureaucracy, and private enterprise is not a panacea that magically makes it disappear.

      (BTW, talk to a Marine and ask them how smooth the military runs)

      I talk to a lot of NCO's for my job, although usually Navy/Air Force. I'm not sure that I entirely trust a Private more than a Command Master Sergant.

      Can't we spend time just reforming private health care? How about figuring out how come it's way more expensive (administrative costs and malpractice insurance) and just go about fixing that

      Well, it's because that doesn't seem to make sense. Medicare administrative costs are less than 10% that of private enterprises, so that seems to be the best way to lessen administrative costs. And lowering costs on goods does not lead to lower prices. That's never been true even in theory. (For some markets yes, but not for medical markets).

      And I assume that the US government can do it because every other western country somehow can.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    260. Re:I'm only going to say by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I agree and would like to add to that a bit.

      The Democratic party had that type of thing happen in the 60s or so. And it still hasn't recovered. The party used to be somewhat left of center, but pretty close to the edge.

      It's been problematic in recent years for those of us that oppose the war but really oppose efforts to stop it at any cost. A lot of people, myself included, were absolutely pissed at the short sighted self centered efforts to cut spending on the war without forcing the forces home first.

      And it's really that sort of bullshit which leads people to say that the Democrats are incompetent in foreign relations.

    261. Re:I'm only going to say by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      Been a while since I've lived there, but they didn't have that type of set-up. Weekend care was usually done by "duty call" doctors, basically you could check the paper which doctors where available on weekends, and they had limited hours. Since everyone takes all health insurances, cost was not an issue.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    262. Re:I'm only going to say by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      You've apparently not seen any SNL this year. Say what you will about other years, but there's no rational denying that SNL has been consistently funny this year. Excluding the Michael Phelps season opener (because athletes rarely have comedic timing), this season has been one of the highlights of US TV. That's not saying much, but it's definitely a LOT higher than your stated evaluation of SNL.

      The only thing I'm worried about is the loss of Amy Poehler since she just gave birth. She was one of the best on the show and was an anchor on Weekend Update.

      Also, every generation says SNL isn't as good as it was. You should have heard my parents complain back in the early 90s about how crappy SNL was. Yes, SNL with Phil Hartman, Dana Carvey, Mike Myers, Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, Norm Macdonald, Tim Meadows, Chris Rock, Dennis Miller, and Kevin Nealon were "not as funny [as the 70s cast."

      And I know people who think Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner, et al. were "not funny."

      And I know people who think Will Ferrell, Molly Shannon, Tina Fey, etc. were "not as funny as the 90s cast [or 70s]."

      And now there are people saying Kristin Wiig, Bill Hader, Seth Myers, etc. are "not funny [or as funny as the 70s cast]."

    263. Re:I'm only going to say by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      It's not just malpractice suits but personal injury lawsuits too. If you think personal injury suits are out of control, you should support universal healthcare. People in other countries just don't need to sue each other to pay medical bills. With good disability insurance, you don't need to sue for lost work either. The U.S. culture of litigation is a direct consequence of our private health insurance system.

    264. Re:I'm only going to say by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      Ah but the market will fix it because the market knows best, government involvement would cause it to be more inefficient and cost more...*

      *this is a joke, obviously.

    265. Re:I'm only going to say by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because you pro-regulators only want to do small stuff like:

      - make short selling illegal -- destroying a key method of price determination and arbitrage.

      - limit executive compensation -- limiting a key growth motivator (as if any government had the right).

      - pick winners and losers in mortgage foreclosures -- creating a huge fking moral hazard.

      Face it -- you are simply a mob.

    266. Re:I'm only going to say by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know. I just know this: The US spends more money, both in public and private dollars, to fund a system that works *worse* than the systems established in most of the western world. If that doesn't demonstrate that the system is fundamentally broken, I don't know what does.

      Furthermore, given that these other systems forgo the highly privatized approach that the US has adopted, and end up providing greater coverage for less total dollars spent, I think it's clear that the privatization experiment has fundamentally failed, and that the 'socialism" boogeyman is just a figment of the imaginations of those still listening to the echos of the red scare.

      Now, is the US capable of adopting such a system? I don't know. There are some awfully powerful special interests very much invested in the status quo. But given the alternative (stumbling further along with a system that's horribly, horribly broken), I really don't see the alternative but to at least *try*.

    267. Re:I'm only going to say by demachina · · Score: 1

      "No one forced the government to do it -- certainly no pro-free market person."

      Other than Bush and Paulson......

      At least Bush has been saying he is a "pro-free market person" all these years, though based on his track record for truthfulness and integrity it is certainly possible he was lying when he said it.

      --
      @de_machina
    268. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The President can sign, not sign, or outright veto a bill.

      He can also propose a bill if at least one member of Congress will sponsor it.

      He's also usually in charge of much of the implementation/oversight of some bills, as well as the accumulation of similar responsibility any new president inherits from past administrations.

      He also makes the budget - which Congress then debates and alters and eventually passes in changed form, and then we're back to power #1. It's not at all a trivial power. You may recall the government shut down for a while under Clinton during prolonged budget battles - he could veto a bill and congress didn't have enough support to override his veto.

      He's also the commander in chief of the entire military, and, even with the additional post-vietnam restrictions on that authority, he can pretty much do whatever he damn well pleases will minimal restraint (he has to at least TELL congress what he's doing) for the first few months.

      Basically: any time someone tells you a President doesn't really have much power, they're trying to make excuses to cover up their favorite president's failures.

    269. Re:I'm only going to say by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Gridlock is NOT checks and balances. It's dysfunctional and ineffective government.

      The best kind.

      When you can't trust them to do what is best for the country over themselves, second best option is to keep them from doing anything.

    270. Re:I'm only going to say by demachina · · Score: 1

      "The adults among us do much better when the government does nothing."

      I would be OK with the government doing next to nothing, they do a few good things like build roads and provide for national defense, defense not offense, preferably.

      The only problem I have is that they still seem to spend trillions of dollars while they are doing nothing........

      --
      @de_machina
    271. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regulation caused the whole sub-prime mess. The government threatened heavy fines for banks not loaning to low-income people. Heck, banks were even being sued by organizations like ACORN for not making the loans. Banks did what they were being pushed into by the government. If the feds didn't force banks to make bad loans, we wouldn't be drowning in foreclosures.

    272. Re:I'm only going to say by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      Believe me, Bush and Paulson are anything but free-market, small government proponents.

    273. Re:I'm only going to say by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      As I understand it Medicare spends about 2% of their costs on administration. Your average insurance company spends in the region of 20-25% on administration. You have to have health care, I would personally go for the one which is going to cost me less.

      Please note my numbers may be wrong but for the same level of care if you don't have to worry about profits then you _can_ do things cheaper.

    274. Re:I'm only going to say by mi · · Score: 1

      And people who don't blow their money on stupid shit, but still don't make enough to afford to both eat, pay rent, and have healthcare?

      If they earned enough wealth for their own treatment, they'll be able to afford it — sorry for the tautology, but it seems not obvious to everyone. It really is not that expensive, despite recent rises in price, and would be even cheaper with McCain's tax-credits.

      And if they — despite being born and raised in this blessed country — failed to earn enough, then they can appeal to charity.

      But not to government, which takes money from other citizens at gun-point and thus must spend it only on things, which benefit everyone.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    275. Re:I'm only going to say by demachina · · Score: 1

      "I'd like to point out that the lack of prevention and preparation for that disaster falls as much, or more, on the state and local government than on the federal government."

      Certainly true but there is is this thing called the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) and that is ALL they are supposed to do, especially in a case where an entire state is devastated by a disaster, and the resources for relief need to come from outside the state.

      You can play the blame game all you want, and the state and city deserve their share. The Louisiana governor was kicked out over it, along with the fact Louisiana turned in to a Republican state because all the black Democrats in New Orleans were scattered to other states never to return. I wouldn't put it past Karl Rove to have been weighing the advantages of sending New Orleans black Democrats to be swallowed in Republican Texas just so he could turn Louisiana in to a red state.

      At the end of the day though, when it was obvious that New Orleans was devastated it was the job of FEMA and the Bush administration to use the vast resources of the government and nation to provide relief. Instead they mostly sat on their hands for a week (outside of Coast Guard search and rescue) and it wasn't until they had been pummeled in the press that they sent in Army convoys with relief. The fatal failure of the Bush administration here? They appointed an incompetent political crony to head a vital agency. He was previously to incompetent to run an Arabian Horse association, what do you think his chances were going to be against Katrina. Story of the entire Bush administrationm, one incompetent and unqualified political crony after another, placed in positions of great importance, screwing up one place after another. Iraq was exactly the same story in 2003-2006. Department of Justice, same, same.

      --
      @de_machina
    276. Re:I'm only going to say by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call 220 more electoral votes and almost 10% higher popular vote in '96 a "photo finish."

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
    277. Re:I'm only going to say by demachina · · Score: 1

      If Bush isn't who is? Probably no one with any actual political and financial power then? Some people on Slashdot espousing free markets but with no actual ability to advance them doesn't seem particularly useful.

      --
      @de_machina
    278. Re:I'm only going to say by AmeerCB · · Score: 1

      And what's most amazing of all is that the US spends *more government money per capita* on healthcare than most other nations

      This is the part that scares me. Our health care system has become EXTREMELY inefficient. Americans do get some of the best health care in the world (don't have the numbers, but this has showed up in WHO reports before), but it is EXPENSIVE and the money is being dumped into the wrong places (billers, too-expensive insurance). I've griped about this in other slashdot discussions, but we absolutely HAVE to change the process when it comes to health care, not how we pay for the process.

      This is coming from an Obama supporter who thinks both candidates' health care plans are terrible.

    279. Re:I'm only going to say by drewvr6 · · Score: 1

      No one shoves this stuff down a person's throat. As anything, only when people consume something does someone continue to produce it. Don't blame the media outlets, blame the people who spend their precious time reading and worrying about Britney. My peeve is that good media (relative I know) is squeezed out by the vacuous majority.

      --
      Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
    280. Re:I'm only going to say by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Term limits are evil. They don't allow me to vote for who I want to vote for. If it weren't actually _in_ the Constitution (via amendment), I would consider it an un-Constitutional violation of my First Amendment rights. (Though, that makes me wonder if one could successfully fight against any non-Presidential term limits laws with a First Amendment violation argument.)

    281. Re:I'm only going to say by iconic999 · · Score: 1

      The U.S. is in debt up to Uncle Sam's ears, and 2009 will be a financially devastating year as the tidal wave of inflation hits the retail sector from the trillions of new money being pumped into the system. There will be selective national bond defaults to on the debt held by foreign governments. There will be massive unemployment. There will be riots. I feel "sorry" for the next president, whoever he is, because he will be hated, because he will not be able to solve the problems. The day of reckoning in our debt funded prosperity is at hand. There's no money for new social experiments. If health care is nationalized, where are the doctors going to come from to supply the demand? Can you spell "rationing?" The USA is not Germany. We have much bigger problems looming here. The next few years are going to be a nightmare in the land of the free. Health care is going to be the least of our problems.

    282. Re:I'm only going to say by vux984 · · Score: 1

      You don't want people to sit on committees that interest them, and match their strengths?

      Perhaps counter intuitively, the more a congress critter wants to be on a particular committee the less I think I want them there.

      Its sort of like letting jurors decide which cases they want.

    283. Re:I'm only going to say by drewvr6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The government did respond. The Federal government contacted the State government and offered aid. The Governor Blanco(?), and Mayor (Nagin) rejected the help. They then found out that it was a bad idea. The thinking that Katrina was a mistake by Bush ('cause he hate's black people) or that they should have superceeded the State gov. and declared martial law is ridiculous. It would only have brought on comments of overbearing government trying to infringe on personal freedom. As stated before, Dems blame other and accept none themselves. We can be 3 years into an Obama term and have massive terrorist strikes and it will still be W's fault. Always will be.

      --
      Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
    284. Re:I'm only going to say by LatencyKills · · Score: 1

      Not to trivialize El Presidente at all, but none of the above extends to the ability to create funding for his ideas. He can stop the budget, but he can't make it. Congress controls the purse strings, and pretty much everything runs on money and nothing runs on empty. Bush wanted money to keep troops in Iraq, he needed Congress to approve it - all he can do is ask - short of some stopgap measures he probably could have accomplished by sloshing around the DoD budget (now that I think of it I recall that he actually did that for a little while). But given the burn rate, that would have been a very temporary solution at best.

      --
      Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
    285. Re:I'm only going to say by jyurkiw · · Score: 1

      Politics is extremely important to technology right now, and nerds should care.

      The thing is that tech is still somewhat in it's infancy so far as legislation goes. Most politicians at the presidential level aren't familiar with any of it either because they're too old (McCain) or it's not their forte (Obama).

      In a generation or so the average politician will have grown up with the tech that we're all familiar with. Remember, we're the exception not the rule so far as familiarity goes.

      How technology gets treated in the future, I feel, will be based on legislation that gets passed between now and then. If we elect ignorant politicans and ignore our duty to vote (thereby leaving the decisions in the hands of the ignorant masses that DO vote) we'll have a legislative base that won't encourage innovation and won't protect the people it should.

      It's important, and threads like this very much belong on slashdot.

    286. Re:I'm only going to say by invader_allan · · Score: 1

      True, we shouldn't go with the party that suspended the constitution, decides the rule of law is insignificant and doesn't apply to the executive branch (which enforces the rule of law), and goes to war preemptively to promote our goal of being a peace loving nation that is not a threat to global security. We should avoid disasters as much as possible.

    287. Re:I'm only going to say by ultranova · · Score: 2, Informative

      I sometimes think how fun it would be to define a section of the country and say "here, we will remove all government from this area" -- let those so-called adults go there and run it for themselves without the "benefit" of government -- I wonder how long they would last before the gangs and rough justice send them running back?

      They would simply hire mercenaries and set themselves up as nobility. They fancy themselves as aristocrats, and historically, aristocrats were those who had the means of production - land, back then - to hire fighting men and kill anyone who opposed them. It was the rise of strong central government which put an end to feudalism, so of course the modern-day dukes want to abolish it to return to the good old days of serfdom.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    288. Re:I'm only going to say by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Whatever your feelings about socialized medicine, you should realize that where it does exist, it is wildly popular. Sure people may complain about it, but they'll defend their right to complain and keep the program to the bitter end.

      Woe betide any politician than fucks with the NHS in the UK. No sane politician would seriously suggest that it be dismantled or even scaled back.

      If Obama manages to institute a working approximation to socialized medicine in the USA, it will make it very hard to dismantle later because of the weight of public support. It will become the new "third rail" and the sooner the Republicans learn to re-package their message into "how it can be improved" instead of "how it can be stopped" the sooner they will become re-electable.

      If Obama does health well, this could be the beginning of a long period of power for the Dems. I can't think of any other issue with that amount of endurance.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    289. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a smaller government action at the state level with more freedom of association :P

      Also, lol!

    290. Re:I'm only going to say by mattwarden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Greenspan WAS a champion of free markets. But you cannot say that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve -- an entity whose entire purpose is to regulate the market -- is in favor of free markets. Manipulating the cost of capital is not a free market. Regulating certain securities and not others is not a free market. The problem with regulation is that it is imperfect and changes the competitive landscape. This is ALWAYS the case. The problem with credit default swaps, for example, is not that it is unregulated; the problem is that most other similar securities ARE regulated. That's what grew the market so large.

      You cannot look a the failure now and say that is due to free markets. In fact, there is a VERY strong indication that it is due to government intervention in the free markets. See the role of the GSE's and the Community Reinvestment Act's manipulation of the risk gradient. Wikipedia "moral hazard".

      But if you are quoting the House Oversight Committee minutes, then you already know all this.

    291. Re:I'm only going to say by pseudorand · · Score: 1

      > However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets.

      People think these things are the difference between republicans and democrats. They're not.

      Essentially, any intelligent, non-idealistic person (and many of you don't qualify) knows full well that the matters that government deals with are complicated and the general public, not spending all of our time studying these matters, simply isn't qualified to make decisions. That's why we're more of a republic (vote for people who make the decisions) rather than a direct democracy (public votes on each issue), and in places where we have direct democracy via ballot initiative (like Colorado and California), the ballot are long, annoying, and end up with conflicting, hard to implement, hard to enforce, laws enshrined in the state constitution.

      The real difference between democrats and republicans is not that democrats want big government and regulations and republicans want small government and free markets, but that democrats realize that our best bet is to trust out elected officials to make good decisions on the right amount of taxes and regulations after doing their homework while republicans assume government is always bad and the free market always ends up with the right answer. Democrats are in the difficult position of knowing that the free markets don't always fix things (need I site the bailout), but that elected officials routinely screw up as well. We just have to vote and hope for the best. Republicans are delusional people who blame government and the immoral lefties who draw the wrath of God for all the county's problems.

      And please pardon my gross generalizations of wide swaths of America. Or just flame me, whichever suits your fancy.

    292. Re:I'm only going to say by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Yes. The only reason it's even considered insightful for you to say that is because they've been so incredibly incompetent, but a good government is much better than either a bad government or no government.

    293. Re:I'm only going to say by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I have never really understood why it is called insurance. After all, insurance rates should only go up if the population as a whole is more at risk of cancer, not if someone in your office has cancer.

      This isn't insurance - it's a pay-for-your-healthcare-plus-profit-for-me lay-away plan.

      I'm sure that you care for your staff's well-being, but less caring business owners might be inclined to fire anyone with Cancer to keep their costs low.

      Frankly I think the only reason health care is the way it is is to keep employees beholden to their companies.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    294. Re:I'm only going to say by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Unfortunately it's even worse than you know because:
      1. The federal government was aware that a Category 3 hurricane was a danger to New Orleans. For almost 20 years, the Army Core of Engineers warned that the levees were not enough. They asked for money every year to address the problem. Every year other things got priorities.
      2. The federal government conducted a simulation called Hurricane Pam a year before Katrina. Mike Brown (Brownie) was there and led the exercise. The point was to see what were the potential problems that might need to be addressed.
      3. Hurricane Pam identified major problems with the evacuation plans as well as the infrastructure. It was estimated almost 30K people would be left behind.
      4. To address the potential problems, the next phase of Hurricane Pam would have been planning to mitigate the problems.
      5. Unceremoniously, funding to Pam was cut before this mitigation planning phase ever started. The Bush administration called it "an entitlement program".
      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    295. Re:I'm only going to say by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I'm hardly an equal participant in capitalism with the few 1000s that are in my 401k. I simply must play the game that the big dogs dictate.

      I want regulation that evens the playing field.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    296. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not talking about government run hospitals. It would be a single payer, or 50 payer system most likely with the same payment system for standardization.

      For an example in the current US system, look at Medicaid and Medicare. I don't recall there being a Medicaid hospital, a Medicare hospital, a private hospital, and a "you don't have insurance but we are forced to give you care anyways" hospital in my town.

    297. Re:I'm only going to say by 2short · · Score: 1


      "Why is it fair to compare the way that the rest of the world does health care in a vacuum"

      I'm not. We, as a society, pay much more for health care than other places that get better health care for less money. Whether I pay taxes or premiums makes little difference to me.

      People going to the doctors office on Medicaid cost much less than people going to the Emergency Room with non-emergencies for "free". Our government has proved really bad at handling health care: we mostly fund emergency rooms, which is a crappy way to provide health care.

      It comes back to what seems to be the basic Republican position lately: Government does a crappy job, elect us and we'll prove it.

      I say: Government is us; We are doing a crappy job; We should do better. Take some fraking responsibility already.

    298. Re:I'm only going to say by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      The state and local governments are *more* to blame, but the federal gov't is not without blame. The army corp of engineers manages the levies. Bush did not declare the coastal provinces of Louisiana a disaster zone, even though coastal areas of Alabama and Mississippi were declared and Governor Blanco specifically requested it. He had appointed Michael Brown head of FEMA, even though he was grossly underqualified, and FEMA acted erratic and incompetent throughout the disaster relief and recovery. That's how it makes sense.

    299. Re:I'm only going to say by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because you pro-regulators only want to do small stuff like:

      Way to completely miss the point of my argument, which was that viewing the situation as pro-regulators vs. anti-regulators is entirely unproductive - anyone that really falls purely into either one of those camps is being an ass, and generally when you accuse someone of living at one of those extremes you're just strawmanning them.

      If you're really arguing that any regulation whatsoever is bad, then you truly are deluded; the very existence of a free market depends in part on regulations ensuring one. For instance, it's only the regulatory system that makes sure that your broker can't screw with your trades (delaying them by arbitrary amounts, "accidentally" not executing them when it's convenient for him, etc.) for his own profit. Crap like that actually happened on a regular basis before that industry started to get regulated (talk to anyone that was trading personally in the 80s if you doubt me; literally every trader I know from that era has stories about getting cheated out of cash); you'd really like to return to that? In any middleman industry there are dozens of ways that the greedy and dishonest can abuse an unfettered market, and these must be regulated against or the market will be widely viewed as unfair and will become useless due to illiquidity.

      FWIW, I don't personally endorse any of the things you suggested (and in fact I disagree strongly with the first two, and I'm not taking a stand on the third because I don't really know what you mean by "pick winners and losers"), and I think our current level of regulation is hovering around a decent level - we're still competitive but we're not seeing massive fraud or abuse in the business world overall. A few tweaks here and there (in both directions) wouldn't hurt, but nothing is fundamentally wrong with the overall level of regulation.

    300. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets.

      [citation needed]

    301. Re:I'm only going to say by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "mechanism to pay them off if they ever came due. John Cassano made something like $200 million, personally, selling CDS's as a contractor at AIG, When his house of cards collapsed AIG kept paying him $1 million a month..."

      Damn!! Why can't I ever figure out some kinda scheme/scam like that to make some serious cash. One of those...and I'm set for life.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    302. Re:I'm only going to say by pluther · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hell, it only took him about 15 minutes to convince me.

      It was when he was in Eugene and answered a question by a member of a local Socialist group by explaining why their ideas, while good-hearted, were wrong, unworkable, and would never be practical as a national economic policy.

      Mind you, what got me is not that he stated this, but that he actually took time out of his prepared speech to explain why he believes in capitalism.

      Well, that and his abortion stand. I've always considered it the one issue where no common ground could be found, but he's managed to find it.

      Finally, a candidate who would make a better president than I would. For the first time in my life, I don't feel like I'm voting for the lesser of two evils.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    303. Re:I'm only going to say by Baba+Ram+Dass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just ask Alan Greenspan, champion of free markets and less regulation;

      REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

      ALAN GREENSPAN: That is -- precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

      Except the financial industry is heavily regulated. To classify it as a free market is utterly ignorant. I have no reason to believe Greenspan is ignorant, so I have to assume he said what he said to protect his legacy.

      --
      Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
    304. Re:I'm only going to say by ihatethetv · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that post. I've found myself in that argument and never been able to put my sentiments into words that well.

      I should print that out and carry it around in my wallet.

    305. Re:I'm only going to say by wilhelm · · Score: 1

      How does this violate the first amendment? The first guarantees freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of religion, and the right to petition the government. Not seeing where a term limitation would violate that.

      The Constitution would have to be amended, as the legislative terms are laid out in Article One, but without any explicit rules regarding limits on number of terms one may serve.

    306. Re:I'm only going to say by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.2% of GDP, second only to the tiny Marshall Islands among all United Nations member nations. The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017. In 2007 the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person.

      I've been wondering what the median spending on health care is, not the mean. The problem with using a mean is that if a bunch of rich guys want to pay $200k/yr for botox treatments, it'll inflate the mean spending on medical procedures even though most of the population isn't paying any more. The median is designed specifically to get around this problem by looking at how much the 50th percentile of the population pays. In a nationalized health care system which covers everyone, there isn't any appreciable difference between mean and median; but in a voluntary system like in the U.S., there could be a significant difference.

      Even more confounding, some of the statistics I've seen on this use the mean for average U.S. health care cost, then compare it to the median of developed countries. If you're smart enough to use the median for one measure, then use it for the other as well.

    307. Re:I'm only going to say by Golias · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but it was yet another election in which the winner failed to win 50% of the popular vote.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    308. Re:I'm only going to say by EvilGoodGuy · · Score: 1

      The country at this time is severely divided, and it has been the steady hand promised by Obama that has been able to attract voters this year.

      The voting isn't complete yet by the way. I'd hold off on counting those chickens. You can't trust the news polls that they throw at you. They couldn't provide an accurate poll if their viewer-ship depended on it.

    309. Re:I'm only going to say by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      Simple question then: do you think speculation is good or bad for the market?

    310. Re:I'm only going to say by Golias · · Score: 1

      The Dems in Congress voted in favor of the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act, the FISA wire-tapping bill, etc.

      That's why I voted third-party. Neither of the major parties really stand for freedom. One of them just happens to be better at lying to you about it than the other.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    311. Re:I'm only going to say by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Quite the opposite, they were regulated badly."

      Nope, credit default swaps weren't regulated at all, there was no open markets to establish their value, there were no reserve requirements on them, there weren't even good accounting rules for them, and there was no transparency so you could look at a company's books and figure out the risks they had associated with them. That was all OK as long as there were no big defaults. When Lehman failed there was, and it took down AIG almost over night. Accountants couldn't figure out what they were worth or what the risks and liabilities were. AIG definitely didn't have the reserves set aside to actually paying any of them off. At AIG their outside accountant, Price Waterhouse as I recall, tried to flag the problem but AIG execs just pushed back, said there was no problem and brushed the problem under the rug. Then Lehman collapsed, AIG's counterparties started demanding more collateral and AIG suddenly had a hundred billion dollar hole in its balance sheet only the government could fill. If they'd let AIG fail it could have resulted in systemic collapse. It could well be AIG's liabilities will end up in the hundreds of billions in the near future if they have to actually pay all of them off.

      An assortment of powerful people fought over the years to keep them unregulated so they were. As I recall Rubin, Greenspan and Gramm all fought to keep them unregulated. There were GAO reports back in the early 90's red flagging their danger to the economy, where they might cause a systemic collapse if a large company in the middle of them were to default. In 2008 that nearly happened, still might.

      --
      @de_machina
    312. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely free markets would just be handing all the worlds money to a bunch of wolves

      Even what your talking about here is not really a free market. In a totally free market corporations would not be legally obliged to act in the best interests of their investors, which I believe would cause a lot of people who would otherwise trust corporations to disinvest.

    313. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to paraphrase what the other replies have said:

      YOU are completely full of SHIT.

      This crap about the CRA is everywhere in the right-wing blogosphere ... but to believe it (and echo it) requires an incredible lack of critical thinking. Especially when you throw in ARMs, which were explicitly prohibited by the CRA.

    314. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to think that the Dems have their act together and the Reps don't.

      I think the Dems have been embarrassing, losing not once to W, but twice! Given two great shots, the best they could come up with were cardboard Gore and hairspray Kerry. I mean, how hard could it really be to put up a better candidate than W?

      Then the Dems outspend Reps 3-to-1 on the presidential race, while the sitting Rep President has an all-time low approval rating, and the nation is holding its breath to see who will win.

      That doesn't speak well of the Democratic Party. It makes them look almost incompetent.

      I am happy to see that the Democratic Party was determined to make history one way or another with their two candidates. That was a great push in the right direction. But they have got to get their act better together in getting the puck into the net. It shouldn't be this hard when there isn't even a goalie.

    315. Re:I'm only going to say by Time_Warped · · Score: 1

      I must Totally Disagree with your assessment. Religious conservatives make up about 35% of the electorate, and the Republican Party cannot win without them. It is the "Moderate Neocons" that Bush has been sucking up to who are the core of the problem. These people are for Big Oil, Raping the Middle Class to appease the rich, and outsourcing our jobs to get cheap labor. Religion is NOT part of there agenda, which is simply to suck the life blood from the economy. The Republican platform, should be one of "Traditional Family Values", balancing the budget, "growing the middle class" and providing a strong national defense. It is the "Big Oil Industrialist" types who are ruining the party. Sarah Palin, while possibly not the brightest candidate, is in spirit from the same type of Republican, that gave us Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. Despite the fact that John Mc Cain is a RINO, I almost voted for the ticket, just because of Sarah. Almost. But the Republicans will no longer get my vote until they move back to the RIGHT and quit worrying about what the "Moderates" think.

    316. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      The IRS seems to work fine. I can understand people disliking them because they are the ones who collect the taxes, but other than that, they seem to operate well.

      Are you serious??? A tax code that is over 3500 pages long that no one person can completely understand? That's good eh? Ok. I guess.

      Social Security seems to be fine, the earliest complaints are in 2027, and I doubt will be the crisis everyone expects. It's doing better than my 401k at the moment certainly.

      What? Given the current state of the trust fund, all funds will be depleted by 2041. So...that's a good thing I guess? It is a crisis right now...forget later on.

      Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae may be th only thing preventing a horrible depression.

      What are you talking about. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and their under capitalization kicked off this whole mess. They led the way on relying on the government to bail them out. A good idea, for sure, but once again, it shouldn't be the government's job to provide loans. And the worst part, when mortgages SHOULD have been harder to get and therefore home prices should have naturally dropped, good ole Fannie and Freddie keep them artificially inflated by giving loans to anyone who asked. (basically) So, no, they're not helping, they started it. (of course it was really started by the nasdaq bubble, but that's another conversation)

      But tell me how good your HMO is. Do they let you see any doctor? A specialist right away? Do they make you wait for treatment while they cross the i's and dot the t's (reversal intentional). I've seen most of the problems that people assume exist in a "socialized" medicare system in every HMO. It's called bureaucracy, and private enterprise is not a panacea that magically makes it disappear.

      I've got a PPO and yeah, I can see whoever the hell I want and have not had a single problem getting to see a specialist. I've seen two and my wife has been to two as well. Not including the birth of our child, which by the way, was done where we chose by who we chose. So, I have no problem with the current state of my health care, besides the price. The fact is, whatever I've paid over the last, say five years, is a shadow of what I would have paid had I not bought insurance. It sucks to pay the bill, but it's *worth* the price. I drive a shittier car, but hey...my family has coverage.

      And I assume that the US government can do it because every other western country somehow can.

      So you're cool with paying half your income to taxes?

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    317. Re:I'm only going to say by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      And people who don't blow their money on stupid shit, but still don't make enough to afford to both eat, pay rent, and have healthcare?

      Just lazy I guess, let 'em die like a dog...

      A dog wouldn't die like that - they have their priorities straight. :P

    318. Re:I'm only going to say by Malkin · · Score: 1

      ...increased taxes, less incentive for doctors to be doctors, less medical innovation, etc. etc. etc.

      Australia's universal coverage system is called "Medicare." The Australian "Medicare Levy" is 1.5% of taxable income. (Since you like citations: http://www.livingin-australia.com/income-tax-australia.html) Australians are welcome to buy private health insurance, in addition to Medicare. People who are more wealthy are expected to buy some kind of private hospital insurance, or their Medicare Levy goes up to 2.5%.

      The United States has two safety net systems, called "Medicare," and "Medicaid." Medicare is only available to people of retirement age and people with certain disabilities. Medicaid only covers poor people who belong to certain designated eligibility groups. For Medicare, alone, our employers must pay 1.45% of our income, and we must pay an additional 1.45%, coming to a total of 2.9%. Yes, we are already paying more for coverage that most of us don't benefit from. And that's before we even count Medicaid.

      So, universal healthcare doesn't necessarily have to cost more. That begs the question: Why are we paying so damn much for Medicare, already? It's probably because our healthcare costs more, across the board. Some folks like to argue that it's because we have the best healthcare in the world. However, our national health stats just plain don't back that up. Worse, some American health insurance companies are starting to look at sending patients overseas for medical procedures, because it's cheaper. I don't know what the hell would be "less incentive for doctors to be doctors" than having their jobs outsourced to India.

      Our healthcare in the US is too expensive, but if the insurance industry is now looking at sending people overseas, they have effectively thrown their hands up in the air over the matter. No good answers are forthcoming from our allmighty free market, so far. I'm not holding my breath.

    319. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      BTW, I should point out that I don't make crazy money. My wife and I make modest incomes, but we've got financial priorities. Health insurance comes before cars, restaurants, etc. It's not like everybody couldn't afford the same coverage I've got. It just takes a little discipline.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    320. Re:I'm only going to say by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      The Fed was created in response to numerous crashes and bank failures that had preceded it. Here's a thought - look at the economic history of the US post Fed and then look at it pre-Fed. Which economy was the more stable?

      About the same.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

      Unless you have some quanitifiable data. The Fed was created to address Bank runs. Perhaps that has more to do with fractional reserve banking than anything else.

      Since 2002? Obviously you didn't read the numerous Ron Paul Newsletters when it was revealed what vile garbage the man spouted during the early nineties. 'cos he was predicting economic collapses then too.

      Please quote somethig specific instead of vague argumentments.

      Or is it to blame ethnic minorities by claiming a law against discrimination which only affected regulated banks, and which mandated credit checks anyway, had some kind of role in this?

      You're the only one bring race into the argument all of a sudden.

    321. Re:I'm only going to say by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      I say: Government is us; We are doing a crappy job; We should do better. Take some fraking responsibility already.

      In what regard? Why is health care any different from food? People are hungry because they were to lazy to finish school or too lazy to keep a job. Should we give everybody the same food too?

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    322. Re:I'm only going to say by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were gov't entities, then were spun off into non-gov't corporations (though everyone thought they had some sort of special unspoken gov't back-up), then were placed back in gov't conservatorship recently. They are not the cause of the financial upheaval going on. They actually got into the sub-prime market late and in a lesser way due to legal restrictions that other companies did not have.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#The_mortgage_crisis_from_late_2007

      Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals (HUD government goals), GSE's such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have strived to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activites Report)

      Then in 2007, the subprime mortgage crisis began. An increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit that were unable to pay their mortgages - particularly with adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), caused a precipitous increase in home foreclosures. As a result, home prices declined as increasing foreclosures added to the already large inventory of homes and stricter lending standards made it more and more difficult for borrowers to get mortgages. This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages. In July of 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock. Despite these efforts, by August 2008, shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had tumbled more than 90% from their one-year prior levels.

      The CRA has been blamed by many on the right largely because it is about the only way to tie the financial shitstorm directly to Democrats. Unfortunately, the argument simple doesn't hold water. Are you really suggesting that a law passed 31 years ago caused no problems for 3 decades caused a sudden and dramatic panic? Do you have any evidence to offer to support that? Do you even know what the CRA really requires of lenders (and which ones)?

      What does "getting amendment over time" mean to you?

      The rest of your argument is disputable:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis

    323. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. Nice burn.

    324. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well ... at least Brittney's marriage record might be somewhat factual ... as opposed to the fictional promises and plans that we have had to listen to over the last ~ 2 years.

      I say publish a consolidated record of each candidates votes, vetoes, public record and push that out for everyone to see. Let them sit quietly by while we get to review them. Past performance is best predictor of future performance.

    325. Re:I'm only going to say by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      > In socialized medicine you get the luck of the draw - and that can mean very good care. In private care, you get a choice (to and extent) - and your care is predicated on how well you chose.

      That's not the case in Australia or most other places I know of. There seem to be all these negative myths about socialized healthcare floating around. You can go and see *any doctor you like* under Australia's "universal healthcare". They can refer you to any specialist and any hospital for treatment that either they or you prefer. There are no constraints - whoever you see, the bill goes back to the government (or at least is offset by it).

      Cheers,

      Simon.

    326. Re:I'm only going to say by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Here's my problem with that: Under Clinton, FEMA started with $200 million in seed money to assist communities plan for disasters. FEMA had conducted a study that for every $1 spent on preparedness meant $5 dollars saved in the backend for relief. Under the Bush administration, any money allocated to state and local communities for emergency preparedness were labeled as "entitlement programs" and were cut. So local and state governments have to do it all on their own without any assistance and it's completely their fault that they failed. If only there was a federal agency whose sole purpose was to aid in planning and preparing for disasters.

      Here's why Bush gets the blame: He's in charge of the government, specifically the branch of the government that was supposed to aid in disasters. But some would protest that he's a "delegater", and that it was Mike Brown's fault. Well who appointed Mike Brown? That would be George Bush.

      This is no different in any business situation. If I am team leader and I assign one of my team members failed at a task that lead to catastrophe, whose fault is it? I would have to accept responsibility for the failure because (1) it was my team, (2) I entrusted the task to someone who failed when there were others or myself, (3) all failures are mine, all successes belong to the team.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    327. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (sorry to AC, I'm on a slow mobile connection)

      Speculation is absolutely necessary for an efficient market; it's one of the primary means by which mispricings are weeded out. Real problems with speculation only start to show when it is combined with a) massive leverage, and b) no personal downside risk on the part of the people responsible for making the trades (but substantial upside rewards)..

    328. Re:I'm only going to say by Darby · · Score: 1

      We need to replace everyone up there were someone new! We the people need to walk out on the floor point to the whole crew and say "You're Fired!"

      Won't happen as long as the nitwits (most of the population of the US regardless of party affiliation) keep complaining about "lack of experience" as if it were a bad thing. I don't want some sick sons of bitches who are very fucking good at slopping pork and fucking me over.

      Experience in the federal legislature is experience at being one of the worst scum in the world.

      I don't care if somebody doesn't know how the current system is set up to work, because it's set up to work against me.

      The idea that being a politician was a valid career choice would have made our founding fathers puke and take up arms against the bastards.

    329. Re:I'm only going to say by Darby · · Score: 1

      remember kids, Lieberman is a Democrat in name only

      No, that was a long time ago. Now he's not even that. He's a fringe fascist Republican who is an independent in name only. He left the Democrats after losing the primary.
      Technically he's the representative of Israel more than the US.

    330. Re:I'm only going to say by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1

      Whoever comprised the one seat majority in the senate is apparently the most powerful person in the world as they have been able to single handedly thwart agenda of the executive branch....maybe they should be president.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    331. Re:I'm only going to say by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
      Ask the families of the people that crashed into the Mississippi River where the I35 bridge used to be.

      The governor provided the comforting words that Minnesota had few bridges in disrepair than some other states.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    332. Re:I'm only going to say by ultracool · · Score: 1

      He made one of his relatively unqualified buddies head of FEMA.

    333. Re:I'm only going to say by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1

      If you want to live in a place with low taxes and minimal government, a place where there are more guns than people, a place where personal protection is the norm rather than a government service...if you want all those things, you are describing Somalia in the 1990's. You missed out on paradise!

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    334. Re:I'm only going to say by 2short · · Score: 1


      Why is healthcare different from: Education, roads, police and fire protection, courts...?

      You can argue what things you think society ought to collectively provide to it's members; intelligent people might reasonably have a different opinions about what should be on that list.

      What I suggest is unreasonable about our current health care system is that we do provide health care to people; we just do it in a really inefficient, financially stupid way. Unless you want to turn the indigent away from emergency rooms and just letting them die, we should pay for keeping them alive more efficiently than we do.

      "Should we give everybody the same food too?"
      Same deal. We should (and do) feed the hungry. If you don't want to do it out of the goodness of your bleeding liberal heart, do it out of self interest: A bunch of people starving to death in the streets is a real downer; bad for property values. Most arguments against welfare revolve around how undeserving the (imagined) lazy recipients are, but in my view, that's entirely irrelevant. None of the socialist programs I support (food stamps, health care, public schools, interstates, bank bailouts) are particularly "fair"; they're just "better".

    335. Re:I'm only going to say by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1

      Why is Canada always considered the reference implementation for universal health care? Germany has had "socialized" medicine since the 19'th century. It works (German's have a knack for measuring things) and it's cheaper to deliver than the US.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    336. Re:I'm only going to say by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      Again, common ground. I think "regulation" often means drastically different things to different people. I believe I am very pre-free market, but I certainly believe in transparency for example. Transparency requires an SEC-like regulator -- but I wouldn't call transparency "regulation."

      To your point, players in any market should be exposed to the up- and down-sides to every decision. Socializing the losses makes no more sense than socializing the gains.

    337. Re:I'm only going to say by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "From what I understand of Obama's plan, you could still keep your regular health insurance plan. The idea is to make sure that there is at least some health care available to everyone and that all children are covered in some way. You can still keep your existing health plan. It focuses more on providing preventative care such as routine physicals and various types of screenings. This should help people catch problems earlier before they end up becoming much harder to treat and a lot more expensive, which we'll end up paying for when the person shows up in the emergency room."

      Great...so now I can pay for MY health plan.....and someone elses too, eh?

      Oh Joy!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    338. Re:I'm only going to say by kno3 · · Score: 1

      Did I call him an idiot?

    339. Re:I'm only going to say by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "For an example in the current US system, look at Medicaid and Medicare. I don't recall there being a Medicaid hospital, a Medicare hospital, a private hospital, and a "you don't have insurance but we are forced to give you care anyways" hospital in my town."

      Well, thing is...not every doctor or hospital has to accept Medicare/Medicade. I know many doctors stopped accepting those patients because the programs were starting to pay way too little on some procedures.

      So, what are they gonna do with the US sanctioned 'universal insurance'...are they going to then mandate that private physicians have to accept any and all forms of payment? Hmm....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    340. Re:I'm only going to say by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Are you serious??? A tax code that is over 3500 pages long that no one person can completely understand

      All laws are like that. Because you can get by with a simple law "Thou shalt not kill" until someone kills in self-defense. Then it becomes "Thou shalt not kill, except in self-defense". Fast forward to when someone eats too many sugary treats, and thinks the victim was an evil mythological creature, but the sugar induced hallucination was not foreseeable because it was due to a recent and temporary trama, and you get even more hairs split. But all large organizations suffer from the same effect, government and private.

      But the IRS seems able to administer the rules and collect the money with a large degree of sucess.

      Given the current state of the trust fund, all funds will be depleted by 2041. So...that's a good thing I guess?

      That's when most of the baby boomers will be dead I suppose. The trust fund isn't required for social security. It's just a cushion. But I do think that retirement ages should rise with life expectancy.

      Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and their under capitalization kicked off this whole mess.

      I would say that greedy bankers who made subprime loans kicked it off.

      They led the way on relying on the government to bail them out.

      Since they are government run, this makes sense. AIG and the $700 billion less so.

      when mortgages SHOULD have been harder to get and therefore home prices should have naturally dropped, good ole Fannie and Freddie keep them artificially inflated by giving loans to anyone who asked. (basically) So, no, they're not helping, they started it.

      I agree morgages should have been harder to get. But I would say that it's a direct result of lowering the highest tax rates. This led to increased risk taking which led to subprime morgages.

      The fact is, whatever I've paid over the last, say five years, is a shadow of what I would have paid had I not bought insurance. It sucks to pay the bill, but it's *worth* the price. I drive a shittier car, but hey...my family has coverage

      And I think it would be less expensive to have one government run system, thus saving you all those issues.

      So you're cool with paying half your income to taxes?

      I'm not happy about it, but I think it's worthwhile, and I think it's my patriotic duty. Certainly accumulating debt to increase taxes in the future is just screwing over the future. Providing for the needy and less fortunate is a burden on me, but one I owe my society.

      And certainly if I get more healthcare for an increase in my taxes than I do if I had to pay out of pocket, I'd be an idiot not to go for it. As someone once said "If you offer me a choice between a premium and a tax, my question is 'which one is cheaper?'"

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    341. Re:I'm only going to say by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      My point is that you're already paying more for socialised health care than most more socialist countries, you're just not getting it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    342. Re:I'm only going to say by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 1

      Depends whether or not you want me to kill you and take your stuff.

    343. Re:I'm only going to say by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that my vote is my "freedom of speech", expressing who I want to take office.

      I admittedly cannot come up with examples at the moment, but I believe that "freedom of speech" has been used in an indirect way such as this. (I would think that "campaign finance reform" violates free speech too.)

    344. Re:I'm only going to say by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      banks were REQUIRED to give ARMs to people, regardless of their ability to pay them back.

      And then Bush undid Clinton's CRA regulations, and what happened? Banks KEPT giving ARMs to people, because they were making good money on them.

      You also didn't mention the other 50% of the loan originators that weren't banks and therefore weren't required to do anything by the CRA, but gave out ARMs to people because they were making good money too. Or the apparent steering of people from prime loans to subprime loans because, surprise surprise, subprime loans were making the banks and the brokers good money.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    345. Re:I'm only going to say by vux984 · · Score: 1

      She thought that was a trick question designed to make her seem out of touch.

      It was a question she didn't want to answer, and she didn't want to answer it because the truth probably wasn't particularly inspiring.

      That doesn't make it a "trick question".

      Seriously, the question was a probe into her qualification to be vice president, with respect to her knowledge of the issues facing the country as a whole, and the various states within it.

      She could have diverted the 'which magazine question' easily by simply saying ... 'Oh, as governor of Alaska I of course read "The Alaskan Gazette" as it focuses on relevant local issues; my office also brings in New American, and I skim a number of other publications; but magazines aren't really how I stay on top of the issues that face our country;... instead I..."... and then say whatever it she wants to say to not appear as an ignorant isolated governor from Alaska...

    346. Re:I'm only going to say by Danse · · Score: 1

      "From what I understand of Obama's plan, you could still keep your regular health insurance plan. The idea is to make sure that there is at least some health care available to everyone and that all children are covered in some way. You can still keep your existing health plan. It focuses more on providing preventative care such as routine physicals and various types of screenings. This should help people catch problems earlier before they end up becoming much harder to treat and a lot more expensive, which we'll end up paying for when the person shows up in the emergency room."

      Great...so now I can pay for MY health plan.....and someone elses too, eh?

      Oh Joy!

      We already do, through taxes, when people who can't pay end up in the hospital. Might as well lower our tax burden by helping to make sure that we don't have to keep waiting until they require ridiculously expensive emergency care before we help them.

      We already pay more per-capita for health care than any other similarly developed country, and we can't even manage to cover everyone, as most of them do. Nor is our health any better for it. Why must we keep following this path when it obviously isn't working?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    347. Re:I'm only going to say by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      make short selling illegal

      Only over-reactors (the SEC) and straw men (the SEC is evil and wants to kill your babies!) want to make "short selling" illegal. It's the "naked" part that's the problem. If you don't think naked short selling is fraud, then I have 30,000 bridges to ocean front property in Utah to sell you, and they're all the same one, and just between you and me, that one is not actually mine to sell.

      limit executive compensation -- limiting a key growth motivator

      Ideally, I'd rather limit corporate incest. Ban CEOs from serving on each other's boards. Then we can say that a group of independent people with the company's best interests in mind decided that the CEO should be paid millions of dollars because he provided that value to the company, not because the CEO will vote for their raises next quarter.

      pick winners and losers in mortgage foreclosures

      Winners are the people who are making their payments, losers are the people who aren't. Was there some other idea in mind? I will say that there's plenty of cases where banks are shooting themselves in the foot (for instance, evicting paying renters in good standing from rental properties, instead of considering transferring the mortgage contract and ownership of the house to the renter if they want it) where the bank deserves to die a miserable death instead of begging for the government to save it from its own stupidity.

      do you think speculation is good or bad for the market?

      I think speculation (and derivatives and everything else mankind has and will invent as ways to gamble money) is. I also think that people need to separate speculation from the actual delivery of product when talking about the economy. For instance, the run up of commodity futures prices (even as demand for oil, etc was dropping) is easy to explain as being due to the billions of dollars that hedge funds were pouring into the commodities markets driving up demand for futures, not for the actual commodities. It's not the speculation that's "bad", it's the misinterpretation.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    348. Re:I'm only going to say by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I know this is just what some really hate hearing, but he reminds me of John Coffey from The Green Mile; he was this miracle given to us that by our greed and hate we would destroy for our own selfish, petty reasons.

      Holy crap you really bought in. He's not a miracle worker. He's an intelligent, thoughtful politician. He's also a shrewd one and knows how to play the game. And he does NOT have all the answers. Nobody does.

    349. Re:I'm only going to say by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      If the feds didn't force banks to make bad loans, we wouldn't be drowning in foreclosures.

      We'd still have the 50% of the loans made by companies that weren't banks, plus whatever percentage of bank mortgages made after Bush undid Clinton's CRA regulations.

      Nice try though, next time tell us about how the $200 billion in loans mae and mac held magically turned into a 3/4 trillion dollar bailout in a desperate attempt to convince us that it's all the government's fault because no company acting on its own would ever choose to write a loan that paid more interest than prime rates.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    350. Re:I'm only going to say by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, it's not just Europe. It is the mortal fear of taxation that keeps some Americans from voting democrat, despite the fact that spending has never been a particularly partisan sin in the last few decades, while Republicans only have to pay lip-service to taxation. Man, you want a better country? Snip the nads off some rich people - I've been told that only being to earn a few hundred million as opposed to a few hundred million and a few dozen more causes somebody to go from genius entrepreneur business man to pizza worker, but what they don't get is that it's a balance. Wealth has been redistributed since the incarnation of America, and we're certainly not at historical peaks right now of said redistribution.

      Americans gotta learn to get off that soapbox. Redistribution is not a bad thing, and in fact, it works in the same way that copyright works - it must be limited, it must be constantly reviewed, and looking at the issue as if redistribution is bad or copyright for eternity is good is the root of all evil. If power corrupts absolutely, than mandated sacrifice is required.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    351. Re:I'm only going to say by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Why must we keep following this path when it obviously isn't working?"

      Hey..it's working for me now...why should I want it to change?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    352. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about if they failed to keep roads, sewers, garbage collection, etc. from working

      I would hate for them to succeed in keeping roads, sewers, and garbage collection from working.

    353. Re:I'm only going to say by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      You're saying Americans are each individually promoting the current system because they *like* the fact that some people are denied or can't afford healthcare. Rather than care about their own health care, they are concerned with other people's lack of it. You follow this thought to its logical conclusion, that we are an entire nation of sociopaths, as well as an unrelated conclusion, that Europeans aren't.

      If I am reading this right then you are a huge fucking troll. By the way, Americans are regular people. We're warm-blooded and we don't eat each other for sustenance. We happen to have a shitty health care system and (surprise!) it's one of the important issues in the election this year, with both the Republican and Democratic party candidates pledging to work to change things.

      Obviously there's no shortage of posts like these here. Here's what bothers me: who the hell modded this obvious flamebait up?

    354. Re:I'm only going to say by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      Don't watch much SNL, do you? They always parody the candidates as well as the current administration. Often, they nail it. Bush can't even say "nuclear", but he got re-elected despite how easy he his to parody.

      Most of us vote based on issues, not comedy sketches. If you're an American, then I'd advise you to do the same.

    355. Re:I'm only going to say by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      Some athletes have comedic timing. Even if none of them did, Phelps is in a league of his own. He can't even get through a commercial. When he endorses things I feel like I'm watching Rocky 2 made real.

    356. Re:I'm only going to say by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "The thing is we already have selective socialized medicine.

      My medical "insurance" is taken out of my paycheck just like taxes before I even see the money. "

      Actually it isn't. You now can choose not to go with employer provided insurance, and not have it taken out of your check pre-tax.

      With socialized meds....you will have no choice. Even if you want to pay to get better than the bare minimum that the govt. will offer...you will still have to pay for the socialized medicine program too.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    357. Re:I'm only going to say by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      well if we're talking about emergency rooms, people don't go when it's convenient so much as when they have a fucking emergency .

      Even in the case of a trip to the doctor's office, which people will schedule for when it's convenient, the only change would be an increase in demand. Those offices aren't going to vanish simply because somebody else is reimbursing the doctors. So yes, you might have to wait a short time longer to get a check-up, or you might even have to schedule that check-up for the next day. These are small sacrifices, and it seems awfully cold-hearted not to extend care to your fellow man on the grounds that it will be mildly inconvenient.

    358. Re:I'm only going to say by tfoss · · Score: 1

      This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages.

      The reality is that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac backed a small minority (16% in 2006) of subprime loans. Their regulations prevented them getting into the subprime market whole hog like private entities (incidentally, rules which the Bush administration eventually lowered).

      What does "getting amendment over time" mean to you?

      Well it means poor grammar for one. Care to suggest which amendment you think had an impact that could possibly be related to the financial crisis?

      From the wikipedia article: "approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates."

      So 75-80% of the toxic subprime loans had *nothing* to do with CRA-regulation, how do you square that with CRA being the causative agent?

      Your wikipedia-based "disputation" offers the following as support: *editorials* by Ron Paul, one economist, the Wall Street Journal & the Christian Science Monitor. The opposing side has actual data, numbers, evidence, studies and working papers for non-partisan entities. If you have a better argument than 'some people wrote op-eds' I would love to hear it.

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    359. Re:I'm only going to say by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      You're right to address this issue. I'm proud of our health-care system in Canada, but every once in a while a story makes the news about a terminal patient who wants a half-million dollar treatment to potentially extend their lifespan by a year or so. It's a tough one to contemplate, difficult to solidly justify in either direction.
      A potential solution might be a physician, elected by other physicians or by the public, who approves or denies treatments over a certain cost on a state-wide basis. These decisions would be made based on medical fact, rather than financial incentives for an insurance company. It's problematic though, and you don't have to look very far to see that.
      I still think fewer people suffer under socialized medicine, and if we really want to call ourselves a society, that has to be a high priority.

    360. Re:I'm only going to say by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I still don't think it's any more damning than Obama's 57 states comment.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    361. Re:I'm only going to say by bwen · · Score: 1

      in south florida the post office takes forever, and I can get stuff quickly at Walmart, what was your point?

    362. Re:I'm only going to say by bwen · · Score: 1

      I work in an ER, and people don't just go in for emergencies. They often come because we are more convenient or they figure that they won't pay and that we have to treat them. A good portion of my job is either convincing someone that they either have or don't have an emergency. And for the record, Medicaid doesn't even pay for billing. So, in other words, government health care in this regard, is not particularly well appreciated by the medical community.

    363. Re:I'm only going to say by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      Why should you or the government have any say in who sits on a corporate board? If you are a stockholder and don't like the board -- sell.

      The government decides to forgive some people's mortgage debt but not others -- how is that not picking winners and losers?

      Speculation is critical to price determination. Connecting its legality to the actual delivery of product is just plain ignorant.

      Oh, and making naked short selling illegal just increases friction in the markets and screws up price determination.

    364. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her meteoric rise is only a slight clue into the inner turmoil of the GOP.

      Heh, don't meteors usually crash and burn?

    365. Re:I'm only going to say by Danse · · Score: 1

      "Why must we keep following this path when it obviously isn't working?"

      Hey..it's working for me now...why should I want it to change?

      Because it isn't working for our country. We pay more per capita for health care than any other industrialized country, and we get less for it. That's just stupid. It makes no sense to continue that. Yes, you can think you're ok now, but so did a lot of other people until they got sick. Then they find that their insurance doesn't really cover them as well as they thought. Or they change jobs and lose coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Our system is asinine, and it needs to be fixed. You can just ignore what's going on and think you're fine, but some of us would like to fix it before we become victims of it.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    366. Re:I'm only going to say by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Effectively, yes, in a roundabout way.

    367. Re:I'm only going to say by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      I have consistently failed to understand how a "small government" party deems itself responsible to tell me what to do with my body.

      You know, what bugs me about abortion advocates isn't that we disagree... I can handle that. It's the complete lack of intellectual honesty on their part (or at least on the part of all the ones I've ever heard speak), as demonstrated here.

      Absolutely no one, pro-life or pro-choice, deems themselves responsible to tell you what to do with your body. I, and other pro-life people, contend that a child growing within a woman's body is not her damn body, it's another individual and as such is not something we can fuck with. Is it unfortunate that the woman has to bear the burden of carrying this individual for nine months? Yes. But I'll be damned if I let sympathy for that woman's plight extend to saying it's OK to violate that other individual's personal safety.

      So please stop spewing this lie that pro-life people don't want women to control their bodies. It's every bit as shallow and dishonest as if I were to run around spewing lies that pro-choice people support murder. We don't disagree on either of those points, we disagree on the fundamental question of whether or not the unborn child should be considered an individual, with rights of its own to be protected.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    368. Re:I'm only going to say by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      And Bobby Jindal plans to leave for Iowa tomorrow.

    369. Re:I'm only going to say by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      Randomize the minimal experience and learning generally poorly educated legislators have and you hand our enemies a perfect weapon to beat us to death.

      Lets replace the intelligence committee with random choices from the sewer development and ethics subcommittees. Great idea. Especially if you think there isn't enough chaos in Washington already.

    370. Re:I'm only going to say by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      and if you look at longevity, infant mortality, and a host of other vital statistics that determine the ultimate "success" of health care programs, the US ranks lower each year and sinking fast.

    371. Re:I'm only going to say by kno3 · · Score: 1

      fair enough.

    372. Re:I'm only going to say by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 1
      No more telecom immunity

      Immunity wouldn't be needed in a libertarian state because the telecoms would be free to snoop on anybody they wished.

    373. Re:I'm only going to say by bdln · · Score: 1

      I don't have to wait for hours in the DMV line either now that Oregon has stopped giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. Three years ago it took me almost an hour to register a vehicle. I was one of a very small number of English speakers in line. This year I had to renew my drivers license and get tags for a motorcycle. Total time from in the door to back outside for the two trips combined? Try 25 minutes. Both times on a Saturday. Go figure! As for Wal-Mart. I go when there is something I need that I know they have. Questions are answered in a timely fashion and I've never had anyone who was rude to me. Hell, maybe I just went on the right days! Point is, government normally doesn't do things very well whereas the private sector normally does but there are examples on both sides. And yes, I'd love to see the government get out of every aspect of my life they don't need to be in. Say no to the Nanny State!

    374. Re:I'm only going to say by twostix · · Score: 1

      That's a really damned good post. Probably the best I've ever read on this site and I've been here for about 8 years now.

      Well done.

    375. Re:I'm only going to say by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      Hey, Miss Palin claims to read The Economist.

      Here's what the paper has to say on the subject in its typically witty style:

      WHAT do you and Sarah Palin have in common? Answer: You both read The Economist. After flubbing a question on her reading habits the first time around, Mrs Palin specifically mentioned our paper when asked the same question last night. Because of our own privacy rules, we cannot disclose whether or not she is a subscriber. But I can tell you that we have a paid circulation of 2,168 in Alaska.

      . Or in other words (and that's strictly my interpretation as a subsriber): Miss Palin is full of shit. (Apart from the fact that this woman never has the intelectual curiosity to read a paper like the Economist).

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    376. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ANY regulation is too much.

      That is moronic. If all the regulations vanished, you would constantly have to watch what you said, because there would be no regulations against stalking, wiretapping, and other invasions of your privacy.

    377. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will just make the Replubicans more left wing

      Awesome.

    378. Re:I'm only going to say by jotok · · Score: 1

      So long as candidates are given a reasonable amount of time to get their message out, limiting that time is not a violation of the 1st amendment.

    379. Re:I'm only going to say by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Unfortunately(?), it is in the best financial interest of insurers to get you to have preventative care. And, quite honestly, people are generally freaky about doctors and exams - it just goes against most social customs - so many people forego regular visits. Hell, you can count me in that group - I haven't been to a physician regularly in over a decade, though I'll claim it's mostly an odd combination of living mostly a healthy lifestyle and fearing that they'll tell me that I'm not as healthy as I want to be.

      Insurance, by a better definition, would be something like the current HSA plans (high deductible, close to $6k for a family, but a total annual out of pocket cap at 10k or less). Adding in a discount for those who prove they have an annual physical would be a good start, but then it might be easier just to pay for the physical and call that the "discount." And you're back to traditional healthcare insurance model.

      Insurance rates are based on pools, not on the overall population. It's much more capitalist - people don't want to pay for other's risks if they are higher than themselves. The healthcare/company thing is - mostly - less sinister than it can appear. Congress fixed the worst part by outlawing exclusions for preexisting conditions, but failed by not making a group for those having to go it alone.

      Insurance is, by and large, a socialist proposition. It shares the risk - and you might say redistributes wealth - among people. Still, it's a valuable tool for financial planning because many serious ailments would utterly bankrupt the average person. By keeping people healthy through maintenance, fewer major events occur, and total costs go down.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    380. Re:I'm only going to say by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Why should you or the government have any say in who sits on a corporate board?

      Because the corporate fiction exists at the pleasure of the government. What the government giveth...

      Connecting its legality to the actual delivery of product is just plain ignorant.

      I wasn't. I was stating that connecting the price of futures to the actual price of product in certain situations is just plain ignorant, yet the supposed connection is why some people are calling for it to be banned, and others are insisting that it must not.

      screws up price determination.

      Price determination based on fraud is already screwed up, especially when price determination these days is generally done by automatic computerized rules and can't recognize that there's something wrong when over 100% of a company's shares all show up for sale at once.

      The government decides to forgive some people's mortgage debt but not others -- how is that not picking winners and losers?

      That would be, if anyone in government was apparently contemplating that. I can only find one single mortgage forgiven on google (the 90 year old who shot herself). Obama's plan is to refinance ARMs into fixed rate mortgages for people who actually can afford their house and to get the people who can't afford their house to sell it, which is no more of a bailout than the government loaning billions to AIG and various banks.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    381. Re:I'm only going to say by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Ah but the market will fix it because the market knows best, government involvement would cause it to be more inefficient and cost more...*

      It has, actually: purely from the profit maximizing point of view, sick people are a burden, and letting them die is the most efficient solution. The exception are highly educated or trained workers, where the cost of replacement might be higher than the cost of treatment; as this is typically reflected in their pay, having the treatments available but expensive is exactly what the market should do.

      *this is a joke, obviously.

      It is completely accurate, actually. As far as the market is concerned, you are a human resource, not a human. And it is indeed inefficient to spend more resources protecting a resource than that resource's market value.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    382. Re:I'm only going to say by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      My point was that Americans spend more on healthcare per capita than most other developed countries and yet they still don't have universal coverage. That is expensive and inefficient, now if the Americans spent less than everyone else then mayhap you would have a point, efficiency being work done per unit money, so if you cost more you do less work per unit cost.

    383. Re:I'm only going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIGHT ON! Yes, I shouted it!

    384. Re:I'm only going to say by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      if you are going to have a global bureaucracy writing the rules

      We sort of already do. It's called "customary international law," and it's been in existence for a long time.

    385. Re:I'm only going to say by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      We don't disagree on either of those points, we disagree on the fundamental question of whether or not the unborn child should be considered an individual, with rights of its own to be protected.

      Yes, you're right. I'm guilty of using ideological shorthand.

      I'll even take your comment further--pro-choicers don't necessarily ignore the rights of the unborn child. Where we disagree is whose rights prevail--does the women's rights to determine what happens to her body trump the rights of the unborn child to live? Both rights are basic and profound. From my perspective, it is further complicated by pregnancy being much more than a mere inconvenience, and a disbelief that every cell that divides should have the protected status of human life. If the latter were true, we would therefore treat the risk to every conception as emergency room--and the simple fact is that a high rate of conceptions (30%?) are flushed down the toilet as a result of natural processes.

      So at what point do dividing cells garner the privilege and respect of human life? I don't know. It's sometime after the sperm meets the egg, but sometime before the child enters the world. And since I don't know when that happens, I'm prepared to let each woman decide from their own conscience. Who is in a better position to make that determination? The government? The medical establishment? Religious leaders?

      Again, our key difference is that you appear to think you know when those cells should acquire that respect, and in turn have rights that trump the right of the women carrying the child.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    386. Re:I'm only going to say by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with that. For the first time in my life, I actually felt like I voted for the greater of two goods. I doubt I'll have that feeling again during our lifetimes.

    387. Re:I'm only going to say by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. That's totally wrong.

      I want to tell someone I'm running for President and that I'd like their vote. In your world, I couldn't do that.

      Sounds like a violation to me.

    388. Re:I'm only going to say by jotok · · Score: 1

      That doesn't follow. You're still allowed to tell anyone you want, you just don't get to spend all year doing it.

      Say you're limited to 90 days of actual campaigning. If you are at all involved in politics then you have plenty of opportunities to make your views known long before this--at meetings, by giving speeches, writing articles. By the time you want to be considered for office, you and your ideas should already be well-known. If you can't grasp the difference between this and campaigning for office then you have other issues.

      Limiting the amount of money candidates can spend on campaigns is also a good idea. Everyone should be limited to the same amount. This removes the benefit of having deep pockets and places more weight on qualifications, viewpoints, voting records, etc.

    389. Re:I'm only going to say by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Socialized medicine does not allocate resources with reality in mind.

      For example, let's say I am born with some sort of genetic dysfunction. Over the course of my life, it will require 30 million dollars to keep the dysfunction from taking my life. Over the course of my life, I only produce 5 million dollars. Reality says that this imbalance will lead to my death. Socialized medicine says that you will pay, but you only make 10 million dollars over the course of your life. Which means I _still_ die. So, we take a large chunk of value earned by 100 people (they have to pay their bills and such too!) to keep me alive. Ok, socialized medicine has succeeded in keeping me alive... but wait, there are many more people like me.

      How much are you willing to pay to keep other people alive? 1% of your income? 20%? 50%? 90%? How much? What if the funds you are willing to provide are less than what is required? How do the funds that are provided get allocated? Who gets to choose who lives and who dies? What criteria are used? If I can not afford to keep myself alive, what right do I have to force my burden on to others?

      If my health care is limited to what I can pay, then such decisions about who lives and dies are no longer placed upon the public. If I have the means, and it is worthwhile to me, then I will pay, otherwise I will die. Everyone dies eventually. Life is not fair. Ignoring this can bankrupt a country.

      At this point, the question is: What problems is socialized medicine supposed to solve? High prices? It won't solve that, just hide it from you. Poor medical care? Some of the best medical care in the world is to be found in America. I am curious what problem will be solved.

      Do not misunderstand me, there is definitely a problem with health care in America, but socialized medicine is not the cure.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    390. Re:I'm only going to say by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Your example would be much more effective if you chose an institution that was actually ran by the government. The U.S. Postal service is not a service provided by the government as it is a private entity that operates under special rules... kind of like the Federal Reserve.

      (and I have experienced long lines at the post office)

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    391. Re:I'm only going to say by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

      What would be the penalty for someone saying they'd like my vote for president if they said it outside the window when you want them to say it?

    392. Re:I'm only going to say by Jorgandar · · Score: 1

      I said from me. not you. i could care less about you. :P

    393. Re:I'm only going to say by jotok · · Score: 1

      Why would there be a penalty for that? And how exactly does what other people say fall under your First Amendment rights?

  2. FiveThirtyEight by neoform · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1%

    I like those odds.

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
    1. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Monday night is a Freemasons Meeting night. we all decided last night who was going to win. they just took what they learned last night and used it.

      Come on, you guys think your votes count? how cute :)

    2. Re:FiveThirtyEight by jgtg32a · · Score: 5, Funny

      While I don't want Obama to be president.

      The internet would be so annoying if he lost. All the people whining about it.

    3. Re:FiveThirtyEight by naetuir · · Score: 1

      I think that's half the problem that's going to see. No matter who wins, there are going to be cries of fowl.

      The old guy and the woman are firsts.

      The black guy is a first.

      So either way, the opposite group is going to bitch about racism or sexism or ageism. It's a no-win either way.

      --
      Use what works.
    4. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The internet would be so annoying if he lost.

      The Internet would still be much less annoying than the resurgent right-wing militias are going to be if he wins.

    5. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I'm betting on McCain. I consider it a form of compensation should he actually get in.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:FiveThirtyEight by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You shouldn't. Neither Obama nor McCain will be a decent president, as has been discussed to death on /. many times. Obama is just a corrupt, self-serving politician like the rest of 'em. The only way we'll have a half-decent president in January is if a miracle happens, and a third party gets elected... course, that won't happen, but a man can dream.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    7. Re:FiveThirtyEight by SDF-7 · · Score: 5, Funny

      [quote]I think that's half the problem that's going to see. No matter who wins, there are going to be cries of fowl.[/quote]

      Chicken! What sort of hawk would devolve to such a turkey stance? You're just pigeonholing the dodos out there.

    8. Re:FiveThirtyEight by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You could've easily had a +5. Such a shame you didn't use the preview button....

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    9. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

      FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1%

      I will not confuse odds with probability.
      I will not confuse odds with probability.
      I will not confuse odds with probability.
      I will not confuse odds with probability.
      I will not confuse odds with probability.
      I will not confuse odds with probability.
      I will not confuse odds with probability.

      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    10. Re:FiveThirtyEight by kadehje · · Score: 1

      If there's anything to be learned from the last elections, it's "don't count chickens before they hatch." In 2000, every major outlet that I heard (includes CNN, CBS, ABC) had awarded the election to Al Gore by 9:30 p.m. EST and having him take Florida by several percentage points. Voters in Florida and elsewhere left polling lines and went home; Republicans were resigned to the fact that Bush had lost and Democrats felt that their candidate was safely in without their vote. And then the real results came in. 2004 wasn't as dramatic, but Bush was still somewhat of an underdog entering the election.

      Just because a candidate's deemed likely to win by the press or a website doesn't mean that it's destined to happen. If you haven't already, go to your polling place and put your choice for president, House of Representatives, and any other office on your ballot into the ballot box. That's the only way you can truly improve your candidate's chances.

    11. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also forgot to make it funny.

    12. Re:FiveThirtyEight by FireStormZ · · Score: 0, Troll

      Were McCain 'right wing' you might be correct but he is not nearly as far out to the right as people make him out to be, he had to do allot of convincing to get the base on board with him.

      I see allot of Militia members buying guns if Obama wins, January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    13. Re:FiveThirtyEight by SDF-7 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmm... knock me over with a feather -- not everyone laughs at the same things.

      Ah well... I'll let this be my swan song and duck out.

      (That's what you get for egging me on...)

    14. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Coraon · · Score: 1

      "Never tell me the odds!" -Han Solo

      --
      -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    15. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if Obama wins, January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights..

      The fact that people are out there making statements like this with a straight face just goes to prove my point.

    16. Re:FiveThirtyEight by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      Neither Obama nor McCain will be a decent president

      First, you're wrong. Obama will make an good president and (i'm loathe to admit) McCain wouldn't have been the WORST person...ex: Palin, Huckabee, Romney, Guilianni.

      Second, just because your little 'independent' self doesn't particularly favor either candidate, it's foolish to think that they are the same. Obama and McCain differ GREATLY on several policy issues, and you need to man (or woman) up and pick the best possible person on the ballot.

      Quit yer bitching and go pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    17. Re:FiveThirtyEight by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Quit yer bitching and go pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.

      NEVER.

      First, even if I wasn't diametrically opposed to both candidates, I will NEVER vote for a candidate I don't truly want in office. I can settle for someone that isn't quite as good as I'd like, but once they are going to do more bad than good, there is no way I will ever vote for them. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

      Anyway, both candidates are purely unelectable in my book. They both supported telecom immunity for their spying on American citizens: in other words, they both support the law being bent when the president believes it should be. It will be a cold day in hell before I condone a man like that in my presidential office.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    18. Re:FiveThirtyEight by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      As for me, I am claiming racism already. And it isn't the rednecks I'm complaining about.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    19. Re:FiveThirtyEight by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there's anything to be learned from the last elections, it's "don't count chickens before they hatch." In 2000, every major outlet that I heard (includes CNN, CBS, ABC) had awarded the election to Al Gore by 9:30 p.m. EST and having him take Florida by several percentage points. Voters in Florida and elsewhere left polling lines and went home; Republicans were resigned to the fact that Bush had lost and Democrats felt that their candidate was safely in without their vote.

      You know, that's another thing I don't understand about Florida and the last election. (The first being why they wielded so much power that they dictated the outcome. Someone explained to me about the lopsided electoral college system that the US has. In the US, you don't vote for the president directly, you vote for electoral voters, who then vote for the president. Certain states have more electoral voters than others.) Why did Florida toss in the towel? They're on the East coast of the country. The polls open up first in the east. The results are tabulated first in the east. If it was 9:30 pm in Florida, it would still be only 6:30 in California, and a lot of people, perhaps as many as half the country, would not yet have voted. So why did they bail on casting their votes solely on the "strength" of early poll results?

      I am of the opinion that the votes should not be counted (or at least, the counts not made public) until all the polls have closed. If that means waiting until midnight Hawaii time, then so be it. That way, people's votes won't be tainted by results from polling stations in more easterly time zones.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:FiveThirtyEight by FrozenFOXX · · Score: 1

      Damn, mis-moderated. Replying to try and correct.

      --
      "Just a fox, a whisper."
    21. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Eil · · Score: 1

      The internet would be so annoying if he lost. All the people whining about it.

      This isn't the Hotel California, you're welcome to log off and end your suffering any time you like.

      Sincerely,
      Fellow Whiny Internet Citizen

    22. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Joeyspecial · · Score: 1

      I would say that is not really a worry with the recent Supreme court decision. You will have plenty to cry about, but if the conservatives could not overturn Roe v Wade, I doubt the recent decision will be voided so soon.

    23. Re:FiveThirtyEight by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      NEVER

      Ok, are you the type that will not support any candidate that isn't yourself? Seriously, you're not on the ballot.

      First, even if I wasn't diametrically opposed to both candidates

      You can't be equally opposed to both candidates. That is impossible, b/c the candidates themselves have such different views on policy.

      If you are a full on anarchist, you could still say Obama was the better choice. A neo-nazi would be most benefited by a McCain-Palin administration.

      Please tell me, who would YOU put on the ballot?

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    24. Re:FiveThirtyEight by mahsah · · Score: 1

      They may have different views on some policies, but they don't have different views on the policies important to me.

    25. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My aunt forwarded an anti-Obama email that quoted a few books. It began by telling me to go buy or read the books ASAP before Obama has them banned.

      I still marvel at the audacity of that claim.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    26. Re:FiveThirtyEight by FireStormZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      What? Obama is *not* gun friendly

      BTW I dont own a Gun nor will I buy one (I have little kids and I make the personal choice not to have such an item in my home):

      Obama: "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right"

      Obama on Handguns:
      Do you support state legislation to:
      a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
      b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
      c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

      Obama: "I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns (made so by laws he supports) off the streets"

      Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007

      --

      The man clearly is not a staunch supporter of the second amendment..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    27. Re:FiveThirtyEight by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Well with a fowl attitude like that, no wonder nobody gets your yolks.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    28. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The man clearly is not a staunch supporter of the second amendment..

      From which we can conclude that:

      January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights..

      Even though Obama will have no power to write laws and it would be political suicide even for a Democratic congress to actually pass such laws in this gun-crazed country.

    29. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I keep saying, "If my vote counts, I'll vote for who I want to be President. If it doesn't, I won't vote at all" every time someone tells me that I'm throwing away my vote. If more people would vote this way, we could fix the system instead of prolonging this idiocy.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    30. Re:FiveThirtyEight by FireStormZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Even though Obama will have no power to write laws and it would be political suicide even for a Democratic congress to actually pass such laws in this gun-crazed country."

      Funny for 8 years we have been blaming Bush for Iraq when he cant declare war, Blaming him for the patriot act when he cant pass laws, ..., .... So Bush is the all powerful and Obama would be a weak little sheep?

      But you are right, my statement was over the top, I apologize for that, Ill fix it..

      January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights in the same manner you can today!

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    31. Re:FiveThirtyEight by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That way, people's votes won't be tainted by results from polling stations in more easterly time zones.

      The problem is that you can't stop the networks from forecasting states. Most of the results on the networks are from exit polls, and it's only in the closest of states that they await official results before they "call" a state. So you can hold off on count in eastern states if you want, but it won't really change anything.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    32. Re:FiveThirtyEight by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      I agree, and I wish they would. I was thinking of not voting because I'm so fed up with the mentality of the masses that keeps us locked into the current mess, but I'll vote anyway. As the Libertarian party pointed out, every vote they get this year helps them get on the ballot again in the future.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    33. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never seen Obama seek "moderate" ANYTHING.

    34. Re:FiveThirtyEight by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul comes to mind. I don't need to agree with every single thing a candidate has in mind, but that's not the same as "lesser of two evils". Voting for the lesser of two evils is voting for a candidate who I mostly disagree with, on the basis that I disagree with him less than his opposition. That is a truly wasted vote, and one I will never cast. I need to mostly agree with someone to vote for them.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    35. Re:FiveThirtyEight by jayspec462 · · Score: 1

      I have a gun pointed at your head, with my finger on the trigger.

      One more pun like that and I'll pullet.

      --
      $comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
    36. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      In the US, you don't vote for the president directly, you vote for electoral voters, who then vote for the president. Certain states have more electoral voters than others.

      Just to complete the picture, it's also the case that nearly all states' electoral voters are chosen as winner-take-all. This has the effect of magnifying the outcome in the state; a 0.1% victory for a candidate in Florida means that all of the electoral votes go for that candidate.

      So why did they bail on casting their votes solely on the "strength" of early poll results?

      Because they were stupid, both for paying attention to exit polls which as we all now hopefully realize have significant problems, and for thinking that whatever momentum those polls showed would be maintained without continued voting!

      I think people have learned their lesson. A lot of us made some stupid mistakes back then. I don't think this one will be repeated. People will be staying to vote as long as it is physically possible.

      I am of the opinion that the votes should not be counted (or at least, the counts not made public) until all the polls have closed. If that means waiting until midnight Hawaii time, then so be it. That way, people's votes won't be tainted by results from polling stations in more easterly time zones.

      Yeah, it'd be nice. It certainly couldn't hurt voter turnout to have the Western states not basically already know the outcome of the election! It's just, practically speaking, a difficult thing to do. Our concept of Free Speech basically won't allow us to force media silence, and there's no way the media will voluntarily not try to make news stories out of their projections.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    37. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      Fascinating. Your cluck-foo is admirable and inspirational.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    38. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The old guy being old wouldn't be so scary if he wasn't running with Palin.

    39. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      Yes, I mean the Libertarians already have the market cornered on whining and hand-wringing, it would seriously upset the status quo.

    40. Re:FiveThirtyEight by EL_mal0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not if you're in the militia, as I plan to be.

    41. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Yeegads! Mod this guy "informative" or something, so he gets some of the karma! "Funny" moderations don't increase Slashdot's karma system.

    42. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1% I like those odds.

      My bookie is giving 10 to 1 on McCain.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    43. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Wait.... rich old white men are new to politics in the states?

    44. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right

      This is actually true. The Second Amendment prevents Congress from taking away your guns (in a manner of speaking), but it does not apply to the States. At least, not yet. You see, the whole Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply to the States, just to the federal government. The Supreme Court has slowly applied the Bill of Rights to the States, but only partially and in a piecemeal fashion.

      The recent case DC v. Heller muddies the waters a bit. And the Supreme Court may, in the future, explicitly call for the incorporation of the Second Amendment via the Fourteenth. But as of right now, it's not as clear as you seem to think.

    45. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      A neo-nazi would be most benefited by a McCain-Palin administration.

      Actually I think the nazi's have someone on the ticket. Maybe we should all vote him in then we can really see what an ass fucking we can get.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    46. Re:FiveThirtyEight by korbin_dallas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Obama: "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right""

      Then he doesn't know how the 2nd Amendment is worded. Nor does he know or understand the arguments fought back and forth within the Federalist Papers. That means he is incompetant. He also doesn't appreciate the many thousands of American men and women who died to uphold that document.

      --
      They Live, We Sleep
    47. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      I am of the opinion that the votes should not be counted (or at least, the counts not made public) until all the polls have closed. If that means waiting until midnight Hawaii time, then so be it. That way, people's votes won't be tainted by results from polling stations in more easterly time zones.

      You are indeed a wise man... err .. woman... err thing. That would actually make sense, and not just any sense. That should be common sense.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    48. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Bud+Dickman · · Score: 1

      "The only way we'll have a half-decent president in January is if a miracle happens, and a third party gets elected"

      But what if Obama had renounced his party affiliation yesterday and joined a third party - then, by your "logic" he'd be a good president! Perfect! [Just because someone isn't a Democrat or a Republican does not mean they're a saint, genius.]

      Hey, I got through that and didn't invoke Nazis once!

    49. Re:FiveThirtyEight by naetuir · · Score: 1

      He'd be the oldest guy on record to get elected to a first term. To my (admittedly lacking) knowledge.

      --
      Use what works.
    50. Re:FiveThirtyEight by mordred99 · · Score: 1

      Funny - I read an article on a website (I think the Root on MSN) and they said that if Obama wins, he will have all the minorities cheering and saying how the country has changed. I agree. Funny part was the next sentence was the same author saying that if Obama lost, America is the most racist country on the planet (due to the polls and etc.) Talk about extremes.

      Funny - you would think political views would come into it some place, not necessarily race.

      I think in this day and age, most (majority, > 50%) people look beyond gender and race to who will be President, and look at their history and political views. If Obama had different views, I would vote for him in a heart beat. I don't give a crap about parties, I give a crap about the platforms.

      So .. to answer your post. Am I annoying enough for ya ;)

    51. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Tenek · · Score: 1

      The internet would be so annoying if he lost. All the people whining about it.

      As opposed to?

    52. Re:FiveThirtyEight by blindd0t · · Score: 1

      Funny for 8 years we have been blaming Bush for Iraq when he cant declare war, Blaming him for the patriot act when he cant pass laws, ..., .... So Bush is the all powerful and Obama would be a weak little sheep?

      1: Congress never delcared war on Iraq - they only gave Bush a joint resolution to use armed forces based on information provided at the time. The complaints are of the alleged selective information (which is, in a sense, ultimately misinformation) at the time. 2: The Democratic party members did overwhelmingly support the PATRIOT Act. That really did suck horribly. =( Bush did sign the PATRIOT Act into law, however. So the blame certainly isn't all on him, but a little blame does go to him for not vetoing it.

    53. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would actually make sense, and not just any sense. That should be common sense.

      Common sense... No wonder it's not implemented!

    54. Re:FiveThirtyEight by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      You have to realize that organizations and news agencies perform exit polling on random people coming out of the voting stations. Add up a few of these in locations, and suddenly they're taken as actual fact, when really, it's no better than a telephone sampling, and people can lie (especially on camera).

      As far as I know, no voting station in my district reports results until the polling station has CLOSED.

      I'd like to see it enforced to keeping it quiet until Noon of the following day.

      Just me opinion though.

    55. Re:FiveThirtyEight by deets101 · · Score: 1

      FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1%

      Ironically, that will be the tax rate on the rich, you know the ones who make over $250,000, uh $200,000... I mean $150,000, wait now $120,000.

      --

      --
      My parents went to Slashdot and all I got was this lousy sig.
    56. Re:FiveThirtyEight by paeanblack · · Score: 1

      I am of the opinion that the votes should not be counted (or at least, the counts not made public) until all the polls have closed. If that means waiting until midnight Hawaii time, then so be it. That way, people's votes won't be tainted by results from polling stations in more easterly time zones.

      The actual votes are never counted while the polls are still open on election day for the very reasons you point out.

      However, the press is allowed to ask voters how they voted upon leaving the polling place. These data are massaged through various statistical formulae and posted behind the talking heads on TV.

      Could this skew an election? Yes. Can we prevent this while maintaining fairly liberal freedoms-of-the-press? Not really. Do lazy voters dissuaded by what some guy on TV said shoulder 99% of the responsibility here? Absolutely.

    57. Re:FiveThirtyEight by kadehje · · Score: 1

      As others have said here, there is no national election for the presidency. There are in practice 51 (including D.C.) state elections. (In theory, the actual election takes place several weeks later as the slates of electors chosen by each state cast their ballots, but many states bind their electors to follow the state's popular vote and most others do so as well). The reason why people waiting in line in Florida went home is that they were under the impression that enough votes had been counted to have given Gore and insurmountable lead in Florida; that Gore would have won even if every single absentee ballot was for Bush and everyone still left in line voted for him. And since Florida's results are all that a Floridian could influence by his or her ballot, they decided there was no incentive to cast votes either to Bush to try to come back or to vote for Gore to increase his margin.

      When the media combined Florida's electoral votes (25, more than all but 3 other states) with the others that had either already counted their votes (most of the East Coast and some of the CST states) or that the media had decided were virtual slam-dunks for the Democrats to carry (such as California's 54 electors, which Gore did in fact easily win), they came up with a total of more than 270 electoral votes and made Gore the presumptive president-elect. At that point, some people either in line in the Central time zone or deciding whether to turn out to polls in the western half of the country decided not to bother voting since they felt that regardless of whether their state's electors went for Gore or Bush the election was already decided. The number of people that did this is unclear, but in Florida's case even a few dozen across the state would have proved a significant number.

      If votes aren't counted immediately after the polls close, there needs to be safeguards in place to minimize the added opportunity of tampering during the time the polls close and the votes were actually counted (e.g. in 3 hours someone with access to a ballot box could add votes for his favorite candidate or even substitute a ballot box with a rigged one containing the same number of ballots). However, you make a very good point about having a uniform reporting time for elections. I suspect that because of the First Amendment the best way to actually make this happen is by having all polls across the country close at the same time. If polls in the East closed earlier, passing a law that says the media could not report election results until a certain time would likely result in a lawsuit infringing on free speech rights, though as a non-lawyer I'm not qualified to predict whether such a lawsuit would prevail. The closest parallel that I can think of the presently exists are the way in which government economic data like the monthly unemployment statistics are reported, where the report is indicated as "embargoed" until a pre-determined time (watching CNBC and others it's obvious they have the information beforehand, but make sure not to report it until the appropriate time). Perhaps a constitutionally valid law can be crafted using as a model restrictions on economic data?

    58. Re:FiveThirtyEight by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      I never said that third parties are automatically good. I merely said that, in this election, the only decent candidates are third parties. Way to completely misread my statement.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    59. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Andrew?

    60. Re:FiveThirtyEight by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      "Congress never delcared war on Iraq - they only gave Bush a joint resolution to use armed forces based on information provided at the time."

      Just because congress wussed out of taking a stand one way or another does *not* remove blame from them for this mess.

      "Bush did sign the PATRIOT Act into law, however."

      And Obama would sign legislation restricting hand gun ownership but according to some 'he cant make laws'.... All I am saying is be consistant. If bush is at fault for blah blah blah than Obama can also (not will but can) do the same..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    61. Re:FiveThirtyEight by kadehje · · Score: 1

      The actual votes are never counted while the polls are still open on election day for the very reasons you point out.

      However, once all of a state's polls close, vote-counting starts and in many cases the results for more than half of that state's votes are counted within an hour. For states on the East Coast, that means that they can have preliminary or even substantially complete results available to the media while the polls in the central and western parts of the country remain open. If someone in Nevada who's decided to vote after work hears on the radio that either Obama or McCain has swept every state east of the Mississippi (scenario contrived to illustrate the point), my guess is he's going to be considerably less likely to bother stopping by his polling place on his way home.

      I'm not sure what measures Canada, Australia, or other physically large democracies/republics have in place to try to address this issue. It's considerably easier to do keep these concerns at bay in Europe, where most countries either lie entirely in one time zone or straddle a single time zone boundary. If the U.S. had a truly national election, these problems would be much less pronounced. However, since there are really 51 state elections (since those in Washington, D.C. can vote for the president too) there's lots of synchronization issues in the system

    62. Re:FiveThirtyEight by steelfood · · Score: 1

      January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights in the same manner you can today!

      Since Obama is about change, this is obviously true. But that's not saying much, if anything at all. You could've said the same about Bush, and still be correct.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    63. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Deanalator · · Score: 3, Informative

      I figure providing a counter source will be more effective than modding you down.

      http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

      Every time I have heard him talk, he has talked about how gun regulations at a federal level are completely infeasible, and it should be up to the cities themselves to determine how gun control issues should be handled.

      It's obvious that a set of restrictions in Chicago aren't necessarily going to be as effective in Dallas or Los Angeles etc.

    64. Re:FiveThirtyEight by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      "Every time I have heard him talk, he has talked about how gun regulations at a federal level are completely infeasible"

      Except the Assault Weapons Ban that he thought Bush should have renewed right? I mean did you miss that one?

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289373,00.html

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    65. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      Except that none of his quotes from that source mention the assault weapon ban.. The only mention comes from the commentary put in by the journalist. (I have no problem with people owning assault weapons, I have many friends with collections they are quite fond of)

      I suggest you gather a few more sources besides fox news and NRA mailers if you want people to take you seriously.

    66. Re:FiveThirtyEight by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      Attacking the source... wow that intellectually weak..

      "Voted against a 2005 law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers stemming from acts committed by others using their products."

      "Calls for permanently reinstating assault weapons ban. "

      "Voted for 2005 amendment placing restrictions on rifle ammunition that is "designed or marketed" to be armor-piercing."

      http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html

      The is for the AWB that is a federal law restricting Gun Ownership...

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    67. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1%

      I like those odds.

      98.9% now

    68. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Better print out everything from the internets too before he has those banned!!

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    69. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Bud+Dickman · · Score: 1
      Oh well.

      Enjoy your moral high ground. You've bested me. I am ashamed of myself.

    70. Re:FiveThirtyEight by blindd0t · · Score: 1

      I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do ^_^

      Just because congress wussed out of taking a stand one way or another does *not* remove blame from them for this mess.

      Well, I agree, but to what extent varies on the validity of the claims of misinformation coming from the Bush administration. Of course, it's going to be a long time before we'll ever know anything on this, if we learn anything that relevant at all... For the time being, the legislature and the executive is at fault in my eyes, and neither has provided enough proof to convince me otherwise. As for Congress not formally declaring war, or "wussing out", I simply wanted to point out the difference in formally approving law allowing something rather than formally declaring war. It's a technicality that has a pretty significant difference. This country hasn't formally declared war since WWII. I guess what I'm also trying to point out is that, if the allegations of misinformation on behalf of the Bush administration are true, the Congress essentially reacted with what they had at the time by saying, "As our Command and Chief, we authorize you to do what you feel is right for the nation's security" rather than "bombs away!"

      And Obama would sign legislation restricting hand gun ownership but according to some 'he cant make laws'....

      That depends on what you mean by restricting (which is different that forbidding). Aren't you the one that said: "Obama sought moderate gun control measures"? Also, as president, he can author bills which get sent to the senate and house. If that bill is passed by both houses, he can sign it into law. But without the approval of the houses, no, he cannot just make law as a dictator could. And I don't own a gun myself, but I will say that the constitution seems pretty concise about the right to bear arms.

      Anyway, it's always a pleasure chatting and debating. Cheers!

    71. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      This is one time I have to agree with bigstrat, in all of his posts in this little thread. (Very rare actually.) Having to choose between two 'choices' that both would do more harm than good is no choice at all. And I happen to share his viewpoint on that as well. I also chose to not vote for either of them. I'm not a hater, I just think either one of them will drag the country even further in the hole.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    72. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      You can't be equally opposed to both candidates. That is impossible, b/c the candidates themselves have such different views on policy.

      Just because the policies aren't the same doesn't mean they can't be equally detestable.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    73. Re:FiveThirtyEight by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. The federal government doesn't have the right, this has nothing to do with state or local law. While many states' constitutions echo the second amendment, the constitution serves only to limit the power of the federal government. If you support the constitution from the standpoint of the Federalist Papers as you claim to, you must uphold the federal government's lack of a right to limit what laws the states can pass.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    74. Re:FiveThirtyEight by lsimm14 · · Score: 1

      If there's anything to be learned from the last elections, it's "don't count chickens before they hatch." In 2000, every major outlet that I heard (includes CNN, CBS, ABC) had awarded the election to Al Gore by 9:30 p.m. EST and having him take Florida by several percentage points. Voters in Florida and elsewhere left polling lines and went home; Republicans were resigned to the fact that Bush had lost and Democrats felt that their candidate was safely in without their vote.

      If you had watched benders big score you would know the REAL reason Al Gore lost was because robots came back in time hunting for a red haired guy named fry and destroyed the box of ballots voting him in....

  3. McCain FTW by mrgrey · · Score: 0

    McCain FTW

    --
    -Tolerate my intolerance
    1. Re:McCain FTW by qengho · · Score: 5, Funny

      McCain FTW

      "Fails To Win"?

    2. Re:McCain FTW by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find your intolerance intolerable.

      It's outstanding how in an election where I didn't start off hating either candidate, McCain's choice of talking points (and running mate) brought me to the point of incoherent spitting fury...I had to read the transcripts of the last few debates because I couldn't stand to actually listen.

      I just refuse to vote for someone who ran a filthy campaign whose only issue was "the other guy sucks." That's my favorite logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance": the other guy is bad, so we must be better.

      McCain was a guy I'd have voted for in 2000...Hell, I did vote for him in the primary. And I think this country wouldn't be worse off if he'd been president for the last 8 years. But he sold his soul for the brass ring this time around, and that level of intellectual whoredom I cannot abide.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:McCain FTW by mrgrey · · Score: 1

      more than likely yes.... but I see McCain as the less sucky choice.

      --
      -Tolerate my intolerance
    4. Re:McCain FTW by bsane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was thinking the exact same thing- thanks for typing it out and saving me the trouble.

      I wanted McCain in 2000 as well- hes been nothing but a disappointment this season.

    5. Re:McCain FTW by griffjon · · Score: 2, Funny

      ....F#cks the world? The original "FTW"?

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    6. Re:McCain FTW by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I respectfully disagree :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    7. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! French fries for everyone!

      sorry, Freedom fries...

    8. Re:McCain FTW by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An ironic ending for a guy who was a VICTIM of this very kind of dirty politics in 2000. Of course, that was back before he had spent 8 years abandoning every single principle he had once stood for (including, most tragically of all, his opposition to the very kind of POW torture that he himself had once endured). In short, when John McCain loses today he can blame Bush, Palin, the economy, Obama, etc. all he likes. But, in truth, he has only himself to blame.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:McCain FTW by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Maybe McCain doesn't suck that much, but he is surrounded by some that do...

      Consider what may happen if McCain has to leave before the term is over, that may be a problem.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    10. Re:McCain FTW by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      McCain FTW

      It's the USA election you insensitive clod!

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    11. Re:McCain FTW by Rei · · Score: 1

      Well, he is an inspiring candidate who knows his stuff. ;)

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    12. Re:McCain FTW by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      As do I. But seeing as I live in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, I think I am going to vote for Jonathan Pater (CowboyNeal).

    13. Re:McCain FTW by buswolley · · Score: 2, Informative
      McCain is going senile. A geek would vote for the man that still has a working brain.

      McCain graduated at the bottom of the class at his naval academy and now he is old. Brains get worse quickly at his age, and he didn't start with much.

      Meanwhile, we have a brilliant candidate who graduated at the top of his class in law school.

      Seems clear to me.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    14. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the less sucky choice.

      well sure, he's too old to get it up, so ya I am sure Cindy has the viagra/etc bottle rationed out. "You want one for what? DENIED!"
      I think Palen probably makes up for his lack of suckyness, I bet that gal could suck the chrome off a hitch.

    15. Re:McCain FTW by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Maybe McCain doesn't suck that much, but he is surrounded by some that do...

      Consider what may happen if McCain has to leave before the term is over, that may be a problem.

      OK, but consider what may happen if Obama has to leave before the term is over, that may be a problem.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    16. Re:McCain FTW by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      An idiot or a lawyer? Not a very easy choice...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh great. Our main choices are between an idiot and a lawyer.

      (Posting anon due to modding)

    18. Re:McCain FTW by j79zlr · · Score: 1

      Ah yes a lawyer, what couldn't you trust about a lawyer.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    19. Re:McCain FTW by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      McCain is going senile.

      That really didn't stop Regan from being elected in a second time. I find it appalling that Nancy and her astrologer were running the country for six years.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    20. Re:McCain FTW by Theolojin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I just refuse to vote for someone who ran a filthy campaign whose only issue was "the other guy sucks." That's my favorite logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance": the other guy is bad, so we must be better.

      Yeah, I agree. Senator Obama's campaign against [George W. Bush|John McCain] was centered on who Obama wasn't.

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    21. Re:McCain FTW by rshepherd · · Score: 1

      Here here.. I couldn't agree more.

    22. Re:McCain FTW by Gonarat · · Score: 1

      You forgot Palin. I knew McCain had lost it when he nominated Sarah Palin to be his running mate. If McCain were to have a stroke or worse and no longer able to be President, we would be stuck with HER as President. I'll never understand why McCain picked Palin -- if he wanted a Woman running mate, there are many other better qualified Women in the Republican Party. If he needed the support of the 700 Club Right, there are "better" choices.

      Oh well, I lost faith in the Republican Party when Pat Robertson ran in the Primaries back in the '80s. The Republicans were supposed to be the party of business, not the political arm of the 700 Club.

       

      --
      Beware of Sleestak
    23. Re:McCain FTW by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I could not agree more.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    24. Re:McCain FTW by dintech · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry, it would be worse if it was an idiot lawyer.

    25. Re:McCain FTW by DikSeaCup · · Score: 1

      At least one other has said "Thank you"; let me add mine.

      The instant he started towing the party line after losing the 2000 primary he lost my respect.

    26. Re:McCain FTW by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Would you elect a brilliant and capable man who disagrees with your every fundamental value?

      I would certainly not. The last thing I want is some genius who is filled with good intentions plunging us into socialism because he thinks he knows what's best for everyone else. Frankly I'd rather go to war with Iran.

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    27. Re:McCain FTW by ztcamper · · Score: 1

      Fucked The What?

    28. Re:McCain FTW by BobGregg · · Score: 1

      Hear hear, well said.

      If you really didn't watch the debates, the transcripts do not do them justice. The eye rolls, the smirks, the obvious disdain, and the obviously scripted nature of the comments, spoke volumes that you didn't see. Of course, you managed to come to the same conclusions anyway.

    29. Re:McCain FTW by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      Amen. This is exactly what I have been feeling. The Republicans spent the last few months insulting my intelligence -- so deeply that they lost my vote.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    30. Re:McCain FTW by sckeener · · Score: 1

      McCain shot himself in the foot by no longer being a moderate and pandering to the right.

      He was his own person before this election.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    31. Re:McCain FTW by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      A geek would vote for the man that still has a working brain.

      No, a geek would make the rational choice based upon his own interest. For me, a vote for Obama is essentially a vote for unemployment.

      I didn't like it, but I voted for McCain. A 10% cut in defense contracting would be economic horror where I live (Obama promised this). A 25% overall cut in defense spending is worse, still, but it's not something Obama promised (Barney Frank did).

    32. Re:McCain FTW by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Obama is a Professor of Law, in fact.

      The distinction is akin to that between a prostitute and a Madam.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    33. Re:McCain FTW by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      The US couldn't get more socialist if it tried.

      Well, I suppose you could spend some money on health care instead of the military, but that's a minor shift compared to what has already happened over the last 70 years.

    34. Re:McCain FTW by genghisjahn · · Score: 1

      Since when does "intellectual whoredom" make someone a bad candiadate? That kidn of thing has been going on for decades but NOW...damnit...NOW you're going to take a STAND! Spare me the band-wagon outrage.

      --
      Sorry about the mess.
    35. Re:McCain FTW by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      That's my favorite logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance": the other guy is bad, so we must be better.

      So fallacies have a grain of truth. For instance, if you know that students' grades are normally distributed around a "C+", and kid #1 has a "D-", then in the absence of other information it's pretty likely that kid #2 did better than kid #1. Not saying that totally matches this particular situation, I'm just talking about fallacies in general.

    36. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, it would be worse if it was an idiot lawyer.

      But you repeat yourself . . .

    37. Re:McCain FTW by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      Right because its ok for someone to 'redistribute' my money so long as they are smart.... Sheesh..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    38. Re:McCain FTW by stei7766 · · Score: 1

      Hear hear!

      I used to be a big McCain fan. In fact when it looked like he wasn't going to win the primary a buddy and I were discussing how tought it would be to choose between Obama and McCain. Well, McCain sure made that choice alot easier.

      What is really sad is that we were discussing this on a plane ride over for an Iraq tour...who would have thought that McCain would have driven away so much of the veteran vote?

      Very sad to see a man I considered decent and honorable to fall so far so fast.

    39. Re:McCain FTW by jemtallon · · Score: 1

      Would you vote for a stupid and incapable man who agrees with your every fundamental value?

      Again, probably not. Real people don't just have one of two extreme values - they exist in shades of gray. If you're not willing to settle in some ways, you would end up either not voting or voting for yourself because you could never trust anyone else to have the exact values you have.

      Our government is a compromise. One of the drawbacks of that compromise is that those governing may do things you don't agree with. The benefits, of course, being that you don't feel as responsible when things go wrong and you don't have to spend as much of your time managing things. On the whole, it works well enough. If it didn't we'd all pull a Thoreau and stop paying taxes or a Gandhi and clog up the streets in protest.

      Most people agree that the government isn't perfect and neither are the candidates. Ideally we'd have a candidate who is brilliant and charismatic and capable who can bridge the differences between the people at home and away. They'd also be able to work closely with the other branches of the government to get the most done for the citizens who they represent. And ideally the core values of the majority would be supported while the core values of the minority would be respected. But that's not always the case and it certainly isn't the case with either McCain or Obama.

      That being said, I think Obama is close enough for me. I don't agree with all of his core values but I trust him enough to believe if my values fall into the minority under his presidency that he'll at least respect mine.

    40. Re:McCain FTW by jemtallon · · Score: 1

      PS: Isn't it awesome that after 2 years of what was essentially political science classes running 24/7 on American TV that we can skip right over the rhetoric and cut into the issues without falling into these "he's a socialist!" arguments? :D And people say Fox news isn't helpful.

    41. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case he's kind of right, though. The other guy DOES suck.

      Also, just because he's being intolerant of a different thing than you are doing make him better or worse. From your post I'd say you're intolerant too...

      I'm not trying to be flamebait, I am making a point--one that gets overlooked a LOT these days.

    42. Re:McCain FTW by Saliegh · · Score: 1

      newyorkcountrylawyer for President 2012!

      --
      1368127 is prime!
    43. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law school vs a military academy? I'll take the academy grad any day thank you. How are we supposed to get any meaningful tort reform with a former and future lawyer in the white house?

    44. Re:McCain FTW by chrb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      McCain abandoned his opposition to torture? This would be the McCain who said in a national debate:

      "I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is... Then I am astonished that you would think such a - such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our - who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention"

      That's pretty clear cut. Regardless of whether McCain is the best man for the job of President, his clear anti-torture stance - which went against the general Republican stance at the time - was something he should be admired for.

    45. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have no clue where Obama graduated in his class. He won't release his school records.

    46. Re:McCain FTW by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      So you think Jack Thompson is gonna try for 2012? Well, at least that may result in electronic voting going out the door, being videogames and all.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    47. Re:McCain FTW by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry, it would be worse if it was an idiot lawyer.
      I disagree.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    48. Re:McCain FTW by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Once again, I must point out to the politically naive that you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER listen to a politician's WORDS. To get the truth, you must always look at his ACTIONS. And John McCain's action in this matter was quite clear. Back in February when the Senate passed a bill to force the CIA and other government agencies to follow the Army Field manual procedures on enemy interrogation (which specifically bans torture and techniques such as waterboarding), your anti-torture hero John McCain voted against it (even after vocally supporting it earlier and sponsoring an earlier bill to establish this restriction for the Army).

      When it comes down to the wire, John McCain's talk is cheap. But we won't have to worry much about that after today.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    49. Re:McCain FTW by LordEd · · Score: 1

      And even worse if he walks into a bar and says 'ouch'.

    50. Re:McCain FTW by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      I remember in 92 after voting for Clinton, going to work (at the BMDO in the Pentagon) and having a retired army guy go apeshit on me for 15 minutes, yelling things like "you moron, we'll all be out of work, I hope you're the first one laid off". And then for the next 8 years we had a great time. I started a consulting business, and we grew from 2 to 15 (with revenues over 2 million) contracting with the military. And there were many, many, examples of this exact thing. Look at the spending levels on military during those years. They went down, yet, there were plentiful opportunities.

    51. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A quick search on the intertubes would reveal that Obabma graduated Magna Cume Laude whereas McCain graduated 844 out of a class of 849. While that doesn't give a specific figure, anyone who graduates that high is generally in the top 5% of the class.

      (Posting AC to preseve modding)

    52. Re:McCain FTW by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      You realize Bush is an idiot lawyer right?

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    53. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took the GOP NeoCons and their promise of power & the White House to do what the North Vietnamese couldn't do: Break McCain's will.

      I was a Reagan Republican back in the '80's and I, too, would've voted McCain in 2000. But the compromises and concessions he made to the fundamentalist goons left him just a puppet of the GOP masters this time around.

      I hope that the ultra-conservatives get smacked down hard, the GOP finally comes to its senses and moves back to a more moderate stance. I'm not going back to the GOP until they do.

      The NeoCons preach the Republican Values of small government and individual rights, but the party that truly represents those ideals is the Libertarian party. The NeoCons want to stick their grubby noses into the personal and financial lives of all Americans with their "Pro-Life", "Protection of Marriage", "Wall Street Bailout" crap.

      Obama, even with his faults, is like a breath of fresh air after the stench of the last 8 years coming from Washington.

    54. Re:McCain FTW by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      Sure, but Clinton got it -- contractors save the government money, which is why many positions previously occupied either by active duty or GS were outsourced under his watch. Obama has promised to reverse that.

    55. Re:McCain FTW by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's not quite fair. The Iran-Contra kiddies helped out!

    56. Re:McCain FTW by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Bah! Socialism vs Fascism. And I voted for Fascism!

      Hmmm... is there a voters remorse clause? I'm beginning to regret that....

      Nah seriously. As caricatures of the candidates Obama is a Socialist, McCain is a Fascist.
      The reality is of course not so extreme, but as a general rule I agree with more of McCain's positions than Obama's and the economic policies of both have a lot to do with that, as do their positions on the second amendment.

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    57. Re:McCain FTW by nine-times · · Score: 1

      An ironic ending for a guy who was a VICTIM of this very kind of dirty politics in 2000.

      Sometimes people learn the wrong lesson. For example, peoples response to abuse has a tendency to be "I'm bad" instead of "My abuser is bad". In turn, they often seek out relationships where they take the role of either the abuser or the abused.

      You could make too much of the comparison, but my only real point here is that I think McCain learned the wrong lesson from the 2000 election. I think certain people managed to convince him that he lost because dirty politics are the only way to win, and so when it was his time to run again, he turned to dirty politics. He ditched his old advisors and instead sought out the same sort of people who were able to beat him last time.

      Often enough, when you lose, it's good to analyze your opponent's performance and try to learn to take on your opponent's strengths. Unfortunately, you have to be careful when you do this to make sure that you're emulating your opponent's strengths and not his weaknesses.

    58. Re:McCain FTW by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Reverse in the areas it has gone too far, where it is costing the government more money, because the tried and true "privatization saves money" turns out when tried everywhere to not be true everywhere.

    59. Re:McCain FTW by link-error · · Score: 1

          Yeah... they both just want your money. One just costs more.

      --
      -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
    60. Re:McCain FTW by jazzduck · · Score: 1

      While I don't expect any politician of either party to be anything but a politician -- meaning someone who has to compromise their promises and principles in order to do their job -- I do think that the hallmark of the Republican party is their willingness to sell their souls just to get elected. Look at the way the same party that brought Lincoln to the white house now runs racist campaigns like Nixon's and Reagan's, to say nothing of Strom Thurmond and his pals.

      --
      A cat is no trade for integrity!
    61. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. Count me as one more who is appalled at what McCain has become. I admired the man in 2000 and could have voted for him in the general election (there was no WAY I was voting for W), but to see how cravenly he has abandoned what were ostensibly his core beliefs... to go from calling Falwell an "agent of intolerance" (which is exactly what that demagogue is) to being the commencement speaker at Liberty University... it sends shivers down my spine. What a waste of a man.

    62. Re:McCain FTW by Chees0rz · · Score: 1

      McCain turned me off most every time he would say- (rough quote)

      "I am for wind power, solar power, clean coal, alternative energy, and offshore drilling, unlike my opponent."

      I don't appreciate being lied to. He used this line during each debate- so obviously it was a flagrant attempt to mislead the public. I can hear his defense, now- "but he DOESN'T support offshore drilling..."

    63. Re:McCain FTW by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      So, you think success and insight are determined by GPA? Seriously?

      Maybe McCain didn't do well in the Academy, because he wasn't focussed on doing well in the Academy. Meanwhile, we have a candidate that left two years out of his autobiography, and the media mysteriously lets him slide on that. Could it be because he was dealing drugs?

      That oh-so-bright candidate you worship doesn't have the vision to know when to shut the hell up. Lipstick on a pig? Whether he was talking about Palin or not, he knew the context he was saying it in. If he didn't recognize the context for what it was, he is a fool. If he did recognize it for what it was, and then claimed that he didn't mean it that way, he is a liar. You choose.

      That oh-so-bright candidate has spent a lifetime under the teachings of a radical racist, and referred to the man as a mentor. When called to the rug, The Messiah says he never heard such talk. No choice here. That was just flat out lying. If it isn't, you'd have to believe he didn't know about Ayers past or the history of the PLO spokesman he liked to hang with.

      No all intelligence is wrapped up in a GPA. In fact, very few leadership qualities or character judgment qualities are quantifiable by a GPA. Obama fails on both counts.

      Seems clear to me.

      The only sane choice the round was Bob Barr.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    64. Re:McCain FTW by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the madam the same as a mac?

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    65. Re:McCain FTW by deets101 · · Score: 1

      I just refuse to vote for someone who ran a filthy campaign whose only issue was "the other guy sucks." That's my favorite logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance": the other guy is bad, so we must be better.

      Yeah, I am so glad Obama never did that choosing to run off of his long record of accomplishments instead*. The worst part of Obama's campaign was his voting record which, by the way, is the exact opposite of what he campaigned on. If I had a dime for every time I heard Obama say "Eight years of failed policies" or talk about George Bush, I would be in the rich tax bracket. At least McCain was putting down the person he was running against.

      *I guess some day we might find out what those are.

      --

      --
      My parents went to Slashdot and all I got was this lousy sig.
    66. Re:McCain FTW by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Fallacies have nothing to do with "truth".

      Fallacies are logical situations where you can put truth in one side and get false out the other. In a valid deductive argument this is impossible.

      What you're talking about isn't even logic. It's not even inductive logic. It's statistics and probability.

      The argument from ignorance is very simple:

      A v B
      ~A
      Therefore B

      A and B have independent truth values, so the attempt to promote the truth of B by proving A to be false is invalid.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    67. Re:McCain FTW by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point. I agree that fallacies are just that.

      But when people employ a fallacious argument, it's often the case that they're in the neighborhood of a valid argument, but goofed up their argument. I think their intuitions often draw their attention to an issue which can be useful to bring up, but they accidentally (or perhaps intentionally) concoct an invalid argument instead of the valid one which was actually available to them.

      Like with my example about grade distributions. McCain could have reasonably stated something like this: "Even if you're unsure about my policies, you know for sure you hate Obama's policies. So do you really think it's likely that you'll regret my Presidency as much as you would Obama's?"

      Unfortunately reasoning about the real world is messy, because you often have to deal with unknowns. Life would be simpler if it was clear how to model everything with first-order predicate logic, but it's not.

    68. Re:McCain FTW by jcarkeys · · Score: 1
      He's not a lawyer. He applied to law school and was rejected and got an MBA from Harvard.

      Wiki

    69. Re:McCain FTW by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I would have simply preferred that he'd spent more time trying to push his own plans, and less time trying to prove something by the record. Fact is fact; neither one of them has previous presidential experience, so any appeal to the historical record isn't going to get you much.

      I was hacking on Palin earlier this year and someone else pointed out that she had more executive experience than all the others combined, which is absolutely true, but it doesn't mean that she will do a better job, or even that executive experience is necessary for the job.

      What it boils down to for me is a simple process. I want to know what the candidates plans are. Now consistently Obama said things that I thought were forward looking and interesting. I didn't always agree with them; I don't like his trade policy much at all, for example, but I could respect an intelligent and informed plan.

      McCain on the other hand, consistently pushed things I thought were discredited or intellectually weird. Using bailout money to buy bad mortgages. The gas tax repeal. The pure dishonesty on the tax issue; portraying his opponent as a socialist for voting to reverse tax cuts that McCain himself had voted against in the first place!

      But far more than pushing his ideas, he pushed the idea that there was something "scary" about his opponent, an assertion with zero fact to back it up. That was the cornerstone of his campaign, frankly. My opponent is scary. My opponent hangs out with terrorists. My opponent is a socialist.

      The fact that he spent so much time on ad hominem and flimsy strawman arguments suggests to me that his positions have too little substance to stand on their own. So I vote Obama.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    70. Re:McCain FTW by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      It's funny how you can support something for years, and as soon as it gets popular, some whiny little bitch will come along and sneer at you for "jumping on the bandwagon."

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    71. Re:McCain FTW by Ztream · · Score: 1

      And then the question becomes: what else was in that bill?

    72. Re:McCain FTW by ben_white · · Score: 1

      Hell, I did vote for him in the primary. And I think this country wouldn't be worse off if he'd been president for the last 8 years.

      I'll go one further. If McCain had been president over the past 8 years we be much better off than we are now. And I'm a lifelong democrat.

      But he sold his soul for the brass ring this time around, and that level of intellectual whoredom I cannot abide.

      As well said as I have seen anywhere.

      --
      cheers, ben

      Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
    73. Re:McCain FTW by genghisjahn · · Score: 1

      It's band wagoners more than anyone else who claim "I've always stood for this"...but I'll take your words at face value. Very well, you've always been against intellectual whoredom. I maintain that it's a pointless position because EVERY candidate engages in it a great deal. All of them. There are differences between Obama and McCain to be sure but each of them will do whatever they can to get elected including all sorts of double-speak, truthiness talk and outright reversals of long held positions. Please don't ask me to list Obama's "intellectual whoredom" items. It's a long one. We could make a list for McCain too, put the two side by side and...prove my point. Btw...I voted for Obama.

      --
      Sorry about the mess.
    74. Re:McCain FTW by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I too had hoped for more from McCain.

      When I was watching Obama's half-hour TV slot the other night, It occurred to me that he did not mention McCain much, if at all.

      I can't help but think that a half hour McCain/Palin slot would have been about nothing but Obama's supposed evildoing.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    75. Re:McCain FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only do I have no good reason to vote for McCain (I have not heard any explanation or justification for the numbers against him that make him sound like more Bush), I don't trust Sarah Palin to run this country, whether it be if McCain were to die in the office of President of the United States or if she gets elected, herself.

      I believe that Barack Obama (especially since he's explained himself where needed) is much more able to get us out of this garbage of an economy we're in, and I do trust Joe Biden to take over, if Obama is unable to continue as President.

      Also, I wanna see how many Republicans complain when Obama's ideas end up working and turning us and our economy around, back to the positive side of the continuum.

    76. Re:McCain FTW by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      And now consider the relative likelihood of those two possibilities. One candidate is 47 with no known health problems, while the other is 72 and has a history of cancer.

      Even if the two VP candidates were equally undesirable (which I don't belive it is), their impact on my decision making process would not be.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    77. Re:McCain FTW by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Regardless of whether McCain is the best man for the job of President, his clear anti-torture stance - which went against the general Republican stance at the time - was something he should be admired for.

      I disagree. A politician doesn't get any admiration from me just for not being pro-torture.

      That's like saying "I really admire and respect the way so-and-so refuses to rape schoolchildren, and I'm very impressed with the fact that he doesn't abduct prostitutes and bludgeon them to death with a hammer." Anybody with an ounce of moral fiber would stand up against torture. That doesn't make him praiseworthy, it just means I have no reason to revile him based on that particular issue.

      The sad fact that so many Republicans signed on to the Fuck-Yeah-Let's-Electrocute-Us-Some-Testicles platform makes those Republicans monsters. But merely failing to support such an evil policy doesn't elevate someone in my eyes -- if you admire the guy for that, it just means you've lowered the bar a lot on what you consider admirable. He only looks good on this front when compared to really bad people.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    78. Re:McCain FTW by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'm pretty anti-Republican, but had McCain stayed true to his "maverick" self, he would have had a good shot at my vote. As it is, third party all the way. Neither major party is getting my vote until they stop being corporate whores.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    79. Re:McCain FTW by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      You realize Bush applied to Texas Law and got rejected and then went to Harvard Business School instead, right? No law degree doth that man possess.

  4. obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he behaved more presidential despite all the mud flinging at him

    1. Re:Obama by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I personally hope he is a socialist. It would be nice to see my friends and family back in the US brought up to the quality of life I've found after moving to the Nordic countries.

    2. Re:Obama by scubamage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama only seems socialist if you ignore the 700 billion dollar bailout we handed to businesses - easily the largest act of socialism ever in US history. Oh, it was penned by republicans, too.

    3. Re:Obama by Anivair · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agreed. I love how Republicans call him a socialist as if that's a bad thing. they say he reads MArx like that's a negative trait. Have these people got any idea what they're saying?

    4. Re:Obama by griffjon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't get this socialist BS.

      Bush spent 8 years imposing government rules on our daily lives, taking away civil liberties, inherent human rights, and personal privacy, and has rounded out his term by buying up (e.g. nationalizing) huge swaths of the mortgage/finance/banking industries.

      If you want socialism, vote for the big-government republicans.

      (Does anyone else miss small-gov't, pro-personal-liberties republicans? I'm a dyed in the wool liberal, but man am I ready for the neocon/religious right section of the GOP to dry up.)

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    5. Re:Obama by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Yes, both parties are bad for us, big surprise there. Is your point that, "so what if Obama sucks - McCain does to - so I'm voting Obama!" Does that make any sense?

    6. Re:Obama by naetuir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Marx is great, in theory.

      Just like communism is great, in theory.

      It's when the theory hits the practice. Problem is, when you hand communism (or any 'everyone works together' theory) to the people, they're still greedy and inherently flawed. Thereby ending up with a situation similar to... China.

      Note: Similar to, not exactly like.

      --
      Use what works.
    7. Re:Obama by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Frankly the damn Republicans are so fiscally irresponsible right now that I don't see how anyone could vote for them on a purely economic basis.

      The primary benefit of a dem landslide (for me) is that it may give the republicans a wakeup bitchslap that this social conservative crap only flies with the minority of the population. I'd love to see some real fiscal conservatives in office, but the "I hate taxes and abortions, but I love pork" crowd make me sick.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    8. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't suppose you have any idea what socialiasm is. If you find the concept disagreeable, I hope you put your money where your mouth is and don't pay taxes, and certainly don't take out any insurance policies on anything, because that's socialism in a nutshell. Look it up.

    9. Re:Obama by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Bush spent 8 years imposing government rules on our daily lives, taking away civil liberties, inherent human rights, and personal privacy, and has rounded out his term by buying up (e.g. nationalizing) huge swaths of the mortgage/finance/banking industries. If you want socialism, vote for the big-government republicans.

      Your faulty assumption is that there's a difference between the two choices. BOTH are for a nanny-state.

      It's as if this whole country has a collective memory loss and just keeps bouncing back and forth between two bad choices.

    10. Re:Obama by LSD-OBS · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means. Some of the highest tax rates in the world, yet everybody is looked after so well. Education is of an exceptional standard, and every person from every background is given equal opportunity to do and become whatever they choose. It's basically social capitalism, by which I am implying that raw capitalism *in practice* is one of the most anti-social and dehumanising concepts on earth.

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    11. Re:Obama by scubamage · · Score: 1
      Nah, but the combination of an already right leaning supreme court, 3 justices on the verge of retirement, and McCain being a year or two below the average male life expectancy does make sense. Especially when you think about who would be president if his ticker decides to stop ticking. Batshit crazy Sarah Palin appointing batshit crazy justices is a pretty terrifying concept. McCain is slightly less scary. Beyond that I hate both candidates and would be voting 3rd party.

      Ultimately my point in the previous post was that calling Obama socialist is quite hypocritical. I was trying to keep it nonpartisan.

    12. Re:Obama by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Finland and Iceland. The Nordic countries comprise more than just Scandinavia, and they are all welfare states.

    13. Re:Obama by OutSourcingIsTreason · · Score: 1

      It's not just Bush. Palin taxed the crap out of oil companies in Alaska and redistributed the wealth in the form of checks to all Alaskans including herself. Clearly she's a Neiman-Marxist.

      --
      "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
    14. Re:Obama by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Obama has criticized the US constitution because instead of giving power to the government, which is what he wants, it limits the power of government, which apparently cramps his style. I don't really think he outshines McCain when it comes to not "ruining our constitution".

      Oh, and speaking of the economy, Obama said his energy plan would bankrupt the coal-powered electric industry (and no, not the coal industry as the talk show hosts are claiming, although the electric industry is a major consumer of coal and that could feasibly bankrupt the coal industry as a side effect). What's that going to do to the economy? And the price of electricity would "necessarily skyrocket". Care to guess what that's going to do to the practicality of using electricity as an "alternative energy source"? Also, do you have any idea how much money your city pays for electricity to light government buildings, run the computers, pump water, and do scores of other things? Guess who pays that bill?

      As an item of curiosity I looked up my city's budget (available online) but unfortunately I don't think they itemized electric costs. I couldn't find a figure for it anyway. It'd be an interesting figure to have.

      Finally, a disclaimer: I'm not saying "this is what will happen". I'm trying to engage a discussion of "what did Obama say", "what did he mean", and "if that does happen, what will the effect(s) be".

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    15. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So, your going to vote for another socialist - hoping he's less of one?!?! Republicans are big oil, pro corp, and now socialist and big government. Proves that you have no fucking idea who a republican is and your to ignorant to recognise anything. We are in true danger when it's population is so stupid.

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

      Socialize loss, privatize profit...

    17. Re:obama by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      he behaved more presidential despite all the mud flinging at him

      Of course! It is easy to stay above the fray when the press takes all the mud for you. Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    18. Re:Obama by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

      I haven't been to Iceland but I forgot about Finland. I think I'm still slightly bitter about having my booze confiscated by security outside Assembly :)

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    19. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the biggest push for the bailout (aside from GW) was from Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress. A lot of the Republicans thought it was a bad idea. The Republican party was very much split on the bailout. Then the Democrats blamed the Republicans for not passing it sooner, yet they still weren't unified on it as a third of the democrats voted against it. Remember that in the past 2 years, the people passing the laws (aka the people running the government) has been the Democratic Congress. Not that GW was great before that, on the contrary, he has been awful on a number of issues. Just something to keep in mind.

    20. Re:Obama by grub · · Score: 1


      I get a laugh from the Republicans calling Obama a "socialist". Compared to our Conservative Party here in .ca he's still so far right he makes them look like communists.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    21. Re:Obama by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      I would say that the combination of a fillibuster-proof Dem majority Congress with a Dem president is a bad idea. The only way we can be safe from idiotic legislation is to keep the branches mixed. In fact a recent WSJ article showed that America has always done the best economically with a mixed system.

    22. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Does anyone else miss small-gov't, pro-personal-liberties republicans?

      More than I can possibly express. I am basically without representation at this point.

    23. Re:Obama by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Obama has criticized the US constitution because instead of giving power to the government, which is what he wants, it limits the power of government, which apparently cramps his style

      Citation? The guy taught constitutional law for over 12 years, so one should be easy to find, yet I can't seem to come across one. Not even a dubious one like the claim that Bush called it 'a goddamned piece of paper' which has a single, anonymous, source.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:Obama by jmhoule314 · · Score: 0

      Smith is great, in theory.

      Just like capitalism is great, in theory.

      It's when the theory hits the practice. Problem is, when you hand capitalism (or any 'everyone works for himself' theory) to the people, they're still greedy and inherently flawed. Thereby ending up with a situation similar to... America.

      Note: Similar to, not exactly like.

      There fixed that for you.

    25. Re:Obama by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny how the socialist tag only seems to apply to handouts to poor people. Somehow, when businesses, farmers, and others have their hands out, it's not socialism--it's investing in America.

    26. Re:Obama by scubamage · · Score: 1

      I concur, checks and balances are pointless if the checkers/balancers are in cahoots. However I'd much rather see a moderately left leaning court compared to a steeply right leaning court. Unless, of course, you want the scopes monkey trial overturned, and really dislike the bill of rights.

    27. Re:Obama by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I don't get this socialist BS.

      It's quite simple: any time anyone suggests raising taxes (especially on the wealthy), the right wing starts calling it "class warfare" and "socialism" to tie support of higher taxes to the Evil Empire (a.k.a. the USSR).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    28. Re:Obama by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's as if this whole country has a collective memory loss and just keeps bouncing back and forth between two bad choices.

      The problem is that as long as people make one of the two bad choices, the remaining choices will all be infeasible to make, unless a large chunk of people agree to make them.

      Duverger's law is a principle of political science which predicts that constituencies that use first-past-the-post systems will become two-party systems, given enough time.

      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting)

      You may have heard the phrase "Every vote not for number two is a vote for number one". Think Ralph Nader.

      We can analyze this in the framework of Game Theory: suppose you're a not-so-moderate leftie. You want Nader to win, then Kerry, then Bush, with payoffs [N=10, K=2, B=-10]. Suppose there's three percent like you, and the rest vote K=48%, B=49%. If you all vote Nader, you get payoff -10. If you all vote Kerry, you get payoff 2. Your goal is to maximize your payoff; what will you do?

      Voting for the big two is probably a Nash Equilibrium, when the voting game is formalized the "right" way, which means that it's in everyone's self interest to keep doing what they're doing as long as no one else change what they do.

      One thing you probably want in a voting system is that voting honestly (:= for the candidate you prefer the most) is a dominant strategy (:= it's at least as good as any other strategy).

      As long as people vote for the big two, they have to vote for big two to get what they want unless the game (i.e. election system) changes. And the election system won't change as long as people vote for the big two, because the politicians who have the power to change the game have higher payoffs from the game being what it is.

    29. Re:obama by KovaaK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.

      As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.

    30. Re:Obama by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      Nah, but the combination of an already right leaning supreme court

      Now I couldn't decide which was worse, the prospect of more right-leaning justices, or one party having the Congress and the presidency. Either way, it's a crap shoot.

      I was so torn that I actually didn't decide until I was in the booth. Hope it turns out well...

    31. Re:Obama by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      The following will be incredibly Racist, mod me accordingly:

      The Nordic countries aren't full of career welfare blacks and disgusting white trash entitlement whores.
      The fact is, America has 300+ million people and too many of them don't actually contribute to the economy in any meaningful fashion. If you get rid of the noncons then you might make a socialist system work. But with millions of people who expect to DO NOTHING and have all of their needs provided for it just won't work.

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    32. Re:Obama by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Obama in a 2001 interview for WBEZ-FM:

      But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

      (WorldNetDaily article)

      YouTube (I haven't watched this because streaming videos are blocked, but I'm assuming it's relevant)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    33. Re:Obama by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      It's when the theory hits the practice. Problem is, when you hand communism (or any 'everyone works together' theory) to the people, they're still greedy and inherently flawed.

      And let's not forget the millions that have died at the hands of communism. Stalin killed more people than Hitler could have dreamed. Stalin made Hitler look like Stalin light.

      And, of course, let's not forget the corruption that is inherent in the system ("HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED") and the effect it has on human rights. How free are the Chinese to research Tienanmen Square? What happens to politicians who oppose Putin? Sorry, but communist countries are not well known for their stellar human rights records!

      Don't even get me started on economics. Cuba, The Soviet Union, N. Korea are all fine examples of the communist economic record. China is the exception, but they have a way of mixing capitalism in with their communist ideals. Still, their people are basically slaves in the factories (hard to compete with slave labor) and their quality of life pales in comparison with capitalists countries.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    34. Re:Obama by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      Citation?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

      I think that's what he might be talking about. Just ignore the video, it's annoying to watch.

    35. Re:Obama by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

      The modding... why does it only go up to +5? Why?!

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    36. Re:Obama by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      Bush spent 8 years imposing government rules on our daily lives, taking away civil liberties, inherent human rights, and personal privacy, and has rounded out his term by buying up (e.g. nationalizing) huge swaths of the mortgage/finance/banking industries.

      Examples please. Can you tell me how YOUR life has changed due to Bush "taking away your civil liberties"? What could you do in before Jan 2001 that you can not do now?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    37. Re:Obama by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      I'm voting for Obama, but I also don't like the idea of a filibuster-proof senate. Fortunately, it doesn't look like that's going to happen. I'm curious about the correlation of a mixed system and economic good times, and I wonder which way the causation runs. It seems to me that a single party taking multiple branches of government is a sign of voter unrest, and an economic downturn usually causes voter unrest. Maybe it's that economic downturns cause unmixed government, and not the other way around?

    38. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Iceland is also officially bankrupt...

    39. Re:Obama by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      However I'd much rather see a moderately left leaning court compared to a steeply right leaning court.

      Please dispense with these arbitrary labels. "Liberal" used to mean what "conservative" now means, and the "religious right" can just as easily become the "religious left" with the marriage of faith and environmentalism (for example). Religion in no way represents fiscal conservatism. What you should be promoting is the recognition of individual rights on principle, in each and every circumstance, rather than the pragmatic advancement of one random party over another. Both parties have discarded all principles and are fine with rights violations when convenient.

    40. Re:Obama by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Obama only seems socialist if you ignore the 700 billion dollar bailout we handed to businesses

      You won't find me supporting the bailout. So now that we are all agreed it was dumb where does that leave us since Obama voted for it right along with the McCainiac.

      So our choice is between a third generation Marxist who hangs out with nutjobs and has zero accomplishments to justify two autobiographies vs a war hero who seems compelled to agree with Democrats at every opportunity out of some crazy notion that bipartisianship is always a good thing. We all know McCain has done a lot of things and will do big things as POTUS, and we Republicans will hate at least half of em. Why do ya think our side has been so demoralized.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    41. Re:obama by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.

      As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.

      These guys may have been investigated, but nothing was said in the media. Sure, Reverend Wright got some play, but I've never once heard a "news person" mention William Ayers, only "talking heads" and commentators.

      Also, wasn't there a video of Obama at a dinner with a Palestinian spokesperson that the LA Times refuses to release? Didn't they release a similar video of Arnold during his election? Their excuses is the person who gave it to them asked them not to release it. I call BS. Why would you give a video to the press if you didn't want it released? That's like giving your phone number to someone on the condition that they never EVER call.

      Please, don't even try to say that the press has been fair during this election.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    42. Re:obama by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      Of course! It is easy to stay above the fray when the press takes all the mud for you. Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined!

      I think you are imagining things in order to fit your ideology. Searching in Google for these guys (even restricting searches to Google's News 2008 archive) turns up far more results for Ayers, Wright and Rezko than for Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    43. Re:Obama by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

      Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means.

      I agree that Denmark, Norway and Sweden are good examples of quite successful socialism. This being said, I don't think you can just apply the same system to any country. One of the reasons these countries have been so successful with socialism is because they're very homogeneous. You can argue that recent (past 10 years) waves of immigration have partly erased this homogeneity, but it'd be foolish to imply that Scandinavian countries aren't still way more homogeneous than for instance the U.S.

      Personally, I do believe in socialized healthcare and education - I just think it's much harder to accomplish in the U.S. than just saying "let's copy Scandinavian countries".

      --
      This space up for sale.
    44. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are so worried about ruining our constitution, you might want to think twice about casting your vote for Obama.

    45. Re:Obama by DrXym · · Score: 1
      It makes me laugh when I hear terms like "socialist" bandied around in US politics. Even the most right wing government in Europe would be socialist by the criteria applied by members of the McCain camp. Every progressive modern government has elements of socialism just as they have elements of capitalism. One would expect nothing less. If the USA taxes rich people more than poor people than they are doing nothing out of the ordinary.

      It certainly seems like a tad hypocritical for McCain to accuse Obama of being a socialist when that McCain recently signed up to one of the biggest financial bailouts ever. You can't blow hot and cold about government intervention when you feel like it if you're going start slinging mud at others.

    46. Re:Obama by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

      You've got some work to do before you can convince me or anyone that demographic homogeneousness (it's a real word hones' guvna) has anything to do with whether you should look after your citizens or not.

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    47. Re:Obama by spaes · · Score: 1

      I agree that the Nordic countries have a good setup, but these countries are nowhere near the economic or physical size of the US. They also have oil resources which make a huge difference on a per capita basis.

      It is a nice idea, but I think the application of these economic systems on the U.S. is complete fail... in this century anyway.

    48. Re:obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Your comment history seems to indicate you love posting without any kind of cited material for your wild accusations and assertions.

      As for Joe the Unlicensed Plumber, you seem to be forgetting the insane amount of airtime dedicated to stories about Wright? The supposedly liberal-biased media couldn't get enough of that idiot, but I realize you carefully ignore things like facts and reality in your ravings.

    49. Re:Obama by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I don't read that as criticising the constitution for limiting powers so much as for not enumerating responsibilities - something I'd agree with.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    50. Re:Obama by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That's the point, though. The Constitution doesn't enumerate responsibilities (powers) of the government, it limits them.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    51. Re:Obama by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

      The bigger the economy, the more it gains from looking after its people. You sure you thought that one through?

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    52. Re:Obama by theolein · · Score: 1

      People like you make me lose hope in the capability of America to drag itself up out of the shit bath it is currently in. The level of pure dumbass stupidity in your post would be one thing, except that there seems to be a whole load of your "OMG SOCIALIST!!!!!!1111(one)" loony friends here on slashdot.

      Did you lot ever stop to think that although some small things might get better or worse under Obama (or under McCain) that the general state of your nation or your way of life is not going to change much.

      If you earn over $250000 and now have to pay an extra percent tax, will that really be the nation destroying thing you make it out to be?

      If free health care or obligatory health insurance (or, for fuck's sake, even just fucking medical insurance reform in the way of regulating payouts and rates) would it be the soul destroying rape of the nation that you make it out to be?

      If you had a president who actually talked to his enemies BEFORE sending in the bombers and troops, would that be the selling out of a proud military tradition, or would it be (finally) putting some sanity back into American foreign policy that almost no one internationally trusts any more?

      Stop acting like Nov 5 will be the end of the earth if your favourite nutjob doesn't make it into the white house.

    53. Re:obama by niktemadur · · Score: 2, Informative

      Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined.

      However, the three subjects (the plumber doesn't count) were brought up by either McCain, Palin or even Hillary back in the primaries.
      As for the so-called plumber, spare us, please. Who invokes his name every thirty seconds, Obama? No, McCain and Palin. He's also gotten himself an agent and wants to cut a country music album, the asshole wants and seeks all the free publicity he can get. Then he said things so outlandish, that he was smacked down on Faux News, of all places! Once again, please, spare us.

      How often did the media bring up McCain's associations with characters like Gordon Liddy, Charles Keating and that Texas megachurch crackpot, who supports Israel so it can be destroyed to bring about the second coming in his lifetime?

      Moreover, how often have the press stated the fact that the Bush and Bin Laden families were business partners and have been dear, dear friends for decades now? Much less often than we've heard the names Ayers and Wright.

      Y'all quit with the cherry pickin' now, it's become extremely tiresome, leads to nowhere and says more about you than about whatever it is you're talking about.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    54. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has lived in the U.S., Canada, and Norway, I disagree that the Nordic countries are a socialist paradise. The most difficult thing that I've had to adapt to living in Norway is how social well-being is used to rationalize all sorts of strange laws. For example, skateboarding was banned within Norway for 15-20 years because it was deemed too dangerous. Fireworks were banned at the start of the year because they could hurt other people. Mixed martial arts is illegal since people could hurt each other. In short, there's a whole slew of laws that follow the same sort of rationale: since we as a country have agreed to pay for social services such as health care, we believe it is our right to dictate much more intrusively the personal actions taken by a person. Now, this is not to say that the U.S. does not pass similar laws under similar seemingly bizarre rationale, but I feel that Norway takes this liberty further than the U.S.

      As always, social health care comes up when talking about the Nordic countries. Compared with the U.S., it's a trade off. If you are poor, then overwhelmingly you are better off in the Nordic countries. However, as a gross estimate, if you make $50k or so or more in the U.S., the medical care you receive in the U.S. will be superior to that received within the Nordic countries. The wait times here are unacceptable. The notion that people who are more critical are treated first is false. If you need any care outside of what a general practitioner can offer, you will wait weeks upon months before you can see a specialist. And, although Norway does offer private clinics, the amount of services they provide is so limited, it severely curtails their effectiveness as a viable alternative. While I believe that morally we have an obligation to provide quality health care to all, I do not believe that the Nordic countries should serve as a model for the U.S. to pursue. We can do better. As a cancer survivor, I can say with absolute certainty that neither Canada nor Norway would have treated my disease before it had irreparably spread.

    55. Re:Obama by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Finland has no oil resources. In fact, it's only natural resources are trees, and the export of wood fluctuates widely. Yet, it adopted the welfare state and saw wild economic growth. Only Norway has significant oil resources among the Nordic countries. Neither Sweden nor Denmark have them either, and they have welfare states that are just as strong.

    56. Re:Obama by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      People like you make me lose hope in the capability of America to drag itself up out of the shit bath it is currently in. The level of pure dumbass stupidity in your post would be one thing, except that there seems to be a whole load of your "OMG SOCIALIST!!!!!!1111(one)" loony friends here on slashdot.

      For example? Well, nevermind, I don't think you could come up with one.

      Did you lot ever stop to think that although some small things might get better or worse under Obama (or under McCain) that the general state of your nation or your way of life is not going to change much.

      Um, I believe I specifically cited energy costs and rising costs of utilities. That's going to affect everyone, and it'll hit the low-income class hardest.

      But I digress, the level of dumbass in YOUR post is too much to waste much time addressing...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    57. Re:Obama by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      It depends... Socialism is about redistributing from the rich to the poor, not the reverse. That would be more like... roberbaronism ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    58. Re:obama by Straif · · Score: 1

      if by Presedential you mean "evading any probing question and refusing to give open press conferences for over a month" then yeah, Obama's got the Presedential thing down pat.

      And half of the mud flinging was from him onto him so that he could accuse his opponents of doing it. How many times did Obama himself mention his race as being used against him? Compare that to how many times McCain ever attacked him on race; excluding all those 'code words' the press worked overtime to find. (When 'socialist' becomes code for 'black' you know they're really reaching.)

      It's relatively easy to appear above the fray when you can just send your talking points to the press and let them do all the attack work. In many cases the reporters have gotten so lazy they even use the exact word for word copy, they don't even bother to pretend it's not straight from the campaign.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    59. Re:Obama by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      And here I was hoping to make our federal government *more* limited..

      The thing that bothers me *most* about Obama is they longing eye with which he looks to Europe... Sorry but I dont agree with the European Nanny State mentality..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    60. Re:Obama by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

      The problems you mention have everything to do with government losing the balance between individual and state responsibility. Rationally and logically, it's still more beneficial to have the problems above and have that great big safety net, than not. However, I agree that it has gone too far when people are no longer allowed to assess and take risks themselves. This should always be kept in balance, and this is part of the lesson to be learned from these countries.

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    61. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but I don't want that. If I wanted that I could always just move to Norway, Sweden or Denmark. I'd say open societies are more important. Let the people who prefer a certain system of government move to that country.

      I'd rather have the option to move (difficult choice) than have all the options be the same (no choice).

    62. Re:Obama by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frankly the 1-party thing was a drum I beat for 6 years, and I'm tired of beating on it. The Republicans need a good old fashioned asswhipping to kick their sorry asses back toward the middle and maybe, maybe to kick some of the damn social conservatives back into their caves. At the very least their massive arrogance needs to have some holes shot in it.

      When good Sentors like Chuck Hagel and Arlen Specter are called traitors to their party because they don't suck up to the social conservatives, there is something seriously wrong.

      The absolute LAST thing we need in this country is two parties who think they've got the right to legislate how we live our lives.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    63. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't miss what never existed. For most of its history since 1868, the Republican Party has been about funneling public funds to private enterprise and allowing the rich to shit on the poor.

      The only major exception was Barry Goldwater in 1964, who believed in small government, states' rights, and personal liberty, and lost in an absolute landslide.

      Or is that what you're talking about?!?

    64. Re:Obama by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

      Easily said if you are lucky enough to be able to *exercise* that choice. For instance, I'm not bound to where I live, but would I be wanted and accepted by the land I want to be in? This depends vastly on where I was born (thanks to so much institutionalised racism when it comes to moving & travelling between countries), and on my education & employability.

      On the flipside of your argument, if you're from, say, Norway, and you want to move, you've a higher chance of having had a meaningful and fruitful education, enabling you to make a far wider range of choices.

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    65. Re:Obama by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      The Regan Coalition put the two together because so long as each is willing to be slightly pragmatic they can greatly help each other. As a social conservative and fiscal populist I could care less if my taxes are 28 or 30% so long as the Government stays the hell out of my life and some basic things happen:

      1) Abortion ends (But along with that we have to pay the social price to support single mothers and enable safe adoption)
      2) Teachers became agents of Parents and not agents of the state (like it used to be before the NEA got so damn powerful)
      3) Stay out of people bedrooms, kitchens, and Doctors offices.
      4) If its not in the constitution leave it to the states
      5) Secure the border (if we need more immigrants to support the economy then let them in legally)

      --

      That's all I'm really after and Ill vote the person most likely to do that. The problem is many other social conservatives get up in arms over homosexuality, prayer in school, ..., ... Fiscal Conservatives are so obsessed with Free trade and tax rates that they ignore government spending. This is what has destroyed the Regan coalition. I fully expect the Dem wins today to re-scope and re-focus the groups and you will start seeing gains in the house and senate in 2012..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    66. Re:obama by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      Please, don't even try to say that the press has been fair during this election.

      I don't think anyone's making that argument. Just out of curiosity, is there a single newspaper in America that's acknowledging that there are more than two candidates in the Presidential race?

      --saint

    67. Re:obama by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Of course! It is easy to stay above the fray when the press takes all the mud for you. Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined!

      I think you are imagining things in order to fit your ideology. Searching in Google for these guys (even restricting searches to Google's News 2008 archive) turns up far more results for Ayers, Wright and Rezko than for Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.

      Maybe you should try the test before you are made to look foolish.

      Resultsfor "Joe the Plumber": 1 - 10 of about 29,040 for Joe-the-plumber. (0.46 seconds)
      Resultsfor Reverend Wright: 1 - 10 of about 1,063 for Reverend Wright. (0.16 seconds)
      Results for "William Ayers":Results 1 - 10 of about 18,930 for William-Ayers. (0.29 seconds)
      Results for "Tony Rezko": Results 1 - 10 of about 1,936 for tony-rezko. (0.19 seconds)

      (Reverend Wright was not in quotes. With quotes, it was about 460 hits)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    68. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What!?!? When I visited Denmark, they had the highest tax rate in the world yes, and the highest alcoholism rate in the world, and... wait for it... the highest suicide rate in the world. Great quality of life if you ask me.

      Everybody is looked after so well? That's my responsibility as an individual and a parent, not the government's! Why not have an opt in program for these socialized services? I don't want any of them, so why should I pay for them?

      A government that can give you everything you need can also take everything you have. It has happened and will again.

    69. Re:Obama by redscare2k4 · · Score: 1

      Just like capitalism is great, in theory.

      When the theory hits the practice... well, by now we all know what pure capitalism without some checks and balances leads to.

    70. Re:Obama by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Bipartisanship is a good thing...if you don't have the unshakable certainty that everything you do is right.

      I'm always open to the idea that my views aren't perfect. The biggest problem I have with the Republicans and the Social Right, is that they are certain that everything they do is perfect, and everyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but also a bad, evil person.

      It's amusing that they even turn on other politicians who are conservative, just not as conservative as they are. I've got one of the most conservative democrats in the entire house in my district, and the republicans spend millions every election cycle trying to unseat him...A guy who votes with Bush more often than he votes with his own party, and yet that's not enough for them, he has to be a complete republican robot.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    71. Re:Obama by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      What!?!? When I visited Denmark, they had the highest tax rate in the world yes, and the highest alcoholism rate in the world, and... wait for it... the highest suicide rate in the world.

      Cite? Russia frequently has the highest rates of alcoholism in the world, and Finland, Lithuania and Hungary have vied for highest suicide rates in the world. I've never heard Denmark come anywhere close to the top.

    72. Re:Obama by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Afford a tank of gas? Think about retiring?

      Look someone in the eye and say, "In the US we don't torture prisoners of war, we don't unilaterally invade other countries, we don't imprison our citizens without a trial, and we don't allow the government to spy on citizens without due process of law."

      If you can look back on the last 8 years without feeling sick with shame, there is a problem.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    73. Re:Obama by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1
      I'd suggest you read my post before responding.

      You've got some work to do before you can convince me or anyone that demographic homogeneousness (it's a real word hones' guvna) has anything to do with whether you should look after your citizens or not.

      I wouldn't argue that. As I said, "personally, I do believe in socialized healthcare and education". And to use your words, I completely believe you should look after your citizens, regardless of demographic homogeneity (that is a word). I just don't think it's as easy in less homogeneous countries, and you can't just say "the way they do it in Sweden works for Sweden so it'll work for us".

      --
      This space up for sale.
    74. Re:Obama by chrb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, Iceland is also officially bankrupt...

      Yeah, but that had everything to do with a small group of bankers borrowing heavily from international money markets, investing in bad assets, and those assets subsequently falling in value, and nothing to do with how they organise their own society (whether you call it socialism, or not).

    75. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism != Socialism

    76. Re:Obama by MaWeiTao · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means.

      Yep, and the UK, France, Germany and much of the rest of Europe are stunning examples of the failure of socialism. They're cutting back on social programs and privatizing where they can because they just can't sustain the system. And they've got these problems despite the fact that people are taxed heavily at all income levels.

      One thing that always gets me is how people compare a nation like Denmark or Japan to the US. Those countries have relatively small and homogenous populations, unlike the US. They're in a situation where they have most of the population paying the system ensuring it's sustainable.

      And even then, eventually problems arise, like in Japan, because of declining birth rates there aren't enough people paying in to support the aging population. From everything I've seen, unless we completely abandon any monetary system socialism is always doomed to failure in the long run.

    77. Re:Obama by spaes · · Score: 1

      The question is not an ideal, 'what it gains,' but whether it is practical. And it is not.

    78. Re:Obama by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      Exactly why I'm voting Obama. The supreme court needs to be a 5/4 split on most issues. If it isn't then whomever is in the majority can ram through any precedent they want.

    79. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As someone who lives in the UK, it's obvious to me that the failure of socialism here came about largely due to the privatisation of the services.

    80. Re:Obama by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      Bush spent 8 years imposing government rules on our daily lives, taking away civil liberties, inherent human rights, and personal privacy, and has rounded out his term by buying up (e.g. nationalizing) huge swaths of the mortgage/finance/banking industries.

      First of all, most republican and conservatives opposed the bailout. The politicians forced it down everyone's throat. The democrats probably supported it more enthusiastically because they're the ones getting campaign contributions from these banks. Obama was among the top of the list in contributions from Lehman Brothers among others.

      Secondly, in what way, exactly, have you lost civil liberties or human rights? I see people as free to do whatever they please as they always have, if not more so.

    81. Re:Obama by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      I could drive fifteen minutes across the Peace Bridge to eat Chinese food and look at strippers without carrying a goddamned passport.

      Ridiculous, batshit crazy security theatre nonsense designed to keep people constantly afraid.

      --saint

    82. Re:Obama by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      You're contraction of you are.
      Your, possessive.
      One can not have a "going", nor can you have an ignorant.
      Yet as evidenced by your comment one can be ignorant.

      Republicrat or Demican, two sides to the same coin.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    83. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that we in the U.S. would be far better off with the sort of safety net provided by the Nordic countries. I also believe that we can do so without sacrificing personal responsibility and freedoms during the process. While there are many positive things about Scandinavia, I am disappointed with these countries for using their social system as an excuse to pass many far reaching and absurd pieces of legislation in the name of common good. In the U.S., we should learn from their systems and aspire to something better.

    84. Re:Obama by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      [sarcasm]As opposed to Bush, who, as we all know, was a great respecter of the Constitution.[/sarcasm]

      Obama is an expert on the Constitution to a level that is hard to even define...He taught Constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. So it's not unreasonable that he may have criticisms of the document, the same way any expert may have criticisms of things under his area of expertise.

      But I do not think that he has anything like the arrogance and disrespect for the law and the Constitution that has been shown in the last 8 years, and having anyone imply that with a straight face makes me laugh.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    85. Re:Obama by ihatethetv · · Score: 2, Funny

      shuttup you! =)

    86. Re:Obama by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      European Nanny State . . . I hope you'll clarify that. I have found the US to be far more of a nanny state. To illustrate: when I was in holland I observed many places where the canals were not blocked by railings etc. I asked a friend what happened if a car were to drive into the canal. The driver is fined and also pays for any damages they caused. IN the US we mandate that railings and bollards be positioned so that an idiot could not drive into the canal, out of fear that the state would be held liable for injuries that might result.
      This is extended further, to staircases with no railings (ours cannot have any place for a 4" sphere to pass through), bars and swimming pools together, nudity in public (hot springs and beaches), and any number of other examples.
      I'm sure you have your examples of the EU being more of a nanny state, and I'm interested to hear . . .

    87. Re:Obama by will_die · · Score: 1

      If you were thinking about retiring before Bush you should not of been in the stock market when it burst.
      My stock wealth is back to were it was when the Democrats took over Congress but luckly I had the years of growth before that so it is just a matter of waiting a few more years(3-4) and I will be far above what I previously had.
      One think to consider for those retiring if you had put $10,000 dollars in the stock market when Bush was first elected you would still have a better rate of return then if you had gotten the rate of return social security will give.

    88. Re:Obama by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure you have your examples of the EU being more of a nanny state, and I'm interested to hear . . ."

      Germany banning homeschooling comes right to mind..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    89. Re:Obama by g-san · · Score: 1

      Enjoy traveling by airplane. Get on an airplane without taking off my shoes. Believe that America would never torture anyone, and everyone received due process. Click on a odd ball link about terrorism and wonder if I am being put in a database somewhere. Bring a screwdriver or nail clippers with me on an airplane. Use the word terrorist in a post and wonder if I am being put in a database somewhere. Believe my communications were not monitored.

      Have faith in the election process.

      Feel proud to be an American Citizen.

      You must live in a cave if your life has not been impacted by this president.

    90. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. Funny to see all those articles in US press, about how if you want socialism, you should move to either Scandinavia or Sweden.

      Well, I have, and happy about it.

    91. Re:Obama by ihatethetv · · Score: 1

      I don't know why I bother anymore, but: It's not a bailout or a handout. The first draft Paulson tried to ram through was pretty close to a handout, but now the gov is taking stakes in banks.

      Is it a handout when I buy stock in a bank, expecting to make a return? Now obviously there are other motivations than profit here for the government (i.e. to steady the credit markets, prevent failures, etc) but they MAY come out in the black on this. Buffet made this point clear when he said he'd gladly take a 1% stake in this given the chance. He supported it.

    92. Re:obama by Dekortage · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nice try.

      But there are alternative search phrases, as you note. Let's check some others.

      Hardly the massive media conspiracy you describe.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    93. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think open societies are important? Like a society with no PATRIOT act, no searching of your laptop at the border, no DMCA, no concentration camps run on Cuba by the military? You should try Norway, Sweden or Denmark then.

    94. Re:Obama by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Please provide citations for this. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that I've heard this complaint before, I don't believe it, and I've never seen any numbers that demonstrate it.

    95. Re:Obama by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The abortion issue irritates the crap out of me. I put it right up there with "Staying out of my doctor's office." I agree that it is a socially undesirable, and even barbaric process; however I think that our society is such that it conspires to keep effective birth control and education away from young people, and punishes them (through lost opportunities) for carrying the child to term.

      Removing those obstacles and scaling back the demonization of sex and sexuality by the moral conservatives might actually help reduce the number of abortions, something which trying to outlaw it probably won't.

      I'm not sure what you mean regarding teachers; I want them to be agents of education, not of someones agenda, and that education should be secular. If you want non-secular education, send your kid to a religious school.

      I'm not sure you can call someone a fiscal conservative who believes in government spending. Milton Friedman is (in many ways) my definition of a fiscal conservative, and he was pretty much anti-government spending. It's Keynes who was pro-government spending, and while the Republicans pay lip service to Friedman, it's Keynes they follow. All (mainstream) economists are for free trade, so you can't use that to differentiate.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    96. Re:Obama by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I could take toothpaste on an airplane.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    97. Re:Obama by scubamage · · Score: 1

      The thing is the precedent for this was buying up assets that had actual value. The assets the government is buying up are all but worthless. That's why they're called "poison assets." They have nowhere to go but down. That is why its a bailout - their assets were going to destroy their companies. We bought them, and now the companies have been bailed out. That's why we're calling it a bailout. Because that's what it is. We cover their asses just like we covered the flight industry after 9/11. Some capitalism that is.

    98. Re:Obama by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you can talk about "penned by Republicans" but even more disturbing Democrats on boards with it without much fuss, even though there were dozens of possible alternatives. In fact, as actually implemented "the bailout" is being utilized somewhat differently than discussed at the time, since language of the law is broad. The Democratic party really doesn't have leadership qualities, they follow and have done a great job of being the Republicans willing flunkies.

    99. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Penned by Republicans? You need to re-read the news of that day. Senator Frank would be very mad you lumped him in with the Republicans.

    100. Re:Obama by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Finally, a reasoned argument for voting for one of the two identical evils. I knew I'd eventually find one somewhere in all these posts. However, the amount of damage that a Dem supermajority and Dem president could do together in the interim still seems too high.

    101. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Praise be the Lawd!! Save us, O Messiah Obama, by thy power, and we shall be saved!

    102. Re:obama by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Nice try.

      But there are alternative search phrases, as you note. Let's check some others.

      Hardly the massive media conspiracy you describe.

      You need to put "Bill Ayers" in quotes like you did with "Joe the Plumber":
      Results 1 - 10 of about 13,131 for bill-ayers. (0.24 seconds)
      Same for "Reverend Wright":
      Results 1 - 10 of about 2,520 for "Reverend Wright". (0.06 seconds)

      Also, I did a straight news search, not the "archives", but it looks like once you provide the quotes, the end result doesn't change as the corrected results still show that "Joe the Plumber" still has more hits than "Bill Ayers" or "Reverend Wright".

      Good try though!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    103. Re:Obama by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      "The abortion issue irritates the crap out of me. I put it right up there with "Staying out of my doctor's office.""

      Im sorry you feel that way, to me I put it right up there with every person has the right not to be killed by another person.

      "I agree that it is a socially undesirable, and even barbaric process; however I think that our society is such that it conspires to keep effective birth control and education away from young people"

      Which, by the way, is why I said society need to stop up and help with women who have kids and to your point they also need to make birth control more available.

      "I'm not sure what you mean regarding teachers; I want them to be agents of education, not of someones agenda, and that education should be secular. If you want non-secular education, send your kid to a religious school.

      Teachers are watching people kids and as such should be most accountable to *those parents* I, like you, don't want agendas for any side. I don't want School prayer but I also don't want teachers telling 1st graders about different sexual lifestyles..

      "I'm not sure you can call someone a fiscal conservative who believes in government spending."

      It depends on what the spending is for does it not? Paying down our insane debt, wartime military spending (real wars not faux wars against methods) are of course fine and If someone was going to raise my taxes soley to pay off the national debt I would be in favor. But when you pull out the and better education, medical care, ..., ... then youre not spending money in a conservative manner.

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    104. Re:Obama by clone53421 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He pretty much took one of the fundamental tenets of the U.S. government, limited government, and said he doesn't like it. Having vast knowledge about the Constitution doesn't in any way imply that he believes in or respects it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    105. Re:Obama by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      So that outweighs the examples that I provided? Germany does not equal the entire EU, our education system is handled by each state . . . perhaps you heard someone call the EU a bunch of nanny states and you believed it? Really, if you have something of substance I am interested to hear it.

    106. Re:Obama by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      The government has but one responsibility --- to protect its citizens from physical violence. That's it.

      If you want more, amend the thing, don't try to sidestep it.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    107. Re:Obama by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      McCain is certainly the lesser of two evils in this election.

      They are both Socialist, its only a matter of degrees.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    108. Re:Obama by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      "So that outweighs the examples that I provided?"

      Id rather not get into a tit for tat because its pretty much pointless If I came up with the smae number plus one you would get 5 more than I would get 5 more , ..., ...

      "Germany does not equal the entire EU"

      One of your most powerful and influential member

      But if you want *one* example:

      European Union Applies 'Hate Speech' Rules To Internet

      Opposition to multiracialism, homosexuality, immigration effectively banned under new Internet rules.

      BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Union will be launching new Internet broadcasting rules later this year.

      "The European Commission had a duty to protect shared European values," EU Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding (pictured) told a broadcasting conference in Liverpool, England. "Who in this room... stands for the freedom to spread incitement to racial hatred on the new media?"

      Reding said there was a "broad consensus that hate speech rules should also apply to the Internet."

      http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=6245

      --

      If telling people what they can and cant say on the internet is not an example of a nanny I dont know what is..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    109. Re:Obama by guacamole · · Score: 1

      So, your going to vote for another socialist - hoping he's less of one?!?! Republicans are big oil, pro corp, and now socialist and big government.

      Except for socialism, that is EXACTLY what being republican means based on the last three republican administrations going back to 1980! Add to that pro-imperialism, pro-theocracy, anti-environmentalism, covert racism, and anti-intellectualism.

    110. Re:Obama by jasmusic · · Score: 1

      Do handouts remove poor people from poverty? Not really. Some investment that is!

    111. Re:obama by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      Insert Twain's statement here about statistics and lies.

      Okay, we'll take poor Joe out of his quotes. We still get 28,389 results. Still less than quoteless Wright or Ayers.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    112. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spend a day or 2 in Philadelphia. You'll see it.

    113. Re:Obama by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      Nobody caught my jest. I said nobody can beat Bush at socialism. I guess G. W. still stands for George Washington, not George W. Bush. My Bad.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    114. Re:Obama by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Would you like the population numbers by racial breakdown or the welfare recipient numbers or what?
      Let me know which statistics you would like and I'll dig them up for you.

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    115. Re:Obama by sjames · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing about those do nothing freeloaders, but somehow, I've NEVER met one. Kinda like I keep hearing about space aliens zapping people with their mind rays, but I've never seen one.

      I have met homeless people who do nothing, but they don't collect welfare checks either. My guess is that they need assistance (and based on the shuffling gait, they were once on way too much thorazine before the non-violent cases were kicked out of the mental hospital due to budget cuts).

    116. Re:obama by bsane · · Score: 1

      Thats because William Ayers is a non-story (as it pertains to the election). Wheres the connection? Some guy who did something 30 years ago lives in your neighborhood and server on the same board as you?

      The story should be WTF put Ayers the board? They should be the ones answering questions here.

    117. Re:Obama by aggie_knight · · Score: 1

      I'm one of those small-gov't, pro-personal-liberties republicans and I can't describe to you how invisible I have felt the last decade. I hope after this election the GOP dissolves and reforms as two different parties to separate people like me from the "new" Republicans. Realistically, I don't give it a high probability of happening, but a guy can hope and change, can't he? Wait...that almost sounds like somebodies election theme...

    118. Re:Obama by rpillala · · Score: 1

      For more insight into voting systems and game theory, read Gaming the Vote by William Poundstone.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    119. Re:obama by strikeleader · · Score: 1

      So you are following Colin Powell's lead.

    120. Re:Obama by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Denmark does have a surplus on oil trade however, we drill less oil per citizen than the US does. If the American spend as little oil as Danes did, the US too would be an oil exporter.

    121. Re:Obama by methuselah · · Score: 0

      you must live in the desert or never leave you house then.

    122. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't really call a 700 billion dollar handout to *corporations* socialist. It might be if the government bought the companies, but instead they just handed 700 billion to large corporations with few or no strings attached.

    123. Re:Obama by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Denmark has an average suicide rate, on line with that of the US. Alcoholism is low on average, but has a world record among teens (mainly because we find it natural that teens drinks the same amount of alcohol as adults). The tax rate is the world highest though, but then so are the incomes.

    124. Re:Obama by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      If telling people what they can and cant say on the internet is not an example of a nanny I dont know what is..

      agreed.

      Perhaps we are both nanny states, but in different areas.

    125. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just saw the movie Sicko.. I see what you mean and I'm in envy.

    126. Re:obama by gsgleason · · Score: 1

      oddly enough I'm half serious. I think having a 'leader' of 'color' will help to improve foreign relations.

    127. Re:Obama by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The market fundamentalist neocon experiment has ended. It has crashed and burned. It has outlived any usefulness it had. It has gone the way of feudalism, communism, and all the other 'isms' that are now studied in history books.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    128. Re:Obama by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Your assumption that welfare recipient equates to career welfare recipient is unsound. I know you can dig up statistics, but will the represent what you want them to?

    129. Re:obama by strech · · Score: 1

      One thing you're missing is that the news media is largely event-driven. "Joe the Plumber" (and yes, the media "investigation" was idiotic) has been doing things - appearing at rallies, chasing the media, negotiating a recording contract, etc. Ayers are Wright aren't doing anything - Ayers is continuing at his job, and Wright hasn't talked to the press since I think late April. In that sort of situation, of course Wurzelbacher will get more coverage.

      What, exactly, is new to say about Ayers and Wright? News media can report "Joe the Plumber attends campaign rally for McCain". They can't report "William Ayers goes to work again today" or "Jeremiah Wright walked around his house".

      (And wasn't it ABC - that evil "mainstream media" - that turned up the "God Damn America" tape?)

      As for the news media in general - Obama got a higher percentage of negative coverage than McCain over the summer IIRC, although he did get more coverage. McCain's certainly got more negatives recently, although given that his campaign is leaking like a sieve, he went 100% negative (at least for a while), and his running mate managed to beat Joe Biden in the say-something-dumb contest, completely even coverage was never going to happen.

    130. Re:Obama by sjames · · Score: 1

      There are homeless people wandering the desert?

    131. Re:Obama by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      In 2000 the DJIA was at 11,000. So, you picked good stocks (good for you,) but the average investor lost wealth since 2000.

    132. Re:Obama by Cheetahfeathers · · Score: 1

      Obama's not a socialist at all. Check out http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/campaign-2008-h.html

      As a libertarian socialist (as opposed to an authoritarian socialist), I would be happy if Obama was a socialist. He's not. He's slightly right of center and slightly more authoritarian than libertarian.

    133. Re:Obama by Red+Alastor · · Score: 1

      Obama only seems socialist if you ignore the 700 billion dollar bailout we handed to businesses - easily the largest act of socialism ever in US history

      That's not socialist at all, in socialism we get to share the profits too.

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    134. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *in practice* is one of the most anti-social and dehumanising concepts on earth

      This is extremely well stated. You must be one of those educated to such an exceptional standard.

    135. Re:Obama by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing about those do nothing freeloaders, but somehow, I've NEVER met one. Kinda like I keep hearing about space aliens zapping people with their mind rays, but I've never seen one.

      I have met homeless people who do nothing, but they don't collect welfare checks either. My guess is that they need assistance (and based on the shuffling gait, they were once on way too much thorazine before the non-violent cases were kicked out of the mental hospital due to budget cuts).

      There are people in the UK that claim benefits, but could work if they chose to. They might not want to work as a construction labourer or a street-sweeper though, so EU migrants end up doing those jobs. I don't know how many there are.

      There are many single mothers who live on welfare payments. I don't mind this much -- caring for a child is a full-time job until the child starts school. But once the child is at school the mother should be able to find some work. The problem is, they might (reasonably) only have time for 5 hours work a day, but if they get a job they lose the welfare payments, so they'd be worse off. It's not perfect, hopefully it'll continue to be improved.

    136. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "by republicans" and passed by the democratic congress.

    137. Re:Obama by Cheetahfeathers · · Score: 1

      And just like capitalism is great, in theory. In practice you get cutthroat business practices, only looking out for short term self interest, competition crushing monopolies were owning everything isn't enough, consolidation of power into the hands of a very tiny minority, and an almost complete disregard for the general public.

      The USA was founded in large part to control corporate interests, and to go against companies like the monopolistic East India Company. In the early days of the US, they strictly controlled or ended any corporation that didn't act in the interest of the general public.

      Now we buy the falsehood that what's good for a corporation is good for the US. Even if it includes firing US workers, doing away with pensions, leaving people uninsured or underinsured, manipulating markets so that it takes more and more money to get buy, while the people at top make more and more profit.

      People are greedy and inherently flawed, yes. Capitalism is like releasing a bunch of hungry tigers into a room together and telling them to play nice. Unless you keep all the tigers on a very short leash, you end up with a mess.

    138. Re:obama by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      Mod up +1 Funny, it's a Colbert-esque joke.

    139. Re:Obama by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing about those do nothing freeloaders, but somehow, I've NEVER met one.

      That's why it's a strawman.

    140. Re:Obama by spaes · · Score: 1

      It would be great if the US could cut down on oil consumption, particularly for the environment, but again, we are discussing completely different economies. Being a net exporter would not have the same effect. I think it is unreasonable to compare $300 billion GDP countries with a $13000 billion GDP country.

    141. Re:Obama by 2short · · Score: 1

      "Would you like the population numbers by racial breakdown or the welfare recipient numbers or what?"

      Yes, that would be great.

      "Let me know which statistics you would like and I'll dig them up for you."

      Whatever ones you think support your bullshit. Maybe you could start with the percent of the population deriving the majority of their income from government support in the US vs the Nordic countries? Hint: If you're not going to change your mind in the face of evidence, don't bother looking that one up.

    142. Re:Obama by 2short · · Score: 1


      Of course, pretty much all Americans support and enjoy socialized education. It's only health care where we think everyone should ahave it but inexplicable refuse to pay for it efficiently.

      "I just don't think it's as easy in less homogeneous countries"

      Why?

    143. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporate welfare is a more descriptive term for the bailout. As with all corporate handouts, it is painted as a critical aid to "the people" while primiarily benefitting the power elite at the top of the power pyramid (and their associates in the "private" sector).

    144. Re:obama by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.

      As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.

      They were investigated, sure enough. And when confronted with the question of why did he sit for such nonsense, Obama said he never heard such talk.

      AND THE PRESS ACCEPTED THAT!!!

      20yrs. In his autobiography, claimed the racist was a mentor that he worked closely with. The radical sermons were distributed on a "best-of" DVD that the church sold. The racist gets a chance to be in the public light, and he goes on-and-on with his bile, even though he has to know that it will harm Obama.

      And Obama never heard him say such things? It can just be dismissed with, "I never heard that"? And that is investigation?

      Ok. Whatever.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    145. Re:Obama by 2short · · Score: 1

      "Does anyone else miss small-gov't, pro-personal-liberties republicans?"

      Miss them? How could I miss them? I've never seen one on the ballot in my lifetime. And I'm old.

    146. Re:Obama by Anivair · · Score: 1

      Of course you CAN, but that doesn't mean that I want a president who a) doesn't read Marx and b) can't pick and choose elements from Marxist political theory as valid. just like, before someone writes a new programming language, I want them to understand existing languages.

    147. Re:Obama by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      Eh, I would prefer that filibustering be disallowed, no matter who is in charge.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    148. Re:Obama by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not exactly racist, it's more classist.

      Have you ever been really truly poor? I mean so poor that you are wondering how you are going to eat and keep a roof over your head? So poor a meal at a fast-food restaurant is a big splurge?

      Being on welfare isn't pleasant. Ignoring the social consequences, what you are getting while on public assistance is somewhere around the bare minimum needed to survive: the cheapest apartment available (typically 1 bedroom per 2 people), and some combination of WIC and food stamps. That's it: enough to eke out a meager existence. Any idea that you can get wealthy on public assistance is simply ludicrous.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    149. Re:Obama by smudge · · Score: 1

      I've met them! I used to own a rental property. The welfare department forced me to accept a welfare family ... once. These people had 4 kids. Neither parent worked. They stayed home and watched tv all day long. The kids got free breakfast and lunch at school. Heat was included in my rental. They left the windows open and wore shorts all winter! They trashed my house and moved out without the contractually agreed notice ... guess who paid the tab ... welfare. Or should I say the taxpayers.

      These people were 'lifers' as the welfare worker referred to them. And they were raising future lifers.

    150. Re:Obama by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've been that poor. Yet I was never eligible for any sort of public assistance -- because I still worked, and worse, owned a vehicle (albeit well-aged) with which to get to work. If I'd got rid of my car and sat on my ass, I could have collected a welfare check.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    151. Re:obama by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Probably because Joe the Plumber was such a great story. A guy who rabidly supports McCain apparently because as an aspiring business owner, he'd lose under Obamas tax plan. Except that he's not a plumber, is nowhere near owning his own business, would actually get a tax cut under Obamas plan and that's just as well - he's in tax deficit anyway! Meanwhile McCain and Palin are moronically promoting this guy as some kind of symbol.

      Is it any wonder the press loved that story? It's just so entertaining.

    152. Re:Obama by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I had an acquaintance in Denmark. He had a medical issue that he could not get treatment for, because the Danish social/medical-welfare system didn't recognise it as a real problem (tho it screwed up his life to the point that he couldn't hold down a job). He wanted to emigrate so he could get treatment elsewhere, but because he had that medical issue, he wasn't eligible to emigrate either. When I last heard from him, this situation had been going on for YEARS, with no end in sight.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    153. Re:Obama by Reziac · · Score: 1

      My sister was in China last year, and tried to get info on Tienanmin from her native guide.

      The guide wouldn't answer directly. What he DID say was quite telling, tho: "One day there were 50,000 people. The next day, there were 50,000 bicycles."

      (For those who don't get it... he was referring to EMPTY bicycles. Left behind by dead people.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    154. Re:Obama by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Generational Welfare and Career Welfare is a large enough portion of the welfare rolls that it constitutes a serious problem.

      http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html

      The information is about a decade old, but it's the most comprehensive I could find on short notice.

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    155. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And voted on by the majority Democrats

    156. Re:Obama by angulion · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that Finland and Sweden do not have any oil resources, so for these two countries your oil point is moot.

    157. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, Obama voted for it.

    158. Re:Obama by level99 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the exact same problems you describe are now predominant in Denmark. I can't speak for the situation in other Nordic countries, I can only comment on Denmark - I spent 32 years there.

    159. Re:obama by drewvr6 · · Score: 1

      Well, in defense, within hours of his televised question to Sen. Obama the media did: 1) Express the fact that he did not have a plumber's license. Which is not required when working for a master plumber. 2) Report on his issues with child support and other personal issues. 3) Publish a cartoon (Doonesbury) which portrayed a plumber as being totally ignorant of his craft but sharing views on abortion. Obviously a not-so-veiled reference to Joe t. Plumber. Which is a pretty low action for someone who is not knowledgable about said plumber's abilities. Jump on the bandwagon.

      --
      Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
    160. Re:Obama by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      It leads to people acquiring wealth, which goes to acquiring power. With that power, they manipulate laws and regulations to acquire more wealth (and thus more power). Eventually they become king.

      Communism leads to someone having to decide who has need and who has ability, which translates directly to power. Basically, they start out as king.

      The proper role of democratic government of a free economy is to insure that no one is able to manipulate the system to their own benefit. Would all those investors have made such poor choices if their riskiness was evident? Remember, sub-prime mortgages were bundled and then given an A rating? A properly operating check would make sure that both parties in these trades would be on a level playing field.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    161. Re:obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      still more mud to throw ?

    162. Re:Obama by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means. Some of the highest tax rates in the world, yet everybody is looked after so well.

      Yeah. Get back to us with that once all the oil has run out.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    163. Re:Obama by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      And in 2007 it was 14,000.

      Let's not pretend it's been a 7 year slide. Stocks were already trending down in 2000, so if you bought in 2001, and sold in 2007, you did pretty well.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    164. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany does the same thing - what I've heard is some of the world's highest income taxes, and things like health care and education (among other things) are available at no cost to the people, since the government can pay for the whole thing.

      I like the idea of a government having the resources to, y'know, actually do stuff. It sounds like it makes life nice for the citizens.

    165. Re:Obama by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that socialism would work in the UK if the government would just keep supplying the services, even though they can't afford to pay for them?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    166. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and the UK, France, Germany and much of the rest of Europe are stunning examples of the failure of socialism. They're cutting back on social programs and privatizing where they can because they just can't sustain the system.

      Their economy is in shambles because all they have left is service sector after everything else is offshored to some 3rd world non/semi-democratic country that offers its population as slaves for pennies.

    167. Re:Obama by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      That was not socialism.
      That was highway robbery. Thievery, plain and simple.

      Don't sully the name of socialism like that. Socialism is wrong and misguided, but at least it is TRYING to do what it thinks is the right thing.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    168. Re:Obama by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      How strange, I can drive down the road from my house and look to the right every single day and see 3 dozen people sitting around doing nothing. I see these same people at the grocery store paying for things with food stamps.
      20 of them are working age, healthy (based on them playing football and basketball in the yard) people.
      But none of them are working, or going to school. I've seen the same thing in Baltimore and DC. I've talked to a lot of other people who have also seen it. I know this is merely anecdotal evidence, but I believe that the burden of generational and career welfareists of all races is large enough that it will prevent any kind of socialist agenda from succeeding in the long term. The weight of those who refuse to contribute is just going to be too much for the rest of us to bear.

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    169. Re:Obama by FunkyELF · · Score: 1

      My entire state is a constitution-free zone as defined by the aclu
      I saw it somewhere before (probably on a sig here on slashdot)... the root password to the constitution is terrorism.

    170. Re:Obama by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem I have with the Republicans and the Social Right, is that they are certain that everything they do is perfect, and everyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but also a bad, evil person.

      Sheesh!? And the Social Left is any different? Want to be proven wrong? Watch the gnashing of teeth from the left if anyone claims that global warming is not a man-made phenomena.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    171. Re:Obama by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      That's not socialism. That's facism.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    172. Re:Obama by Brian.Kirby · · Score: 1

      The problem with analyzing this with game theory is that game theory often assumes that the players are rational agents ;)

    173. Re:Obama by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      The question is, "Is this the reason that we continue to see elections that hinge on 49% to 50% results?"

      If your the campaigners, you want to agree to battle it out, but not get to far ahead. You have to keep the people thinking that their vote would be wasted.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    174. Re:Obama by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Get on an airplane without having to take my shoes off?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    175. Re:Obama by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Insurance policies are not socialism. I voluntarily pay you to voluntarily assume some risk that I am unable or unwilling to assume. I may choose to keep my money (and my risk). You may choose not to sell me a policy. That is a free market.

      Socialism would be Obama deciding that I should pay for others to have a $1000 tax credit.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    176. Re:Obama by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      So, Obama isn't a socialist because republicans were involved in socialist legislation? Does that pass anyone's logical error test???

    177. Re:Obama by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      No, it's socialism. I think you are complaining about how the two heads of the same friggin party are socialistic. Libertarians would say it's socialism. Anyone with a brain would say it's socialism. I don't have the information behind the graph to back this up, but it is interesting just in a thought-provoking sense:

      http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v374/179/71/1103467/n1103467_32537534_5793.jpg

    178. Re:Obama by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      The US welfare system is broken, IMHO. The problem is, the welfare system doesn't encourage people to find jobs (and worse, it doesn't provide assistance for doing so).

      By contrast, the LDS Church has an extremely efficient welfare system; those who receive welfare through the church are required to show exactly what they've been doing to obtain work, and only then do they receive help in the form of rent money or food stamps. Various training courses are provided at no cost, and temporary minimum-wage jobs are available until a permanent job can be located. Assistance is also provided for locating jobs.

      The primary difference is this - the goal of the US welfare system is to give people the bare minimum so they can eat, but the goal of the LDS Church's welfare system is to make people self-sufficient.

      I believe if the US welfare system were redesigned to work like the LDS welfare system, there would eventually be far fewer people on welfare... and although it would cost more in the short run (the biggest reason this will never happen), it would cost a lot less in the long run.

    179. Re:Obama by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother. Your choices this election are big government and bigger government. Another nice one I've heard is: your choices this election are a warmonger who is a reluctant socialist and a socialist who is a reluctant warmonger.

      Who *isn't* throwing their vote away this election?

    180. Re:obama by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Insert Twain's statement here about statistics and lies.

      Okay, we'll take poor Joe out of his quotes. We still get 28,389 results. Still less than quoteless Wright or Ayers.

      Searching for Joe the Plumber OUT of quotes will show hits from all sites that contain all three words, or more to the point, all sites that contains both words, "Joe", and "Plumber". Just like your search for "Reverend" and "Wright" will return all sites with both words. It may be a site for a church that is led by Reverend Smith and has a Deacon Wright. Not exactly the same thing. The only way to get proper results is to perform all three searches, with both names in quotes. In other words, google for "William Ayers", "Reverend Wright" and "Joe the Plumber".

      But come on! You know how to do a Google search don't you? If not, you should turn in your slashdot card now! If you do know how to do a proper Google search, then you are being intentionally deceptive and you are proving my point about how easy it is to present false information as truth.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    181. Re:obama by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      and his running mate managed to beat Joe Biden in the say-something-dumb contest, completely even coverage was never going to happen.

      Oh, come on! Palin never said anything as stupid as, "Three letters! J-O-B-S!"

      As for the rest of your comment, you make a good point about Ayers and Wright ducking out of the media limelight. Unfortunately, the searches we performed were not limited to "recent" news stories. It's easy to customize you search for all of 2008, which shows that "Joe the Plumber" got more coverage in the past two months than the other two guys got all year!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    182. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is misleading and makes it look like only the republicans supported this bill. The actual results are:

      Democrat: Yes: 140 No: 95
      Republican: Yes: 65 No: 133

    183. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social-democracy != socialism

      This is a common mistake. Cuba is socialist. North-Korea is socialist. Venezuela is on a route to socialism.

      Nordic countries are not.

      In socialism, you don't have any of those: free press, fair trials, free elections, private business.

      Nordic-style social-democracies have all of them.

    184. Re:obama by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I love the way someone gets modded +4 Informative for being wrong. Tell me, do you realize that your search for William Ayers (no quotes) will show, underneath all the results for "William Ayers", all of the results for "William Jefferson Clinton", "William Shakespeare", "William Wallace", and every other "William" whose presence is known to the Internet?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    185. Re:obama by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You apparently forget that, without quotes, despite "Joe the Plumber" being the top search result, any other result with "Joe" or "Plumber" will be tallied into that number, which renders it absolutely meaningless.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    186. Re:Obama by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Is that really the best you've got? What's the worst case there? Oh noes, energy efficiency!

      Whereas the Right gets us involved in stupid wars, alienates our allies, crushes our economy, tries to pervert the teaching of science in public schools, and illegally detains and tortures POWs in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention.

      Yea. God. Dems in the White House. Scaaaaary.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    187. Re:Obama by sjames · · Score: 1

      There are many single mothers who live on welfare payments. I don't mind this much -- caring for a child is a full-time job until the child starts school. But once the child is at school the mother should be able to find some work. The problem is, they might (reasonably) only have time for 5 hours work a day, but if they get a job they lose the welfare payments, so they'd be worse off. It's not perfect, hopefully it'll continue to be improved.

      The all or nothing assistance is a problem in the U.S. as well. A well designed benefits program will slowly taper off as the person improves their own situation, but in a way that earning more on their own will always improve their overall situation.

      The all or nothing rules also tend to turn a short term problem into a long-term one. A person has a set-back and ends up on assistance. They have a much better chance of returning to self reliance if they are free to take what work they can get when they can get it. Unfortunately, they are put in a position where they must find work that will solve their problem overnight or remain entirely unemployed. The latter is much more likely.

      Meanwhile, the assistance isn't quite enough to go to school on (at least not if they have children) so they can have a better shot at solving the problem for good.

    188. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps as a single payment. But Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid each have cost more than 700 billion (Social security will cost over $600 billion this year alone)

    189. Re:Obama by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Ignorant more then racist.
      60% of people who receive welfare also work full time.

      Most peopel use welfare for a short period of time, to get a job.

      Welfare is an investment, and almost everybpdy uses it as such.
      Yes, there are a few that 'abuse' it, but it is a very tiny amount.
      Stopping buying into the neocon lies and look it up for yourself, you moron.

      And yeah, there was no reason to call out different groups based on the pigmentation of their skin to make your ignorant point.

      Now, is the countries previously mentioned there are people that 'do nothing' by Neocon standards, but those get conveniently overlooked.

      "But with millions of people who expect to DO NOTHING "

      The ONLY way that is true if if you include people under 18.

      Your ignorance of the welfare systems is astounding. STFU and read up on the numbers. All of which are publicly available from legitimate source. No Rush L. is not a legitimate source.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    190. Re:Obama by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It in no way lends credence to your point.

      Also, the government releases all that information. It is easily available.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    191. Re:Obama by sjames · · Score: 1

      Have you tried actually talking to them, perhaps find out what their story is? Are you sure they don't work the night shift?

      Someone who didn't know I telecommute might think I don't work unless they talked to me and I mentioned work.

    192. Re:Obama by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I ahve my doubts about the truth of your story.

      Since most people on welfare DO work full time jobs.
      Oops, inconvenient fact.

      The never took my vehicle into account during the few months I had to use welfare. Becasue I got welfare I was able to focus on getting a Good job instead of on that just get's by. This means it was an investment. That is what welfare is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    193. Re:Obama by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Except it isn't failing. The privatization happening in Europe has nothing to do with the success or failure of socialism.

      Of course, I doubt you know what that is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    194. Re:Obama by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If true it is the exception. I wonder what he had?

      America spends more on the medical industry then any other country, yet we are 40th as far a quality of car. so do you really want to compare quality?

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

      Hi. I find it funny that the right wing is calling Obama the evil word 'socialist' and the people that the comment is directed at do not even know what socialism means. The sheep do not even bother to look up the word to find out if the they actually agree that Obama is a socialist. The just blindly agree and baaaahhhh away...

    196. Re:Obama by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It depends... Socialism is about redistributing from the rich to the poor, not the reverse. That would be more like... roberbaronism ?

      Someone wrote a journal entry some time back about it, but I don't have the link. Since we're bailing out all these big companies that screwed up, it's clear that the proper term is "failureism"

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    197. Re:Obama by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Only the economy of Norway is based on oil. Denmark has few oil resources, and Sweden none at all. Then there's Finland, which has few natural resources to speak of (except for undependable wood exports), but still has a strong welfare state.

    198. Re:Obama by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean with an inferior university system, an inferior business environment, inferior access to the world's latest advanced technologies, and an inferior health care system? Because you tax everyone's incomes to death and provide so many governmental services, that people have less incentive to be productive and innovative? You can go ahead and keep your Nordic quality of life, thankyouverymuch.

      P.S. The U.S. health care system is the best in the world. It's also the most expensive, but it's still the best. The WHO statistics for life expectancy don't account for risk factors. If you factor out homicides and vehicle deaths, we have the longest life expectancy in the modern world.

      http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.859/book_detail.asp

    199. Re:obama by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see how smart Google really is. Search for "Joe the Plumber" without quotes: 33,451 - same search as above, but a different result.

      Search for "Plumber -Joe" (also without quotes): 219,000.

      Search for "Joe -Plumber" (also without quotes: 8,450,000.

      I'm guessing that Google knows what I mean by "Joe the plumber" without quotes. But it appears that Joe has thousands of new articles written about him since earlier today!

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    200. Re:Obama by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean with an inferior university system...

      America's edge in universities is only in the sciences, not the humanities. I'm very happy with the University of Helsinki. Free to attend and excellent libraries (better than anything I found in the American universities where I did undergraduate work). And the subject I study isn't even available in the United States anymore, because universities tend to hype a handful of sexy fields and drop the rest.

      inferior access to the world's latest advanced technologies,

      Broadband penetration is better here and the availability of new consumer electronics is pretty much the same anywhere.

      Because you tax everyone's incomes to death...

      With the possible exception of Denmark, the argument that people are "taxed to death" in Nordic countries really doesn't hold water. While taxes are higher in the U.S., one ends up with much, much more disposable income than in the US, thanks to part to a culture where owning a car isn't obligatory. The Swedish middle class treats Bali like its playground, that hardly sounds like something people straining under an evil oppressive tax yoke would do.

      ...people have less incentive to be productive and innovative

      And yet the economies of Sweden and Finland surged after instituting the welfare state.

    201. Re:Obama by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      I'll bite.

      Why do you make a distinction based on skin colour between those two groups, when in reality, they are in the same position, with the same problems. You are pretending its a race issue, but its not.

      But you are right, there are a lot of no-hopers in the US that suck up govt resources at various levels.

      Don't you think that things like better education will improve the lot of these people, and mean they are less likely to be a drain on society in the future?

      Don't you think there is a correlation between the high-quality education provided in Nordic countries, and their smaller % of white/black/brown/whatever trailer trash?

    202. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only think you have a high quality of life because you are not an achiever, hence your quality of life is better in a socialist country than in a more capitalist one. If you were a high achiever, then you would see that the capitalist system gave you a much higher quality of life.

      I started and ran a software company in France, we opened an office in Sweden, and I currently am back in the US running things and I can tell you without a doubt, the best place to be an achiever is the US.

      But go ahead and tell yourself that the reason you aren't happy is "the system" if it makes you feel better...

    203. Re:Obama by mjwx · · Score: 1

      By contrast, the LDS Church has an extremely efficient welfare system; those who receive welfare through the church are required to show exactly what they've been doing to obtain work,

      This is similar to the Australian welfare system. Surprisingly enough over 80% of Australian welfare recipients are off it in under 6 months because its set up to be a system to be used whilst finding employment*. Unless you are claiming a Disability, Aged or Study pension you are required to look for work to receive payment (which is not much, just enough to cover the cost of living) and if you don't find work within 12 weeks you are given assistance to do so.

      * I didn't include AuStudy (payments received whilst studying), but this is the same transient nature of our social security system, just a little more drawn out. The recipient is still required to demonstrate that they are studying and look for work whilst not enrolled in study. I have no problem with paying money from tax into helping other Australians study, its an investment as in a few years they will enter the workforce as educated labour and pay more tax than uneducated labour.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    204. Re:Obama by kosty · · Score: 1

      "A democracy will exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury."

      Not directly on-thread but I really have to wonder about the validity or insight of this quote anymore. From what I've seen, especially recently, the "voters" can't vote themselves shit. And when they try to STOP a tiny fraction of their fellow Americans receiving absurdly expensive "gifts from the public treasury," they are ignored...

      --
      "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
    205. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Finland and Iceland, either. Well, the Icelanders might have a bit of trouble keeping the system up pretty soon - but you can blame that on rampant capitalism.

    206. Re:Obama by DrXym · · Score: 1

      And they're both capitalist, its only a matter of degrees. I certainly see no reason to think McCain was the lesser of two evils after 8 years of one of the most disastrous presidencies on record. And apparently the US electorate don't think so either.

    207. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats probably why all the Nordic countries rank pretty high on economic freedom indices - because they're all a bunch of god-damn socialists...

    208. Re:Obama by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      In socialism, you don't have any of those: free press, fair trials, free elections, private business.

      I'd agree with that last one - Socialism is a system of common ownership of the means of production - but I don't see how the first three are incompatible with Socialism. Indeed it seems to me that, for instance, the Socialist press ought to be more free than under capitalist imperialism, for under capitalism freedom of the press applies only to those who own presses.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    209. Re:Obama by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a common-sense proposal to me. Has there been any effort to push for a similar public welfare system in heavily LDS states such as Utah?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    210. Re:obama by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      Google's algorithm is not so simple, apparently. Quotes do limit the search considerably, but clearly, leaving out the quotes does not mean you get all possible matches of the words.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    211. Re:obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are estimates. You know, "estimates"? Wild-assed guesses?

      Furthermore just because Google isn't giving you ALL the results for "plumber" because you included the keyword "joe" doesn't change the fact that it's giving you some. You're just too stupid to use Google properly.

    212. Re:Obama by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Not that I know of (and I live in Utah). Like I said, this type of system represents a large short-term investment, and politicians don't like to put those on the budget ;)

    213. Re:Obama by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      That's not the point, he said that:

      One think to consider for those retiring if you had put $10,000 dollars in the stock market when Bush was first elected you would still have a better rate of return then if you had gotten the rate of return social security will give.

      Which is not true.

    214. Re:Obama by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      That's not a citation. That's anecdotal evidence.

    215. Re:Obama by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      We tried a limited government. The basis was called the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps you've heard of how spectacularly it failed?

      Size of government is not a binary function. It is a continuum. It's not "small govt=good, big govt=bad." It's more "too small govt=bad, too big govt=bad, stuff in the middle=varying degrees of good."

    216. Re:Obama by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You're trying to argue that the Constitution was NOT founded on the basic principle that government should be limited? I find that cute.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    217. Re:Obama by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      No. I'm pointing out that the Constitution was founded on the principle that a government too limited would fail, so it had to have at a minimum some sort of expansive powers. For example, see Article I and the enumerated powers, which are followed by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which expands Congress's authority beyond what is specifically delineated.

      Recall that the Constitution was a direct response to another "constitution" that failed because it limited the government too much.

      You, on the other hand, are trying to characterize government power as some sort of binary world where a government is either "limited" or "expansive." I'm merely pointing out that you'd be wrong to think that.

    218. Re:Obama by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Well, whatever you may say about the powers granted to the government by the Constitution, it apparently wasn't enough for Obama. That's my basic point here...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    219. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we don't imprison our citizens without a trial"

      We don't. The people you are thinking of are not citizens.

  5. switfboat by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am actually surprised McCain didn't try to switfboat this election. He ran a very negative campaign, no doubt, but it seems he at least had the decency not to blast his fellow Senator with inflammatory false accusations in the final hours.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:switfboat by neoform · · Score: 1

      He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts.. dunno about you, but that's an outright lie.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    2. Re:switfboat by Theolojin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts.. dunno about you, but that's an outright lie.

      Er...I think he called Senator Obama a Marxist for his statements to "Joe the Plumber" regarding taking money from the wealthy and "spreading it around." I don't think it has anything to do with the Bush tax cuts. The concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is from Karl Marx. He wrote that in his critique of the ``Gotha program.'' (Search for that exact phrase on wikipedia.) I am not sure how anyone could argue that Senator Obama's statement was anything but Marxist. He did everything but quote Marx.

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    3. Re:switfboat by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Informative

      He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts

      No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't. And he properly identified calling such a maneuver a "rebate" as being a deceitful bit of lying spin.

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

      WTF are you talking about? He did try to swiftboat.

      The big ones:

      Socialist?
      Ayers (paling around with terrorists)?
      Rev. Wright?

    5. Re:switfboat by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Well,

      "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody". Obama

      Everyone is free to spread their wealth around all they want. If the government is going to spread YOUR wealth, it can only be done if the government owns your wealth. If the government owns your wealth, that's Marxism in a nutshell.

      Maybe you need an O'Reilly book. Liberals mean liberty about as much as Conservatives mean conservation.

    6. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I am actually surprised McCain didn't try to switfboat this election."

      Are you kidding? They've been running Jeremiah Wright saying "Goddamn America" steadily on DirectTV the last couple days.

      Did you get the Republican party robocall about Ayers, that basically said Obama was a bomb throwing terrorist who would bomb the Pentagon.

      Did you see Sarah Palin saying Obama "pal'ed around with terrorists".

      As soon as McCain fired his old advisors and replaced them with people who ran Bush's campaign they adopted all the same Swift Boat tactics and it completely turned Independents, like me, against McCain, that and picking a right wing nut like Palin.

      So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power. The country and the media are also sick of Republicans. Bush has one great accomplishment in eight years, something I predicted when he won in 2004, that by the end of this second term we would completely turn the country against the New Republican party, an intolerant, far right party, dominated by evangelicals. A party pandering to the rich and manipulating a bunch of not so bright middle class supporters in to voting for them using abortion, homophobia and fear, manipulating not to bright middle class people in to voting for a party that is completely screwing them economically. Let's hope its finally over. Now we just have to worry about all the stupidity the Democrats will perpetrate when they are in control.

      --
      @de_machina
    7. Re:switfboat by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      A swift-boat styled advertisement appeared on both the Sunday Night and Monday Night Football games telecast nationally. It was sponsored by the "National Republican Trust" and pressed hard on Obama's ties to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, closing with the slogan "Obama: Too Radical, Too Risky."

      "The National Republican Trust has made enormous advertising buys to put the ad on several national television networks in the final days of the campaign. The group spent $1.2 million on Thursday and $2.5 million more on Friday." (Boston Globe)

      A McCain spokeman said that McCain would not try to stop the Pennsylvania GOP and the National Republican Trust political action committee from airing the Wright ads. He added that McCain "is not going to be the traffic cop for every independent organization, state party, or state-level candidate that chooses to use these in advertising."

      McCain himself chose not to raise the Wright issue despite constant pressure from Republican advisors and Sarah Palin.

    8. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what's an outright lie is you claiming that. He called Obama a Marxist because of the "spread the wealth" comment, and incidentally Marxists believe in spreading the wealth which happens to be why Obama got called a Marxist.

      Oh and then there's also the outright lie of telling people that Obama won't raise taxes when he's planning on deliberately allowing everyone's taxes to go up by not renewing the tax cuts.

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

      Mod parent funny.

    10. Re:switfboat by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.

      It's an interesting commentary on how skewed the politics in America have gotten that the idea of a graduated income tax is controversial, or that the idea of raising taxes on those best able to afford it in times of fiscal crisis is somehow a socialist plot.

      If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical. Likely you've never actually read Marx (or anything beyond the Communist Manifesto). Pity. Marx actually has a lot of very interesting, insightful commentary about history, economics, and society. You may not agree with all his conclusions, but the man was a very careful, educated scholar.

    11. Re:switfboat by KovaaK · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, he called him one for wanting to increase income taxes on people who do pay income taxes and then write checks to people who don't.

      Fixed that for you. If you claim that he's giving money to people who don't pay taxes at all, you are spreading a common misconception. Sorry.

    12. Re:switfboat by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, Adam Smith (the guy who basically invented Capitalism) was also in favor of the rich being taxed at a higher rate than the poor, so that's not a good argument.

      True Socialism is more about community property and state ownership of businesses than it is about progressive taxation.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    13. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like he was bringing up important issues that were never really addressed.

      There were hard questions regarding these, and all Obama could say was: "That's not true!", and had nothing to back it up.

    14. Re:switfboat by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You mean like calling him a terrorist, a socialist, and a Marxist? I guess we can give McCain credit for at least stopping short of calling him a pedophile. But then, McCain still has a few hours left, so don't count that out yet.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    15. Re:switfboat by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Insightful


      No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't. And he properly identified calling such a maneuver a "rebate" as being a deceitful bit of lying spin.

      Sounds a bit like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Wasn't that brought about by those infamous commies Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    16. Re:switfboat by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't.

      Isn't this "Marxist" type of negative tax one of the basic principles of the state governed by McCain's running mate?

    17. Re:switfboat by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Agree. The correct term is Socialist.

      eg. Obama is a socialist for wanting to use the government to redistribute the wealth.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    18. Re:switfboat by cashman73 · · Score: 1
      A swift-boat styled advertisement appeared on both the Sunday Night and Monday Night Football games telecast nationally.

      I didn't pay attention to that one,... I was too busy watching that sexy blonde doing the Risky Business ad for Guitar Hero,... =)

    19. Re:switfboat by Theolojin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.

      Early Christians (and many today) practiced this concept but it differed on a very significant points: it was voluntary. No one forced them to do so.

      If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical.

      I received a tax cut from President Bush. I make nowhere near $250,000 a year. I make a very, very small fraction of that amount. Senator Obama claims he will give a tax cut to me and will roll back the current President's tax cuts. The two appear to be mutually exclusive, especially since I currently do not pay federal income tax. I am among the 38% of Americans (or is it households?) that do not pay federal income taxes. How is it possible to reduce zero? I currently pay zero (though I did pay federal income taxes prior to President Bush's tax cuts) and yet Senator Obama promises me a tax cut (while taking away the tax cut I have already received). A reduction of *zero* would be negative. That means I would get back money in the form of a tax rebate of taxes I did not pay. This money necessarily comes from someone else. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Argue that this is acceptable, but don't argue that it isn't Marxist or Socialist. It is at the core of Marx' philosophy.

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    20. Re:switfboat by grub · · Score: 1


      Sounds like he was bringing up important issues that were never really addressed.

      They weren't addressed because they were only issues in the collective minds of the McCain drones. Similar to Creationists who have no hard evidence but still stomp their feet and cry.

      Name-calling ("Socialist!") and peripheral acquaintances are not real issues but those are all the McCain mudslingers could come up with.

      Real facts (ie.: McCain voting with Bush ~90% of the time) are all verifiable.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    21. Re:switfboat by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You bitch slapped him with an invisible hand!

      At the end of the 6th paragraph

      It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

      This is otherwise referred to as a progressive tax. It's not actually that bad of an idea. Compare to regressive tax.

      It is such a good idea that, in fact, John McCain himself advocated for a progressive tax system, back in 2000.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    22. Re:switfboat by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

      While I do agree that such things were done and were clearly just plain wrong I can't say that I really blame McCain for them. The GOP has been doing this crap for years when ever they get the chance to. McCain won the primary so they HAVE to deal with him. They claim it's his campaign but I doubt that he could really move them all in a direction they don't want to go in. You say that he hired on the Bush team, I bet they were forced on him and he just could not stop it. Should he have done more to stop these attacks? Oh hell yes. But I don't think he is where they are coming from.

    23. Re:switfboat by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Well said. If only the people who use "Marxist!" as an attack had actually...you know...read more than a few sentences written by Karl Marx.

      Nah. They just want something to focus their hateful energy on. It doesn't matter how good or bad the target is; it only matters that many other people hate it too.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    24. Re:switfboat by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power.

      Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't. Can you imagine the outcry from the press if McCain had been on a board with an abortion bomber? Could you imagine the outcry from the press if McCain had been a member of a church that preached racism? Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?

      They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.

      The press ran Obama's campaign. They elected him a year ago!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    25. Re:switfboat by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Everyone is free to spread their wealth around all they want.

      Exactly. If you want be 'neighborly' feel free to head down to the coffee shop and give the waitress all your savings. No need to wait for the government to do it.

    26. Re:switfboat by icebrain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, let's drop the the "rolling back tax cuts" crap. It's a tax increase. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but let's call it what it is, instead of "well, we're just rolling them back, so it's not really a tax increase, per se."

      Second, it's not the graduated tax structure that so many object to as "socialist." A relatively decent and logical argument can be made that those in the higher tax brackets derive more benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets. I can work with that.

      What many object to was the "spread the wealth around" statement, because they see it as tantamount to simple "here's your check" redistributionism. It's one thing to run a jobs program where those in it are actually contributing something to society--building infrastructure, cleaning things up, etc.--but quite another to give out money simply for drawing breath. And whether or not that's what Obama's plans truly are, it's what many fear.

      Personally, I don't really care at this point. I distrust Obama more, but none of the candidates (including third parties) is appealing. I just don't want to see a democrat supermajority in Congress combined with an Obama win--one party rule is bad; absolute, filibuster-proof one-party rule is downright terrifying. Should that happen (from either party), you could probably kiss about half of the Bill of Rights goodbye.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    27. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what a unregistered sex offender like you would say.

      What do you mean you're not? Either prove you're not one, or admit it. Why should I be the person who has to prove my allegations against you?

    28. Re:switfboat by Rei · · Score: 1

      First off, "Joe the Plumber", in addition to everything else, is a registered Republican and the grandson of Charles Keating. Yes, that Charles Keating. What's next, citing Cindy McCain and calling her "Cindy the Housewife" as an example of McCain support?

      Secondly, Palin herself used nearly identical language when describing how her state, Alaska, "spreads the wealth" from the oil industry around.

      Third, progressive income taxes have little to do with Marx. They have absolutely nothing to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"; that'd be state assignment of jobs, which isn't even tangentially related.

      Fourth, the US has a form of *inverse* socialism under the current system thanks to the ridiculously low rate that capital gains are taxed at, and given that the wealthiest Americans earn almost all of their money from capital gains, not direct income. Warren Buffet once famously noted that he pays a smaller share of his income in taxes than his secretary, and this situation is pretty much standard among the wealthy. Republicans often deliberately focus only on income taxes, deliberately ignoring the contributions from payroll and capital gains taxes. Factor them in, and we live in an inverse-socialist society.

      Fifth, *so what* if it was the other way around? Let's take a second and hypothetically invert our tax system so that taxes are all on purchases instead of income. Would you support higher taxes on luxury goods, and little to no tax on necessities? Probably 95% of Americans would. Great. But there's a problem with that. How much of a tax rate do you put on a head of lettuce? A can of mushrooms? Fresh button mushrooms? Fresh portabella mushrooms? Shiitakes? Truffles? Essentially every item would have to be analyzed for how much of a "luxury" it is; it'd never work out. But you can flip the system back to what it currently is and get a *good approximation*. The poor simply can't spend a sizable portion of their money on luxury; they need it for necessity. The wealthy simply can't spend a sizable portion of their money on necessity; it can only go to luxury. Well, there's one exception to that -- if they buy necessities for others. That's known as charity, and it's deductable. In short, a progressive taxation system is just a simpler approximation of taxing luxury spending at a higher rate.

      Sixth, to preemptively address the claim that if you tax the wealthy more than we currently do, it'll destroy the economy: that's complete nonsense. During our nation's biggest boomtime (after WWII to the mid 1970s), the top income tax bracket rate was over 70%, and over 80% most of the time (over 90% at times). Historical evidence flatly contradicts this notion.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    29. Re:switfboat by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      You mean like calling him a terrorist, a socialist, and a Marxist? I guess we can give McCain credit for at least stopping short of calling him a pedophile. But then, McCain still has a few hours left, so don't count that out yet.

      Terrorist: No one said Obama was a terrorist. But it is a well known fact that Obama has ties with at least one known terrorist. An video that a major press outlet (LA Times) refuses to air would probably show another.

      Socialist: He wants to take the property of the rich and businesses and give it to those that didn't earn it. "Spreading the wealth" is a key component of socialism.

      Marxist: See Socialist above.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    30. Re:switfboat by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I could not agree more, except I can't think of what Bush's one great accomplishment was.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    31. Re:switfboat by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical.

      I thought I already made it clear that nothing about that is particularly Marxist. "Spread the wealth" IS, and if Marx was so "interesting [and] insightful" then why be so defensive? Your response should be "yes, some of his beliefs are very Marxist, and there's nothing wrong with that."

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    32. Re:switfboat by Eccles · · Score: 1

      But we've had EITC for thirty years, this would just be more of it. So by your argument McCain, Bush, et al are also Marxists, since they aren't talking about getting rid of it.

      It's just silly labeling, trying to tar someone with a negative label over some trivial issue.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    33. Re:switfboat by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And it's well known-that one of your good high school buddies was a pedophile. I'm going to show up at your job tomorrow and let everyone there know about how you like to pal around with pedophiles. You cool with that?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    34. Re:switfboat by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      You bitch slapped him with an invisible hand!

      Nice one! [inaudible golf clap].

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    35. Re:switfboat by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Adam Smith didn't invent Capitalism (which has been around pretty much since the dawn of time); he merely observed and documented it in action. In some areas his observations were incomplete and/or flawed, and have since been replaced with more accurate models. Smith's writings are not the definition of Capitalism, but rather merely a starting point for the modern study of the same. Also, just because he documented the workings of Capitalism doesn't mean that he was himself a Capitalist; his attempts to control the outcome, via progressive taxation and other measures, prove otherwise.

      Anyway, this thread was discussing Marxism, not Socialism. You can pick and choose whichever definition of Socialism serves your argument, but -- as the GP correctly pointed out -- Obama's policies, including progressive taxation, are right in line with Marxist philosophy.

      Personally I don't see how anyone can justify supporting McCain at this point, but the alternative is only marginally better. I'm far from optimistic about the next four years, no matter who wins.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    36. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Adam Smith (the guy who basically invented Capitalism) was also in favor of the rich being taxed at a higher rate than the poor, so that's not a good argument.

      Adam Smith supported progressive taxes because, in his day, the main function of government was to protect those with property from those without it. Since the rich disproportionately benefited from government services, it made sense that they pay more for it.

      That's not entirely the case in modern America.

      Still, we already have progressive taxes. Making them even MORE progressive for the sake of "fairness" is not something Adam Smith ever would have put his stamp of approval on.

    37. Re:switfboat by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't.

      Yeah, it's not like the press spent about three months talking almost exclusively about them during the primary or anything. It's not like an entire primary debate was almost an exclusive Ayers/Wright/Rezco "Gotcha-fest" toward Obama or anything. That must have been in some parallel universe, right?

      Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?

      You mean like this?

      They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.

      As for accuracy...

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    38. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama. FAIL.

    39. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of Bill Ayers, I'm so glad Obama believes terrorists should be rehabilitated before they're allowed to become college professors. It'd be beyond the pale if we didn't rehabilitate them first. Come to think of it, now that Obama knows Bill Ayers was never rehabilitated, is he going to make sure that it's done straight away? I'm a bit concerned.

    40. Re:switfboat by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? They've been running Jeremiah Wright saying "Goddamn America" steadily on DirectTV the last couple days.

      I had to laugh at the (non)genius of whoever decided to run that ad 4 times on MSNBC last night during Keith Olbermann's block...Anyone who was going to be swayed by that garbage would have already turned long ago, and it sure as hell isn't going to make much of a dent in the type of people that watch Keith.

    41. Re:switfboat by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Actually, Joe "The Plumber" Worthlessfucker is from a different family than the Charles Keating relative. They just happened to have the same last name (perhaps they MIGHT have some further back ancestry, but if so, I doubt it's noteworthy).

    42. Re:switfboat by KovaaK · · Score: 1

      Riddle me this; name one close personal or professional associate of Sen. Obama that isn't a) a commununist radical, b) islamic extremist or c) part of the corrupt Chicago machine.

      I think this quote provides great insight on how the media has warped your mind. Is it that hard for you to believe that Obama has associates who don't match these categories contrived by the media?

    43. Re:switfboat by ThinkWeak · · Score: 1

      He didn't need to resort to throwing punches at the end, Palin has been doing it for him.

    44. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the New Republican party ... dominated by evangelicals.

      I voted when the polls opened this morning. I live in a Los Angeles suburb that that doesn't really have that many black people. But pretty much every other person in line was a black person.

      I felt pretty good about that. I'm a white male but I get choked up when I think about being able to vote for a black guy who is (IMHO) both the most qualified for the job and who has a chance of winning.

      Some of the black people were talking about how historic this election is and I was in total agreement. Then they talked about working with high risk youth and I was even more impressed.

      But then they got into this whole discussion about Jesus, and evangelical prophesies, and other nonsense like that. So, unfortunately, it's not just the Republicans that are hooked on this evangelical nonsense.

    45. Re:switfboat by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You just get arbitrary divisions. I think in the UK, chocolate biscuits are a luxury, hence subject to VAT. But chocolate flavoured coated biscuits (i.e. ones with imitation chocolate) aren't.

      Then there's jaffa cakes, which are called cakes, but look like biscuits. There's been a long running dispute between the maker and the C&E about that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    46. Re:switfboat by Mr_Magick · · Score: 1

      Why is the parent post not a +5 yet?

    47. Re:switfboat by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Terrorist: Funny, as McCain has ties to him as well. And there is no video being suppressed.

      Socialist: Another key component of socialism is government ownership of industry. Hmm...you mean like the government ownership of AIG that McCain also voted for? You can't just take one aspect of X and then say that X applies as a whole. Have you seen any children lately? Well, the first step in committing pedophilia is looking at the kid, so I guess that makes you a pedophile.

      Marxists: See Socialist above

    48. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 1

      If McCain is so feeble he can't run his own campaign, or lead the party of which he is head as their Presidential candidate, it is a basic indicator he doesn't have the leadership or executive skills to be President. How the heck can he run a country if he can't manage his own party.

      A lot of indicators are he is a terrible executive because his campaign has been problem plagued all the way through, it nearly went bankrupt, constant turnover in his top staff, constant direction changes, turmoil within his staff, backstabbing especially of Palin through leaks the media, etc.

      Obama's campaign by contrast has been smooth and nearly flawless, as has his demeanor. He doesn't have much executive experience but at least he can run a complex campaign operation successfully, and also knows how to surroung himself with good people, though Biden isn't exactly great.

      Not something I've made an issue of but McCain's character is pretty flawed too. He has serious anger management issues, always has. When he was released by Vietnam he came home and promptly started cheating on his wife Carol, with a woman young enough to be his daughter, Cindy. Carol stood by him through his years as POW. As I recall she was also severely injured in a car accident, she championed POW issues and was very popular among Republicans. McCain came home and promptly dumped his old, damaged wife, for a pretty young heiress to a Budweiser distributor in Arizona. The switch also happened it made him personally rich thanks to his new wife's fortune, and bought him instant country club connections in Arizona, political connections and campaign funds to insure a successful political career which is all he cared about when he got out of Vietnam. His entanglement in the Keating Five scandal came through his wife's father's Arizona political connections.. He really doesn't have the great character the Republicans say he has. I did like him back in 2000 and wish he'd won then since it would have saved this country and the world a great deal of misery but he missed his window back then thanks to Bush/Rove dirty tricks.

      --
      @de_machina
    49. Re:switfboat by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Would you support higher taxes on luxury goods, and little to no tax on necessities? Probably 95% of Americans would. Great. But there's a problem with that. How much of a tax rate do you put on a head of lettuce? A can of mushrooms? Fresh button mushrooms? Fresh portabella mushrooms? Shiitakes? Truffles? Essentially every item would have to be analyzed for how much of a "luxury" it is; it'd never work out.

      That's how VAT works in the UK (and I think the rest of the EU), but with only three levels of luxury.

      Necessities, like most food, children's clothes, bread, books etc have no VAT.
      Some things have 'reduced rate' VAT, at 5%. Examples are electricity, gas, energy saving materials, children's car seats
      Most stuff has the standard rate of 17.5%, including adult clothes and sweets, crisps (potato chips)

      http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/rates-goods.htm

      There are other taxes and duties, e.g. all cars have the 17.5% rate, but larger-engined cars (actually, worse-polluting cars) have a much higher rate of road tax (required for driving on public roads). Petrol/diesel has the 17.5%, and a 55p/litre-ish duty, but users like farmers and (I think) railways are exempt from the duty (and the VAT, as all businesses don't pay VAT on purchases so long as they charge it on their products/services, if applicable. That's what the 'Value Added' bit means.)

      Income tax is progressive too -- everyone is entitled to earn £6000/year tax free. The next ~£30000 is taxed at 22%, any more than that is taxed at 40%.
      Average income is about £18000. Until this coming year there was a lower rate, 10%, for the next £2000 after the tax-free bit, but the "Labour" government abolished that (and got a huge amount of bad press, and will likely lose the next election because of it).

    50. Re:switfboat by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't.

      Yeah, it's not like the press spent about three months talking almost exclusively about them during the primary or anything. It's not like an entire primary debate was almost an exclusive Ayers/Wright/Rezco "Gotcha-fest" toward Obama or anything. That must have been in some parallel universe, right?

      Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?

      You mean like this?

      They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.

      As for accuracy...

      First, once the primaries ended, all remotely honest reporting ended with it. Even the primaries coverage was biased. Remember Geraldine Ferraro being called a racist?

      McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing over the whole "Keating Five" thing, so the fact that you bring it up shows your ignorance or intentional deceit.

      As for factcheck, I think they are full of crap too. Not intentionally of course, but because they only work with what they are given. An example would be where they say that McCain's add about Ayers is false. Here are some quotes:

      A McCain TV ad says Obama "lied" about his association with Bill Ayers, a former member of the radical, bomb-setting, anti-Vietnam War Weather Underground group. In a Web ad, McCain says the two are "friends" who have "worked together for years." ...
      They met in 1995, when Obama was asked to head the board of a school reform group, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that Ayers had helped start. ...
      Also, Obama and Ayers overlapped for two years on the board of another foundation ...
      Ayers hosted a coffee in his home when Obama was running for the Illinois state Legislature.

      Let's see. Worked together for years... Check. Close friends? Debatable, but the coffee thing is pretty damning.
      So, my fact check on factcheck. FactCheck.org FAILS!
      I didn't even see the Infant Born Alive Protection Act on factcheck's site. (Although I didn't look too hard)

      Here are some examples of the media's bias and bias by omission:
      Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not have a plumbing license in Ohio? It was widely reported.
      Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not need a license as a plumber to work as one as long as the company he works for has that license? That was NOT widely reported.
      Do you know that William Ayers gives money to schools? Widely reported, but not true. William Ayers gives charity money to hand chosen companies to do stuff for schools.
      Do you know that one of the main points of William Ayers "education plan" is to teach children to question authority? Fine idea, but it should be taken with a grain of salt when the guy pushing recommended "killing pigs" and "killing your parents". This has not been reported by any news outlet.
      How many times has CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC or ABC shown the picture of Ayers standing on the American flag?

      Please! Don't even try to say the press was balanced during the campaign.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    51. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know much about Marxism, do you? Marxism involves the eradication of the middle class and the ownership by the workers of the means of production, and ultimately the elimination of quid pro quo exchange of goods. Wealth, on the other hand, is what is created through free-market (note: not the same as capitalist) exchange. "Spreading the wealth around" is inherently un-Marxist because Marxism seeks the abolition of wealth.

      It would be like saying anti-nuclear-weapons groups are in favor of rescinding the NPT.

    52. Re:switfboat by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      > Are you kidding? They've been running Jeremiah Wright saying "Goddamn America" steadily on DirectTV the last couple days.

      That wasn't McCain, it's a 527 group.

      The actual Swift Boat ads that attacked John Kerry were from a 527 also. Did the republican candidate have anything to do with them? Likely not, but there are many examples of 527s pulling their ads when the candidate they are supporting requests it. McCain could have and should have prevented the Jeremiah Wright ads or had them pulled after they began. He didn't, and hasn't. He shares culpability.

      No they didn't say Obama is a bomb thrower, but it is 100% factual that Obama 'has no enemies on the left.' Riddle me this; name one close personal or professional associate of Sen. Obama that isn't a) a commununist radical, b) islamic extremist or c) part of the corrupt Chicago machine.

      Are you seriously saying that EVERY PERSON Obama knows personally is a criminal or subversive? Do you realize how extreme and ridiculous you sound when putting up such a strawman? I could ask you to tell me one close person associate of McCain that isn't a) a neocon, b) a stooge for the military industrial complex, or c) criminally involved in financial scandals like the Keating savings and loan debacle. Doesn't that seem like an unfair judgement and idiotic test?

      We, the public, has only heard of three or four people from Obama's past. He likely has associations with hundreds of people. That the worst they could find on him was trivial stuff like Resko, Wright, and Ayers shows how squeaky clean the man is.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    53. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? The press didn't bring up Wright? You fucking liar. Typical tactic carried by the McCain crowd. How about you stick to what your candidate brings to the party, instead of bullshit like "but but but look at the other guy HE'S BAD!"

      Go back to FNC and let them know you've been made and need a new alias/moniker.

    54. Re:switfboat by KovaaK · · Score: 1

      As an afterthought, maybe it was someone's intention to fire up Olbermann's audience and thus make them more likely to vote today?

    55. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 1

      Its just a ruthless campaign tactic, and it has incredibly little value in discussing the issues that matter, or picking a President. In the cell phone camera, You Tube, age the political process is going to self destruct if you pick leaders based on what any associate of a candidate happens to have said in the previous 40 years.

      Using Wright as your the basis of your campaign platform makes as much sense as Obama using the video of Sarah Palin having witches cast out of her by the African minister in her church in Alaska. If you want to dig in to Palin's past her church is pretty extreme too, as was her flirtation with the Alaskan Independence party. So is McCain's association with the Keating Five who was a complete crook and he bought protection from McCain and four other senators. That was outright corruption and McCain is lucky he dodged it with more damage than he got. So is McCain's dumping his first wife as soon as he got out of Vietnam for a woman young enough to be his daughter who happened to be rich and well connected in Arizona to insure him a successful launch of his political career.

      If you look at Obama's campaign they've done very little of that politics of personal destruction bullshit. Its getting old, people are tired of it, the Democrats figured that out, the Republican's haven't. The most negative things I've seen them run are using McCain's own words saying he voted with Bush more than 90% of the time. I live in a battleground state. I don't think I've gotten a single negative robocall from the Democrats or Obama or their surrogates. No negative mailed fliers either. I get an offensive negative robocall a day from the Republicans, on Ayers, abortion, socialism accusations, etc. I even got a DVD from a Republican surrogate trying to revive the old Muslim fear mongering of 2004.

      --
      @de_machina
    56. Re:switfboat by mtgarden · · Score: 1

      Generally, I avoid these debates; I voted already, so whatever. But, why aren't Obama's associations important? (I am asking respectfully; an irony here to be sure) :)

      Look, I don't care that Obama and Ayers ended up on the same committee per se. That happens. But (and I could be wrong here), wasn't it more than one council? And didn't they spend quite a bit of time together voluntarily?

      More importantly, Obama viewed and wrote that Wright was his mentor and guide. Wright disturbs me; not because I'm racist (I have minority friends). Anyone who calls me racist because I'm white tends to disturb me. I could deal with that, but Wright wants to take it much further and oppress me. He rejects any view of a God that likes white people. This sounds racist to me, but maybe I'm just deceived about the definition of racism. Obama called this man his mentor? I'm not sure I want someone who looked up to Wright for decades to be leading this country. Just not sure I want to encourage reverse discrimination against myself (or anyone else for that matter). The Bible strongly condemns discrimination.

      In the end, taken separately and in small bites, neither association is necessarily a big deal, but together in the quantities in which Obama indulged himself in these relationships with extremists makes this a worthwhile subject to consider.

      In my opinion at least.

    57. Re:switfboat by silentben · · Score: 1

      A graduated scale makes a hell of a lot more sense than the bell curve we've got now.

      As long as we have poverty, extreme wealth is shameful.

      I personally voted for Obama with the blessing of my 4-year-old daughter (she was outraged to hear that McCain doesn't plan to address the issue of equal pay). I'd rather not have to worry about the possibilities of losing my healthcare, paying higher taxes, or watching my kids educations suffer to fund more wars we shouldn't be fighting.

      I'm more okay with socializing healthcare than the recent Wall St. bailout. I don't think government needs to stick their noses in everything, but it should be able to facilitate each of our efforts to reach our fullest potential.

      If any of these views make me a Marxist, so be it.

    58. Re:switfboat by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Is it that hard for you to believe that Obama has associates who don't match these categories contrived by the media?

      It isn't as if I haven't actually dug into this question a bit. I have. It isn't all his fault, other than he picked Chicago and Hyde Park to be his home base. The University of Chicago is the sort of place that would pick Bill Ayers as a department head. Calypso Louie's Temple of Crazy is just a short walk away. And if there is ONE uncorrupted politician in the whole town it would be a miracle so by definition every politician Obama is associated with is a crook. And Obama is right up to his neck in it too unless you think he is that one uncorrupted Chicago pol.

      Now remember, Obama had no previous ties to Chicago when he graduated and decided to take up the job of Communist Agitator for Bill Ayers. Yes, go look it up for yourself since I doubt you will believe me. His first job in Chicago was paid for by a grant from the Woods Foundation and guess who was on the board. Bill Ayers.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    59. Re:switfboat by ibm1130 · · Score: 1

      "Swiftboat"?
      You mean point out inconvenient truths about the other guy? Obamarx's political credentials don't stand up to detailed scrutiny. Of course with the Lamestream Media in the tank for him there's small chance of such searching examination.
      Assuming Obamarx wins it'll be fun watching the Dhimmicraps tear each other to pieces like the Kilkenny Cats.
      Meanwhile I intend to see that the GOP reforms itself into a real conservative party. I mean if the GOP are going to behave like Dhimmicreeps whats the point of having a GOP?

    60. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't think of what Bush's one great accomplishment was.

      In late September 2001, almost the entire world felt sympathy and support for the USA. He turned that into fear, suspicion and hatred in under 6 months.

    61. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The charges about Wright are maybe defensible. The accusations about Ayers are complete bullshit. Obama was eight when Ayers led the Weather Underground. The FBI decided to never charge him for anything so he has no criminal record He turned over a new leaf and is a respected University professor and champion of better education in Chicago and this country. Obama didn't associate with him in the first part of his life only in the second, and there are just as many Chicago Republicans who work with him as Democrats. Not like his ties to him are particularly close. If you are going to make it a prerequisite for a President that they NEVER have associated with anyone every in their life who might be in any way be controversial you are going to require them to live in a bubble their entire life, and they sure can't go to a college. We've already have one President who lives in a bubble, George Bush, it was a disaster, we don't need any more.

      Sending out robocalls that somehow Obama is a bomb throwing anti American terrorist because he knows Ayers is over the top offensive. Sure go ahead and do it, you are just going to turn off every independent in the country doing it which is what you did in my case.

      The fact is there was a serious culture war in the U.S. in the 60's and early 70's. Obama and I missed it, we were to young. We aren't fighting it any more, we are moving past it. Its unfortunate the rest of you haven't. Its time to move on. This country has serious issues to fix and the culture war is making them worse, not resolving them. One good thing lately is young people are starting to get involved and vote again, I'm hoping they are a lot less rascist and homophobic and lot more tolerant than previous generations.

      --
      @de_machina
    62. Re:switfboat by GodKingAmit · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's only rolling back the bush tax cuts for those making more than 250k, not all of them. You, who pay no income tax credit will end up paying negative income tax, kind of like the Earned Income Tax Credit.

    63. Re:switfboat by mahsah · · Score: 1

      I always got the impression that people didn't like Obama's income tax rebates to those that didn't pay them, or his healthcare system.

      Those are fairly Socialist, but honestly McCain isn't much better...

    64. Re:switfboat by KovaaK · · Score: 1

      This is completely irrelevant to the topic. Just because you keep pushing things harder that I have no care about proving wrong/irrelevant doesn't mean that I will go on a tangent about them.

      Back to what I asked - do you seriously believe that Obama has associates who don't match these categories contrived by the media?

    65. Re:switfboat by gregbot9000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      those in the higher tax brackets derive more benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets.

      Talking about calling things what they are, let me rephrase that for you:

      those in the higher tax brackets derive ALL THEIR benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets.

      You can talk all you want about your rugged individualists and self made men, but how many Bill Gates are there in of Somalia? None. How many poor people? lots. The rich in this and other countries owe everything they have to stable government and rule of law. The poor just owe their TV and car to it. Who should pay more to support the system?

      If I were running a swap-meet and people who rented stalls were getting rich, yet my rents were so low I was going into debt to keep it running, my share holders would sue me if I didn't raise rents. Seems like the same thing is happening now.

    66. Re:switfboat by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that McCain also got a free pass about G Gordon Liddy.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    67. Re:switfboat by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      No they didn't say Obama is a bomb thrower, but it is 100% factual that Obama 'has no enemies on the left.' Riddle me this; name one close personal or professional associate of Sen. Obama that isn't a) a commununist radical, b) islamic extremist or c) part of the corrupt Chicago machine.

      Joe Biden?

      He's not one of those Muslim Micks, is he?

      --saint

    68. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep... conveniently ignore the parts you can't argue, and point us to easily biased sources to prove your points. Good plan.

    69. Re:switfboat by Rei · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Remember Geraldine Ferraro being called a racist?

      For saying that black men get it easy in this country? Gee, I wonder why.

      McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing over the whole "Keating Five" thing, so the fact that you bring it up shows your ignorance or intentional deceit.

      Obama was never even *charged* with any wrongdoing. McCain was in a heck of a lot deeper. In Obama's case, it wasn't Rezko who bought the lot. His wife did, and she turned a profit on it.

      As for factcheck, I think they are full of crap too.

      Well, thanks for positioning yourself so far out in right field that you're in the parking lot.

      Let's see. Worked together for years... Check.

      On a charity board that met quarterly. Whoop-de-freaking-wow.

      Close friends? Debatable, but the coffee thing is pretty damning.

      A single campaign meet and greet, and you think this even *possibly* passes the "close friends* test?

      I didn't even see the Infant Born Alive Protection Act on factcheck's site. (Although I didn't look too hard)

      No kidding you didn't look hard. It's right there -- Born-Alive Baloney.

      Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not have a plumbing license in Ohio? It was widely reported.
      Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not need a license as a plumber to work as one as long as the company he works for has that license? That was NOT widely reported.

      Did you know that everything he said to Obama, from his income to his plans, is bunk? That he has a problem with actually paying his taxes, but if he did, he'd get three times larger of a tax cut under Obama's plan than McCain's?

      Do you know that William Ayers gives money to schools? Widely reported, but not true. William Ayers gives charity money to hand chosen companies to do stuff for schools.
      Do you know that one of the main points of William Ayers "education plan" is to teach children to question authority? Fine idea, but it should be taken with a grain of salt when the guy pushing recommended "killing pigs" and "killing your parents". This has not been reported by any news outlet.

      You're confusing Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge itself. Ayers was just one member of the board of the Annenberg Challenge. It has a diverse board; it was even founded by a member of the Nixon administration. Education Week says the group reflects mainstream thinking about education reform.

      But seriously, do you really want to play the "Did You Know" game with me?

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    70. Re:switfboat by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

      I agree. His inability to run his own campaign speaks loads about how well he would run a country. In life he does a LOT of things wrong as you have said.

      I just feel it's always worth remembering people who really wish harm on others and people who have good intentions and just can't make them happen. I feel that it is the current core of the GOP that wishes harm for their own gain. They do what ever it takes to spread FUD and stay in power. I think that McCain has tried his best in all this. He really did want to run a good campaign. In the end he was a flawed man who is part of a corrupt party so it did not happen.

    71. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. In the last couple of days they've been bombarding us with that Wright commercial here in Oklahoma. Sadly, rednecks are easy to scare. I've heard people around here saying Obama will take away their guns. Facts and reason bounce right off them. They don't realize that the Supremes trump the prez and Bush stacked it with Reds. Not to mention they've already ruled on it. Oh, the average Joe 12 pack around here gets a confused look when you tell them Iraq wasn't responsible for 911. Try it, it's funny.

    72. Re:switfboat by IflyRC · · Score: 1

      True Socialism is more about community property and state ownership of businesses than it is about progressive taxation.

      Which makes his background of community organizer much more fitting.

    73. Re:switfboat by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Economic policy always boils down to the question of what brings the greatest quality of life to the greatest number of people.

      And here is the problem:

      There is a curve, call it the "laffer curve" if you want, because we don't actually know much about it. We do know the boundary conditions and the behavior around them, though: At 0% and 100% taxation, government revenues are zero. If you increase from zero or decrease from 100%, revenues go up.

      On the left side, it's obvious. On the right side however, the reason is still pretty clear: at taxation below 100%, economic activity is possible, and that's what generates the taxable transactions.

      Now, it's been suggested that somewhere in between there is a maximum, and therefore for any level of spending except one, there are at least two levels of taxation which result in that revenue.

      Unless you're trying to suppress economic growth for some reason, it is both unnecessary and immoral to use the higher taxation levels that result in the required revenue. Which is perhaps one reason why Friedman said, "If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven't cut taxes enough."

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    74. Re:switfboat by kid_oliva · · Score: 1
      I like the term you use:

      the New Republican party,

      . Because it is anything but small government and a non-intrusive government. However this:

      an intolerant, far right party, dominated by evangelicals.

      . Intolerant, they are absolutely. Focusing on far right is incorrect because far right would not use war as way to control but would be total isolationist. Also, it is hardly dominated by evangelicals because most evangelicals I know can't stand Bush or the neo-con Republicans. This is something portrayed by the media, as a few books have come out showing the Bush regimes true feeling towards Christians and how he used them to further his agenda.

      --
      I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
    75. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You weren't following the news a year ago, were you? It was all about how Hillary was a shoo-in. That's the bit people forget about when they say that the media is in the tank for Obama: not a one of them thought his campaign would amount a goddamn thing this year.

      But when the PUMAs and Hillarycons were sitting on their asses in December, in January, in February, the Obama people were solliciting donations online, organizing, canvassing, registering voters, and getting out the vote. It wasn't until he started winning that anyone really gave him a shot.

      And don't forget, the only reason McCain doesn't need a deal to get a favorable mortgage is that he cheated on the woman who remained faithful to him while he was in prison. Chew on those family values.

    76. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, whether or not you could call it swift boating, the negative side of this campaign has without question come from the McCain side. I am an independent and am extremely turned off by McCain's tactics, and lack of ideas recently. If he would have replaced 1 out of 3 sentences by he or his running mate that attacked Obama about bullshit, with an idea that actually made some sense I might feel better about him. As it is, meh!

    77. Re:switfboat by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      And it's well known-that one of your good high school buddies was a pedophile. I'm going to show up at your job tomorrow and let everyone there know about how you like to pal around with pedophiles. You cool with that?

      If he were a known pedophile when I was associated with him, and I was applying for a job protecting children from pedophiles, then YES, I'd be cool with that.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    78. Re:switfboat by QuantumPion · · Score: 1

      This is taken grossly out of context. Adam Smith's point was that the rich can afford bigger houses as a proportion of their income because the percent of their income spent on food is much smaller. Therefore, they pay a higher proportional property tax.

      He is in favor of a progressive property tax only insomuch as it comes as a natural consequence of the rich spending more on their houses then the poor since they can afford to. He did not say he is in favor of a government-forced progressive income tax.

      It is similar to the arguments in favor of a national sales tax to replace the income tax--It is naturally progressive because rich people buy more stuff, as opposed to forced-progressive income taxes where rich people are taxed in higher proportion based on their income.

      Full quote from your link by the way, with my relevent point bolded:

      The inequality with which a tax of this kind might fall upon the owners of different ground-rents would arise altogether from the accidental inequality of this division. But the inequality with which it might fall upon the inhabitants of different houses would arise not only from this, but from another cause. The proportion of the expense of house-rent to the whole expense of living is different in the different degrees of fortune. It is perhaps highest in the highest degree, and it diminishes gradually through the inferior degrees, so as in general to be lowest in the lowest degree. The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

    79. Re:switfboat by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

      that politics of personal destruction bullshit. Its getting old, people are tired of it

      To bring this back around to tech (this is /. after all) I think that the internet has had a lot to do with that. For example CNN has fact check http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/fact-check/ Back in the day no one knew if these accusations were true or not. If people said something was true a lot it MUST be true...right? Now we can find tons of information on what is and is not true on the net. More importantly we don't need to depend on something we herd ONCE on the nightly news or in a paper telling us a campaign is lieing. The information is always there for us to check and to show others in an argument. It's my personal hope that the internet will raise the bar on political issues.

    80. Re:switfboat by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Joe Biden?

      And he as been an associate of Obams for how long? Only a few months ago Biden was saying nice things about McCain and that Obama was far too inexperienced for POTUS.

      > He's not one of those Muslim Micks, is he?

      No, but Biden is an idiot. He has warmed a seat in the Senate since forever but has managed to learn nothing, He has been wrong on every major issue during his tenure. He voted against Gulf War I and for the second. Doesn't that put him 180 degrees opposed to Obama's positions? The idiot even voted against the Alaskan Pipeline!

      Had Palin made half the factual errors Biden made she would have been forced to remove herself from politics. But did ya listen to the Washington press corps defend Biden? Ya, we all know he is a fool, but he's a good solid Party Member.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    81. Re:switfboat by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying Ayres was still blowing up buildings when Obama knew him? Or are you saying that if you were friends with someone who was ONCE a criminal, but had reformed, then you would still be "palling around with criminals" if they were on some board with you? Because, if that's the case, most of the church-goers in this country are palling around with criminals, whores, drug users, etc.

      But, after today it won't matter anyway. Come tomorrow, your friend McCain will be palling around with a minority party and addressing Barak Obama as "Mr. President-elect."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    82. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 1

      Good point!!

      --
      @de_machina
    83. Re:switfboat by sjames · · Score: 1

      The more interesting part is that McCain thinks "Joe the plumber" is an average middle class American.

      Sorry, but the average middle class American is not in a position to buy out a $250,000 a year business single handedly. If McCain doesn't understand that, he's a lot closer to "let them eat cake" than give the middle class a hand.

    84. Re:switfboat by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      It's always hilarious when you people come out and start talking

      'The liberal media' Huh? Ok, kid. Go watch fox news, listen to talk radio, and read half the newspapers in this country.

      You've been brainwashed that 'media is liberal'...wanna know by who? The media that you watch. Idiot.

    85. Re:switfboat by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that McCain also got a free pass about G Gordon Liddy.

      Who did Liddy kill? What landmarks did Liddy bomb?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    86. Re:switfboat by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

      The country and the media are also sick of Republicans.

      The media doesn't seem to be tired of republicans, the media is mostly conservative. The so called liberal media bias is a lie.

    87. Re:switfboat by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      They've been running Jeremiah Wright saying "Goddamn America" steadily on DirectTV the last couple days.

      Actually the one I've been seeing constantly says "God*bleep* America," allowing you to use your imagination to fill in the gap.

      If Obama's campaign wanted to sink to that level, I'd say some creative use of bleepings would be in order.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wjAvZUAOqg

      See how well that works?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    88. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 1

      "First, once the primaries ended, all remotely honest reporting ended with it."

      You guys seriously need to stop obsessing on "media bias". Maybe "all honest reporting" did end but Fox News reporting has been just as biased against Obama as MSNBC's has been biased in his favor. You have an entire cable news network, the #1 cable news network in the country as I recall, carrying your water for you. Talk radio is heavily right wing biased so its overwhelmingly in your favor. To offset the New York Times and Washington Post there are big newspapers just as biased to the right like the New York Post and Washington Times.

      Your media bias shtick might have worked in the 90's but it simply doesn't wash any more. The right has just as much media bias in their favor as against. From about 9/11 to 2005 the media bias was overwhelmingly in the Republican's favor. Botching Katrina, the Iraq War, and the economy lost you most of the media sympathy you had. Yes, now a lot of media channels want your party thrown out, so do a lot of American people. Believe it or not media outlets pander to what the public wants because they make their money off their ratings, so they give people what they want. In 2002 America wanted pro Republican, bomb Iraq, flag waving and the media gave it to them. In 2008 America wants "run the bums" out and most media outlets are giving it to them.

      --
      @de_machina
    89. Re:switfboat by mckinnsb · · Score: 1

      Rovian politics, while effective in the indecisive political climate of the 2000 Presidental Election, have proven to be ineffective and to a degree even harmful to John McCain's campaign.

      A big part of Rovian political strategy during election season is to construct many locally focused and aired negative attack ads. People in Ohio will most likely see television ads about Obama's gaffe on Coal, while in Connecticut I have been bombarded with ads from the "Let Freedom Ring" foundation, mostly consisting of a scary ass looking old white guy telling the camera in a "straight-faced" manner that Obama plans to weaken our military through cutting spending, which will in turn be a sign of weakness to our enemies overseas. (Connecticut is very concerned about safety.)

      The problem with these tactics , outside of being dirty , underhanded, and culturally divisive, is that technology and communication has evolved to an extent that undermines the effectiveness of specifically targeting one area for a negative ad as the negative ad tends to migrate beyond their "target area" , mostly through the Internet. I know a lot of people who are Independents that were completely turned off by McCain's campaign just because they saw an ad on YouTube that was aired in another part of the country that just so happened to decry something about Obama that they either completely supported or were undecided/sympathetic to. In other words, what is poison to some, is innocuous to others, and outrage presented out of just context can really turn people away.

      Obama has managed to circumvent these tactics by running a campaign of an opposite nature: instead of airing negative local ads about the opposing candidate, they air positive ads nationwide about their candidate. Instead of pushing robo calls and getting a few dedicated partisans to furiously dial their base , they are getting people to go door to door and ask them to vote, even if they do not necessarily support Obama. And- above all- Obama ran a fifty-state campaign. Don't underestimate the collateral effect that a fifty-state campaign can have. By going into every state, people are more likely to believe you when you tell them that you actually care about them - and not just their swing state status. If this convinces even a few of the swing states, it will have done its job.

    90. Re:switfboat by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      Not that I voted for Obama or McCain this morning, but it seems to me that your request for an associate of Obama's who is not "a) a commununist radical, b) islamic extremist or c) part of the corrupt Chicago machine" is covered by Biden. I find it amazing that you didn't consider the man's running mate before firing off that sort of crazy hyperbole.

      The fact that he's a moron who can't be trusted to speak in front of more than three is regrettable, but irrelevant.

      --saint

    91. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "What landmarks did Liddy bomb?"

      Right you are. As best I recall..... he just napalmed our Constitution and tried to nuke our electoral process. Nothing important.

      I'm assuming you are saying that since his terrorism was state sponsored it was different? Right you are....

      --
      @de_machina
    92. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "the media is mostly conservative."

      The media execs and share holders are mostly conservative. A lot of journalists tend to be well educated, idealistic, liberals. Fortunately for the conservatives we are replacing most of our journalists with talking heads who just spout what their audience wants to hear which happens with the views of their bosses and whichever party is popular at the moment. As a result there is very little critical analysis of how true anything is, you know the stuff journalists used to do. Today's "fact checkers" are a pale shadow since they don't uncover anything new.

      The New York Times and New Yorker seem to be one of the very few outlets still doing investigative journalism, and exposing things like the Bush spying program. It drives the right nuts that the only investigative journalism that seems to be left in the U.S. is left leaning.

      --
      @de_machina
    93. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. Whoa! you are very well spoken.
      I have always contended the view that EVERYTHING can not be ALL bad about anyone. If we listen to the pundits on that right wiinnng "no spin" LOL network, there is nothing good about anyone they oppose. How can one be so misguided to feed into this hyperbole without any questions of ones own? Oh! we need to be told what to think and how we feel about the topic as it is being defined and framed for us. We are such idiots...

      You have posted a well stated point in the examination of the Marxist dialogue.

      Thanx

    94. Re:switfboat by taliesinangelus · · Score: 1

      NPR had a story last week about how "swiftboat" groups on both sides were suffering from lack of funds due to the economic crunch. I think the Veteran's group that hit Kerry said on that program they would run one ad with a limited spread as that was all they could afford.

    95. Re:switfboat by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.

      I thought Jesus taught that capitalism and self-interest were the way to salvation. Didn't Jesus tell the story of the good Samaritan who left a man suffering by the side of the road because he had no money to pay for healthcare?

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

      Sorry, pal. Vandalizing government property isn't any worse than the crap that Liddy pulled. (Ayers didn't kill anyone, by the way.) You're buying into the right-wing hysteria.

      More importantly, Liddy is actually connected to McCain, calling him "an old friend". Ayers hardly knows Obama except through incidental encounters as a result of them living in proximity.

      So tell me: why did the media give McCain a free pass on this association?

    97. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the incorrect usage of the term. As incorrect as 'Adam Smith is was a socialist for his scheme of redistributing wealth detailed in The Wealth of Nations', or 'McCain is a socialist for wanting to use the government to redistribute the wealth'.

      Redistributing wealth via government doesn't equal socialism. It equals government.

      Socialism means a lot of things, some of them contradictory, depending on which particular branch of socialism you're talking about.

      Obama's very far from any of these branches. He's not a socialist. He shares almost no positions with those who actually are socialists.

    98. Re:switfboat by nine-times · · Score: 1

      What many object to was the "spread the wealth around" statement, because they see it as tantamount to simple "here's your check" redistributionism.

      Yeah, but I think it's a bit much to make out of that one quote. You may not believe me, and hell it's possible that I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Obama intended that sort of thing with his "spread the wealth around" quote".

      I think what he was trying to comment on was the unfavorable distribution of wealth that currently exists in our country, where the rich keep getting richer, the poor stay poor, and the middle class gets poorer. I think Obama is really just saying that he intends to try to rectify that with a tax policy that's more fair by lowering the tax burden on the middle class, even if it means increasing the tax burden on the rich.

      Now, you could argue that that plan is somehow "socialism" too, but again, I don't think it is. I think "spread the wealth around" was just an unfortunate choice of words.

      Of course, it looks like we're going to find out in the next 4 years.

    99. Re:switfboat by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll

      "What landmarks did Liddy bomb?"

      Right you are. As best I recall..... he just napalmed our Constitution and tried to nuke our electoral process. Nothing important.

      I'm assuming you are saying that since his terrorism was state sponsored it was different? Right you are....

      Oh! So he's like ACORN.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    100. Re:switfboat by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      The core of many philosophies derive from another source altogether. In that you can be certain. Because of that very thing, you can't necessarily say that a philosophical position belongs to any particular philosophy centered on that concept. That is, not until you ask the person who made that statement where he came by said idea.

      Side note: Marx's ideas weren't anything new. They were simply one of the easiest to understand (and because of this, more prone to misinterpretation) presentations thereof.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    101. Re:switfboat by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Him? I barely knew him. He sat three rows over from me in Social Studies. Ok, maybe I did hang out with him, but I didn't condone his behavior. In fact, I knew him pretty well but don't blame me for his crimes – I thought he was rehabilitated.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    102. Re:switfboat by oldhack · · Score: 1

      What many object to was the "spread the wealth around" statement, because they see it as tantamount to simple "here's your check" redistributionism. It's one thing to run a jobs program where those in it are actually contributing something to society--building infrastructure, cleaning things up, etc.--but quite another to give out money simply for drawing breath. And whether or not that's what Obama's plans truly are, it's what many fear.

      Obama denies he'll do so, but who knows. But you know Palin HAS done it for Alaskans. But I doubt such facts will make a difference with you.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    103. Re:switfboat by cc_pirate · · Score: 1


      Isn't this "Marxist" type of negative tax one of the basic principles of the state governed by McCain's running mate?

      Don't clutter the Republicans' minds with facts! They can't take it! :)

      --

      "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

    104. Re:switfboat by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      Riddle me this; name one close personal or professional associate of Sen. Obama that isn't a) a commununist radical, b) islamic extremist or c) part of the corrupt Chicago machine.

      Even though you butchered a sentence that should have been a question based on its opening phrase, I'll tackle this one.

      Who would know this information in a general sense? Unless I pointed this out:
      According to both candidates, John McCain qualifies.

      While I am at it, you used the word "close" to modify both categories. I challenge you to find one in each category that is indeed close. Although, I think that by "close" you mean "has ever been in close physical proximity" when referring to the negative and "knows rather well and cares for" when referring to the positive. You are still wrong either way, but I will give you the chance to spout your drivel a bit farther afield.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    105. Re:switfboat by 2short · · Score: 1

      "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

      Got it.

          The rest is details, but contrary to your assertion, he specifically he argues against sales taxes because they are regressive: They hit the poor harder, who must spend a large proportion on necessities. He likes property taxes, which is not a terrible idea, though I think it's out of date (too easy to move offshore these days). Note that accurately assesing an income tax would have been impossible in Smiths day, so we can't know his opinion there. But he's still right on with his larger point, that taxing the rich by a greater proportion of their iuncome than the poor makes sense. And also with the detail you've inexplicably turned around: that sales taxes are a bad idea because they tax the poor more.

    106. Re:switfboat by icebrain · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't know Palin that--assuming (no offense) that you're right. Got a source, by chance?

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    107. Re:switfboat by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting commentary on how skewed the politics in America have gotten that the idea of a graduated income tax is controversial, or that the idea of raising taxes on those best able to afford it in times of fiscal crisis is somehow a socialist plot.

      Graduated income taxes are controversial, they are one of the worst kind of class warfare that exists and the least understood. By over-taxing the rich to help the poor (and maybe middle class), they are effectively making it impossible for the middle class to ever become rich, let alone wealthy. Period.

      Don't believe me? Just think about it, what is the tax rate of the highest tax bracket (50-66% I believe), so that once you've escaped the middle class tax bracket, you have to earn 3-4 dollars for every 1 dollar you want to keep. Talk about a law of diminishing returns.

    108. Re:switfboat by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power. The country and the media are also sick of Republicans.

      If by "people" and "country" you mean two thirds of the electorate, then yes. The other third is about as dumb as a bag of rocks, and they're genuinely scared. This is not a small percentage. Thankfully they're not the majority, but do not discount them. The crazy lady at the McCain rally who said she's afraid of Obama because he's an Arab (which she concluded after reading "a lot of information about him") is NOT just a crazy nutjob; a frightening number of people think exactly the same way she does.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    109. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Therapy would improve your well-being.

      I wish you well.

    110. Re:switfboat by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      First, let's drop the the "rolling back tax cuts" crap. It's a tax increase.

      Well, it is and it isn't. The tax cuts put in place back in 2001 included the premise that they would expire. Those who argued against them did so in part on the grounds that the costs were being hidden by pretending that the cuts would expire, but that as soon as that expiration rolled around there was going to be arguments about tax increases and the cuts would be made permanent. Lo and behold, the expiration has been coming up as a real possibility, and efforts are ongoing to make the tax cuts permanent.

      So does it mean that taxes are going up? Absolutely. Does it mean that the Democrats are voting for a tax hike? Not necessarily.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    111. Re:switfboat by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > I challenge you to find one in each category that is indeed close.

      Close as in long history of working closely together in the case of professional assocations, or a long history of associating together in personal affairs.

      When Ayers needed somebody he could trust to make sure as much of that $150M in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge went to himself and his fellow communist radicals he picked Barack Obama. He knew he could trust him because they had worked together before. Ayers had signed off on the grant that gave Mr. Obama his first paying job in Chicago. That professional relationship continued long past Ayers's infamous confessions surrounding the publication of Fugitive Days.

      Obama himself has called Rev. Wright a close personal friend, a mentor and even a father figure. Rev. Wright wasn't one to be coy about his beliefs. Wright was preaching the same warmed over Marxism from his pulpit the day they met as he was when Obama threw him under the bus. If your minister of twenty years doesn't provide a clue about you what does it say about yer religious convictions? So which is it? Was Obama a cold blooded agnostic using Rev Wright to gain access to his politically connected congregation (which included a Who's Who of Chicago... including at one time Ms. Winfrey.) to further his political ambitions or did/does Mr. Obama actually believe the insane filth that flows so freely from Rev. Wright's chowhole. Or perhaps you would care to propose a third option because damned if I can see one.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    112. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That isn't even funny or witty. Can't you do better than that?

      ACORN was legally required to submit all the voter registrations they collected, they flagged all the ones they could tell were bogus.....

      Try again, your smoking gun isn't smoking or a gun.

      --
      @de_machina
    113. Re:switfboat by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the context. I have bolded my own parts that I feel define the theme of the paragraph.

      "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

      He is saying that because poor people spend more of their money on things that are necessary, they should generally face a lower tax burden than the wealthy, who spend significant amounts of money on pointless things (in excess of $4000 for a session with Spitzer's hooker?).

      By the way, I didn't mention income tax. I was discussing progressive taxes in general. Any progressive tax (income, property, or otherwise) should not be labeled socialist on virtue of being progressive. Adam Smith first finds progressive taxes to be reasonable in general and then progressive property taxes in specific.

      See also sibling post.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    114. Re:switfboat by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      That isn't even funny or witty. Can't you do better than that?

      ACORN was legally required to submit all the voter registrations they collected, they flagged all the ones they could tell were bogus.....

      Try again, your smoking gun isn't smoking or a gun.

      ACORN was paid $800,000 by the Obama campaign. ACORN was trained by Obama. ACORN takes tax dollars, yet still endorsed Obama. ACORN has turned in hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms.

      Smoking gun. Hardly. More like a flaming canon!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    115. Re:switfboat by oldhack · · Score: 1

      I am referring to Alaska Resource Rebate Palin signed in:
      http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/487182.html
      http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/ResourceRebate.aspx

      The Permanent Fund was set up long ago, but the rebate bill imposed so-called windfall tax on oil industry and distributes the money as extra dividend from the Fund.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    116. Re:switfboat by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Because it is illogical flamebait?

      Joe being related to Keating. So what? The question isn't about Joe. The question is about Obama's answer to a question. Obama went to Joe's neighborhood so people could ask him questions, and he answered in a way that he should have known that many in America would not like. So much for how intelligent and eloquent he is.

      Palin's use of "spread the wealth". The wealth she was talking about was the wealth derived from the sale of Alaska's natural resources. The Alaskan constitution says that those resources belong to the people of Alaska, not big oil companies. Palin fought for the profits of those resources and gave them to their rightful owners. She distributed the wealth. Obama wants to "RE"distribute other people's wealth, take it by government fiat with no constitutional mandate, and give it to people of his choosing. Not even close to the same thing.

      etc.

      Why would it logically ever get modded up?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    117. Re:switfboat by RpiMatty · · Score: 1

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-11-palin-cover_N.htm

      She increased the taxes on oil companies in Alaska, and some that income went to Alaskans, in addition their normal yearly dividend from the oil companies. (You do know that you get 1-2 thousand a year just for living in Alaska from the oil companies)

    118. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the Annenberg foundation which sponsors this challenge was created by Walter Annenberg who was appointed ambassador to the court of St. James by another notorious radical, Richard Nixon. Nixon did go to China and China was Communist then. Therefor Obama's association with the Annenberg foundation must prove he is a Communist, as was Henry Kissenger. Annenberg was also close friends with another cabal of radicals, Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby and Prince Charles.

      Say what you want about Ayers early life but the Annenberg foundation isn't part of a Communist conspiracy. Its just trying to improve education in America..... DAMN YOU ANNENBERG FOUNDATION ....... you commie bastards. Annenberg is Jewish so......

      Do you want to keep playing guilt by association? OK, lets try Charles Keating? No, G. Gorgon Liddy? No, an actual listed terrorist organization McCain backed, the Kosovo Liberation Army. What about Ronald Reagan's associations, he poured billions of dollars in to a rag tag band of Muslim terrorists in the 1980's, which funded the beginnings of Al Qaida, Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. How about Donald Rumsfeld who met with and ... gasp ... shook Saddam Hussein's hand once.... probably to discuss transferring chemical weapons to Iraq to gas Iranians.

      --
      @de_machina
    119. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A reduction of *zero* would be negative.

      You pay zero income taxes, not zero federal taxes.

      Obama advocates offsets to payroll taxes for people in your bracket. I think this should have been more clearly explained during the campaign.

      Here's the explanation from politifact.com, a non-partisan fact checking site. (They were addressing Obama's claim to cut taxes for 95% of 'working families' in light of the fact that so many people don't pay federal income taxes)

      "...part of Obama's plan is a tax credit to offset payroll taxes. If you look only at workers, or "working families," as Obama likes to put it, it turns out that 95 percent of workers receive a tax cut under Obama's plans. We looked at that claim on Sept. 18, 2008, and ruled it True. Since then, the Tax Policy Center has published additional research specifically confirming our ruling: They found the Obama plan provided a tax cut for 94.8 percent of workers."

    120. Re:switfboat by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power. The country and the media are also sick of Republicans. Bush has one great accomplishment in eight years, something I predicted when he won in 2004, that by the end of this second term we would completely turn the country against the New Republican party, an intolerant, far right party, dominated by evangelicals. A party pandering to the rich and manipulating a bunch of not so bright middle class supporters in to voting for them using abortion, homophobia and fear, manipulating not to bright middle class people in to voting for a party that is completely screwing them economically. Let's hope its finally over. Now we just have to worry about all the stupidity the Democrats will perpetrate when they are in control.

      Wow, you've got those Democratic talking points down pat. You've been watching Olberman again, haven't you?

      Just a question to confuse you: If Americans are so "sick of Republicans", why is the race so close?

      Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your brain like that.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    121. Re:switfboat by foo+fighter · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      --
      obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    122. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two appear to be mutually exclusive, especially since I currently do not pay federal income tax. I am among the 38% of Americans (or is it households?) that do not pay federal income taxes. How is it possible to reduce zero?

      Even if you pay no income tax, you pay 7.6% social security tax (15% if you're self employed). Obama's "tax cut" is a rebate of those payments.

      There are some people who think that social security is like a little personal savings account, and they're upset because making social security tax a progressive system makes SS feel more like old-people welfare than personal savings. News: SS is old-people welfare. It's a ponzi scheme that depends on more people entering the system than are being paid. The only reason it hasn't failed already is that it's set up with a long enough time frame that benefit recipients have been dying off fast enough that new young people have been able to support them. Savings are savings. Social security is a government hand out.

    123. Re:switfboat by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I think this quote provides great insight on how the media has warped your mind. Is it that hard for you to believe that Obama has associates who don't match these categories contrived by the media?

      It would be easy for us to believe if you actually listed one. From what I've seen, the media has done everything in their power to bury anything negative about Obama. Even Saturday Night Live has made fun of the so-called 'reporters' lavishing verbal fellatio on the man every chance they got.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    124. Re:switfboat by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      The actual Swift Boat ads that attacked John Kerry were from a 527 also. Did the republican candidate have anything to do with them? Likely not, but there are many examples of 527s pulling their ads when the candidate they are supporting requests it. McCain could have and should have prevented the Jeremiah Wright ads or had them pulled after they began. He didn't, and hasn't. He shares culpability.

      So that make Obama responsible for prank phone calls and email crackers?

      And McCain DID ask the 527 groups not to air those adds. They chose to do it anyway.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    125. Re:switfboat by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Using Wright as your the basis of your campaign platform makes as much sense as Obama using the video of Sarah Palin having witches cast out of her by the African minister in her church in Alaska.

      Granted. IF Palin had sat under the African's teachings for 20yrs, had the African perform her wedding ceremony, and written an autobiography proclaiming that the African was her mentor. Other than those small things, the two are exactly the same.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    126. Re:switfboat by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Ok. Excuse me, I'm confused. When was the last time the US didn't have a progressive income tax?

    127. Re:switfboat by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

      And he properly identified calling such a maneuver a "rebate" as being a deceitful bit of lying spin.

      Er...wait. Wouldn't that make Bush just as much of a Marxist, given that I got a "stimulus" check in the mail despite the fact that I didn't pay any income tax this year?

      My advice: stop worrying about the philosophical fairness of these things, and worry more about the economic effects. Punitive taxation of the rich is a bad idea not because it's unfair, but because it will lead to economic problems down the road in the form of lower investement and a general brain drain out of the US. Similarly, regressive taxation is a bad idea because it pulls money out of the hands of the people likely to spend it. There is an optimal balance between how much money is available for people to spend (which largely means putting money in the hands of the poor to middle class) and how much money is invested in producing products for the bulk of the people to buy (which means getting money into the hands of the upper class). Redistribution is a perfectly valid means of addressing imbalances here, and without tweaking the system like that we end up with an inefficient economy where either a) people don't have enough money to buy crap, or b) companies don't have enough money invested in them to make crap for people to buy (or alternatively but more or less leading to the same outcome, the incentives to produce are so low due to taxation that nobody bothers). I'm not sure b) has ever been the "bottleneck" in our country (in communist or overly socialist countries it becomes a real issue), which would suggest that we're still at a level where more progressive redistribution would help the economy; I'm no expert, though, so I could be wrong.

      Nobody's exactly sure where the "sweet spot" is, which is why we continue to argue; pure free market leans too far towards wealth concentrating in the hands of the rich, and communism is the opposite. But let's not delude ourselves and pretend that the optimal solution economically is necessarily "fair," either in the sense of equality or freedom; everyone's likely to be a little pissed off at the optimal point.

    128. Re:switfboat by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      How is this insightful? I assume you're referring to oil payouts? I'm unclear how you think this money came from taxing rich people and giving the income to poor people, but I think you're just playing some lame game of "gotcha" so I'm not that interested in the answer.

    129. Re:switfboat by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Yep. That's fine. I haven't started a political career in any of their houses, and I didn't call any of them my mentor. You go right ahead.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    130. Re:switfboat by ekimminau · · Score: 1

      maybe, but only as long as it takes for the supreme court case to be heard which will prove he wasn't born in the US, that he isn't a US citizen, that he is ineligble to be president, he is arrested for fraud and YOUR party gets to address Biden as Mr. preident-elect until the call for a re-election is demanded.

      --
      Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    131. Re:switfboat by jyurkiw · · Score: 1

      The media isn't sick of the Republicans...

      ...it's owned by the Republicans.

      There's a difference!

    132. Re:switfboat by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      That is kind of the point. The Republicans have convinced people that Obama's tax plan, which is progressive, is somehow socialist. Which means that we've been a socialist country for some time now...

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    133. Re:switfboat by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Corporations are people, too.

    134. Re:switfboat by demachina · · Score: 1

      "what Bush's one great accomplishment was."

      OK here is another one. He managed to change a nation that was largely apathetic about politics in 2000 and where less than half of those eligible voted, young people in particular, in to one which is completely focused on politics and voting in record numbers in 2008.

      He did this by showing us the consequences of not participating in our political system and letting a vocal minority, particularly the evangelical right and the wealthy, elect an incompetent, incurious, ideologue who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, as President of the United State. He then proceeded tpvividly illustrate what happens when you don't care about your government, by being a miserable failure for eight years and nearly destroying America.

      Historical trivia, Barbara Bush is descended from Franklin Pierce. He too is considered one of America's worst presidents though not in the same league as George W. I propose there is something in those genes which suggests we should never elect another from that bloodline President of the United States.

      --
      @de_machina
    135. Re:switfboat by Reziac · · Score: 1

      This goes to point up the fallacy of assuming that everyone who can be nailed for significant capital gains taxes can actually afford to give that money up:

      I am also in the low income, little to no tax bracket. But I inherited a few stocks, which I've had for over 30 years now, and which via modest growth are now worth about 10 times what I started with. Those stocks are my entire retirement fund; I don't have any other and I won't get any social security.

      If capital gains taxes go back up to their former levels, that means I'll lose almost half of my retirement fund's cash value, and will be forced to continue working roughly another 10 to 15 years past normal retirement age, because what's left won't be enough to live on even in the very modest manner to which I'm accustomed (especially with a family history of living into their late 90s).

      So -- raising capital gains taxes STEALS 10 to 15 years of my life. And where does this money go?? at least in part to people who make more than I do, and who will be taken care of by the gov't -- using my money.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    136. Re:switfboat by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Name-calling ("Socialist!")

      As a Europian, I find this hilarious because Socialist is the second biggest grouping in the Europian parliament. Admittedly it includes groups such as the Labour party from here in the UK, who haven't been socialist for over a decade, but we would also label Obama as right-wing...

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    137. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, all that liberal media bias has clouded his mind.

      Oh wait..

    138. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is from Karl Marx.

      Better than the current administration's "From each regardless of their need, to each regardless to their ability". I'm looking at you, 700 billion dollar bailout of a faulty financial system.

    139. Re:switfboat by lennier · · Score: 1

      I just don't get this. I'm not American, so maybe I missed some propaganda against sharing somewhere, but...

      What on earth is so scary about the notion of "spreading" wealth? Especially among people who are familiar with IT work and the notion of redundancy, backups, and disaster recovery?

      The more places wealth is spread to, the more diverse and resilient the economy and society must be, surely. That's a good thing in unpredictable times.

      "Centralising the wealth", now *that* I find scary, because it centralises the possibility of massive mismanagement and disaster.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    140. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not "to" bright there yourself, are you?

      (hint: You should have used "too" in "not too bright")

    141. Re:switfboat by elpostino · · Score: 0

      A reduction of *zero* would be negative. That means I would get back money in the form of a tax rebate of taxes I did not pay. This money necessarily comes from someone else. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Argue that this is acceptable, but don't argue that it isn't Marxist or Socialist. It is at the core of Marx' philosophy.

      In government tax speak this is referred to as the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is in fact a tax break for you as it is a credit for taxes paid by you and your employer as payroll taxes. The EITC was started by president Nixon (Obviously a closet Marxist or how would he ever have been allowed into China) in 1975 and it was supposed to be a temporary measure.

      Even though I support the EITC in some form I do find it appalling that government programs are never 'temporary'

      Here is a link to a PDF (sorry) that has more information on the EITC than you could ever want to know

      http://www.caseygrants.org/documents/reports/MCF_EITC_Paper.pdf

    142. Re:switfboat by Myself337 · · Score: 1

      New Republican party, an intolerant, far right party, dominated by evangelicals. A party pandering to the rich and manipulating a bunch of not so bright middle class supporters in to voting for them using abortion, homophobia and fear, manipulating not to bright middle class people in to voting for a party that is completely screwing them economically. Let's hope its finally over. Now we just have to worry about all the stupidity the Democrats will perpetrate when they are in control.

      I agree.

      --
      I'm poor. Please donate. http://albanypcs.com
    143. Re:switfboat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      University of Chicago is the sort of place that would pick Bill Ayers as a department head.

      Nonsense. Have you heard of the "Chicago School of Economics"? That's right, the immensely influential school of Friedrich von Hayek, Ronald Coase, Milton Friedman and many other darlings of the hard right. Friedman was the favorite economist of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. So how can you say that the U. of Chicago would have anything to do with Ayers?

    144. Re:switfboat by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Are these the kind of pathetic delusions we can expect out of you Republicans for the next four years? You may even top whine level of the Democrats in 2000.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    145. Re:switfboat by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Strawman. A tax where anyone making over, say, $300k pays 99.99% taxes and everyone below pays .01% taxes is also progressive and certainly on the socialist side of things. Just because a given plan is progressive does not make it also socialist. However some progressive plans are certainly socialist in motivation.

      What makes Obama a socialist is the fact that he espouses socialist ideals. He can't put those into practice all at once, but he'd love to get the ball rolling.

      What the Republicans tried to do was demonstrate that Obama has a wealth redistribution agenda and that he will just take baby steps to reach that goal. His initial tax plan is just one small step, doesn't even seem all that unreasonable. Then the 2010 plan will go a little more in that direction. Barring disaster he'll be elected in 2012 again (Bush has cost this country Democratic leadership for a long time). He'll continue more of the same - more entitlement programs, socialized medicine, higher taxes on anyone middle class or above (say $100k/yr), etc...

    146. Re:switfboat by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Ahh. You've bought that common misconception. Corporations are not persons. They have certain rights people also have. In my area, animals have the right not to be abused/tortured. People have that same right. Animals are not people.

      Anti-corporatists are truly the new commie hippy of our generation. Anyway, I do disagree with the stupid windfall tax - it's just populist rabble rousing. But the wealth from state owned land with oil has to go somewhere.

    147. Re:switfboat by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      define:strawman - opponent's position is restated so that it is easier to attack, then the restated position is attributed to the opponent

      The only point I re-stated was my own - that Republicans are labeling the tax plan as socialism on virtue of being progressive.

      Now, let's take your straw man, regarding the figures that you pulled out of your ass and which you basically attributed to me. Had you actually watched the video, you would notice that McCain was defending the progressive income tax before the Bush tax cuts.

      Obama's tax plan lets the Bush tax cuts for the upper class expire. Again, if Obama's tax plan is socialist, we've been living in a socialist country for a while now. Clinton had some of the lowest tax rates in history.

      Did you know that under Eisenhower, the top tax bracket paid a 91% income tax?

      Clear through the Cold War, while we were fighting socialists, our income tax rate for the highest bracket was around 70% or so.

      And here you are, screeching about how a 39.6% tax rate is socialist.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    148. Re:switfboat by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      The strawman is that "republicans" are labeling any progressive tax plan as socialism. Is this a party platform? Are any sane Republicans proposing a non-progressive tax?

      More importantly, the past is irrelevent. Wartime taxes continued because Eisenhower wanted a balanced budget. Not sure how you think the miserable economic situation under his (and previous high-tax) administrations is any kind of advertisement for it.

      I think the main point of the Republicans is that Obama is a socialist. His tax plans are necessarily limited because he won't get elected by just saying "I want to redistribute the wealth in this nation". Wait, OK - so he did actually say that. I guess what I mean is he won't get elected by proposing policies which implement this goal. He'll just bide his time, he'll have 8 years to start moving more in that direction. A horrible presidency like Bush's grants him guaranteed 8 years barring a massive mistake.

    149. Re:switfboat by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Republicans move toward a non-progressive tax in much the same way you allege Senator Obama wants to move toward socialism.

      The past is not irrelevant. In case you didn't notice, we're at war right now. Have you seen the national debt lately?

      Last I checked, our economic situation was fantastic after World War II. We had prosperity for decades under "high taxes". High taxes on the rich provided a huge middle class with disposable income. The massive size of new markets for goods allowed economies of scale to drive the cost of everything down tremendously.

      Obama wants all Americans to share in the wealth that they create, as opposed to allowing a privileged few to concentrate America's wealth into their own families. No more will the CEO pilfer the employee's pensions to pay himself hundreds of times more than the average worker's salary, only to get a multi-million dollar golden parachute for ruining the company.

      Perhaps it's time for Americans to realize that capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive, and a hybrid system is the best approach.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    150. Re:switfboat by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Funny Obama gets compared to JFK, but Kennedy was actually a precursor to Reaganomics and wanted tax cuts fromt he top-down and wanted tax equity in this country.

      First, some logic. Explain this to me, please. How is it not socialism if someone pays less in taxes than they actually get back from the government? How is a shrinking tax base not socialism? If only 40% of Americans pay taxes, and some percent actually get more money back from the government than they pay in, how is this not redistribution of wealth? Also explain how if there are fewer taxpayers in this country what happens to government income when the rich pull out of the economy and go for safer investments, or in boom and bust cycles? For extra credit, explain why government revenue actually goes up when top-down tax plans are enacted? Also, you do understand that Obama will tax the top more but that government revenue is guaranteed to go down, right?

      Here's a question for you. Who pays wages in this country? Rich people or poor people? Now, let's say I'm filthy rich. Suddenly, Obama is gunning for me and the amount of money I can make from putting my money in play goes way down while the risk remains the same. Would it be wiser to just take my money and wallow in it, or to continue to invest in new businesses, stocks, etc...? Personally, I'd just wait out his administration and wallow in my money.

    151. Re:switfboat by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      I suggest looking up Hauser's Law. Government revenue is about 19.5% no matter what the top tax bracket is.

      So how about those economies of scale? Samsung can make big screen TVs because there's a big market for consumers to purchase them. In fact, if Obama's tax plan works, more people will be able to buy big screen TVs. This means more revenue for Samsung. It could very well increase revenue so much that it offsets the potential tax increases, resulting in a net profit after taxes were raised.

      Bonus - enlarging the market allows economies of scale to drive the cost down further, making things cheaper for everyone rich or poor.

      Keynes said that economic policy should focus on the bottom of the ladder, because those individuals are most likely to spend their money in the economy, which will directly benefit the wealthy who own the means of production.

      How long have we had the supply-siders running things? What happened to our once mighty middle class, now threatened with extinction? Face it - you cut taxes for the rich and they just hogged all their money, or they blew it on multi-million dollar yachts (who the hell does that help?) and $4000 hookers.

      Your argument is quite valid against excess income tax rate, but it fails spectacularly when taken to the limit. If "the rich" want to go somewhere else...where do they go? Who gets a better return on investment besides America? If they take their ball and go home like whiney bitches, there will be other investors who will seize the opportunity to make a new fortune. That's the beauty of the market - voids will be filled. There will still be plenty of money to be made in America, and someone will make it, and it won't be your greedy ass.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    152. Re:switfboat by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Hauser's law would seem to validate my point. Why raise taxes and drive away investment of capital if it won't raise government revenue?

      As for TV's and the like, where exactly do you think this money comes from? And it's unclear to me how you think prices won't go up as taxes go up? Do you think these corporations will just eat the new costs of business and magnanimously accept lower profits? Or will they pass on costs?

      The middle class is dying because the poor breed like rabbits. This isn't really debatable, just look at birth rates by income and education levels. That's why most of this is academic anyway - as health care becomes an "entitlement", life expectancies grow, and the birth rate of the most productive segment of the population dwindles even as the least productive segment spits out kid after kid we're quite simply fucked. It's an unsustainable model.

      As for the rich, they'll move their money to safer investments or overseas to developing economies. These developing economies will gladly lure them in with low tax rates. No point in arguing, I guess, this is simply a fact. All other things equal, higher marginal tax rates will increase unemployment. Of course, all other things aren't all equal so who knows what will really happen. I tell you what - come back in 2 years when shit's even worse off than it is now and I can gloat.

      Multi-million dollar yachts? You do know someone built that, right? And the wood was chopped by someone, the paint was made by someone, someone painted the boat, etc... And the company that sells the yacht takes the money and expands and hires more people. $4000 hookers spend the money they make, too. You "demand siders" seem to think money just disappears into luxury items and that we can create wealth out of nowhere for the poor people to all go out and buy TV's or whatever the hell.

    153. Re:switfboat by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      First, Hauser's law does not validate your point. It focuses only on the top tax rate; it is implied that the burden becomes shifted onto the middle class, either through changes in the tax structure or increased deficits. It specifically invalidates your point, which I shall quote here for you since you appear to have forgotten it.

      Also, you do understand that Obama will tax the top more but that government revenue is guaranteed to go down, right?

      Second, the money has been coming from debt. This is "wealth creation" in the 20th century. Enslaving the poor to the rich, who use interest payments and inflation to slowly transfer wealth to themselves.

      Third, you continually fail to understand economies of scale. Why do cell phone carriers subsidize phones? They're losing money! But they're enlarging the market. Taxes go up, but more people have more money, so the people begin purchasing more stuff, and the larger market allows economies of scale to drive down the cost of the goods so that you get a net profit, even after the tax.

      Or maybe (just maybe) companies will instead pay their workers a decent wage and fall into a lower tax bracket.

      Just about everyone can be productive given the right incentives. It is saddening that you have such a pitiful view of your fellow humans. Some people will get free rides; get over it. Once you move on, you realize that luring people into productivity is worth some wasted spending. Humans are better than you give them credit for.

      Again, let selfish rich people move their businesses to other countries. America is where the market is at. It will leave a hole that will be filled by some budding entrepreneur who is enough of a patriot to stay in American even though there is an extra cost. When the size of the traitor's market goes down, so will the profits.

      I have a question for you. What is a better expenditure of money - a $10 million dollar yacht, or a hundred $100,000 homes for people to live in? You still need people to chop wood, make paint, and so forth. You still need companies to coordinate this. Arguably, you need more people, because you're handling a hundred "things" instead of just one.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    154. Re:switfboat by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine the outcry if Palin had been married to someone who wanted Alaska to secede from the United StaOOOOOOOOOOH WAIT.

      Can you imagine the outcry if McCain had engaged in dirty deeds with a corrupt savings and loan manOOOOOOOH WAIT.

      Can you imagine the outcry if Palin had attended an anti-Jewish churchOOOOOOH WAIT.

      The fact is, the media didn't cover any of that either. And the first two accusations I made are pretty much incontrovertibly true. You want to know why no one covered it? Because the Obama campaign realized no one wants to hear that bullshit anymore. I'm sick of it, and I voted accordingly. The last week or so in Texas had negative ads against Obama ("bleep bleep America," "friends with unrepentant terrorist," etc.). I heard negative ads about McCain/Palin, too, but not about Keating, anti-semitism, nor secession. I heard negative ads about policy leveled at McCain.

      And one more thing: Regarding Todd Palin's membership in the secessionist movement, there were plenty of attacks on Michelle Obama being un-American, etc. However, I sure didn't hear anything about Palin being un-American despite the fact that secession from the union is pretty much, by definition, un-American.

  6. John Galt by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Galt's Gulch: those who know, know. Discuss.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:John Galt by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah. no matter who wins I'm afraid we are on the verge of: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You had better get it straight that it is not a bunch of boy scouts that you are up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We are after power and we mean it. You fellows are pikers, but we know the real trick, and you had better get wise to it. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power that any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ...just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that is the system Mr. Reardon, that is the game, and once you understand it, you will be much easier to deal with."

    2. Re:John Galt by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

      Once we all belong to each other individualism will be outlawed.

      Personally I'll be taking the Ragnar Danskjold path.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    3. Re:John Galt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't give a shit who wins, either one will bring us closer to having the lights go out in New York City.

    4. Re:John Galt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been my plan for some time to bail to Mexico and become a drug lord if things get too bad here. Maybe I'll join you instead.

    5. Re:John Galt by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

      Lets go to the frontier!!! :-)

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
    6. Re:John Galt by codemaster2b · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, you'd get all of them. When I read that passage for the first time myself, I saw that today's society does exactly this with laws.

      --
      And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
    7. Re:John Galt by erlenic · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for that to take off. If I had the money I'd push it along.

    8. Re:John Galt by wintermute009 · · Score: 1

      My question: where? Besides, Obama himself isn't going to bring a socialist revolution. It'll take a while.

    9. Re:John Galt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shrugs and walks away.

    10. Re:John Galt by Cryolithic · · Score: 1

      Fuck is only profane if you want to give it power. If you look at it as a word that is used for emphasis then it is no longer profane.

    11. Re:John Galt by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      The folks flaming each other over, "My guy is better than your guy," should consider Ambrose Bierce's observation regarding politics:

      "Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."

      Neither party has any interest in anything but getting and maintaining power. That some spoils go to their duped supporters is just part of the price of obtaining power.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    12. Re:John Galt by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Alan Greenspan is an admirer of Ayn Rand, and based his economic models on the assumption that the selfish aspect of man must be encouraged, that free and unregulated markets would bring about prosperity and a purer form of democracy than government could ever manage. Greenspan was so convincing that he sold this lemon to Bill Clinton back in 1992. While being questioned by Congress about the housing credit fiasco and the subsequent meltdown, Greenspan confessed that "there was a factor he did not consider in his models". Which one is that, he was asked? "The human factor", he answered.

      Ayn Rand's ideas are quaint relics of the Cold War, when the western political climate attempted to counterbalance the ideals of the Soviet system, which instead of liberating the population from tyranny, oppressed them worse than before. Well, now that the Soviet Union has gone the way of the dodo, surely it's time to put away Rand's ideas as overly simplistic.

      Yeah, I read and loved Fountainhead and Atlas back in college, now I see the huge gaping holes in the ideas of those books.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    13. Re:John Galt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could the free unregulated market have failed? It's never been tested.

    14. Re:John Galt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did that come from? I want to read more.

    15. Re:John Galt by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      What Greenspan missed was the power of the looters. Rand laid it all out. The biggest villains in the book were the type of people that brought our markets to its knees. If Greenspan missed this part of "the human factor", then he either hasn't read Atlas Shrugged closely, or he just ignored the parts that would implicate his friends.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    16. Re:John Galt by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      What I find hilarious are the online calculators that will tell you how much you will save/lose depending on whose tax plan is implemented. We have finally devolved to the point where robbing the treasury to buy votes is laid out in the open and no one even pauses to openly question it.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    17. Re:John Galt by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      And what's truly side splitting are all of the people who take the campaign promises regarding such matters as gospel. Either candidate can propose a tax plan to Congress once elected but what comes out the other end of the "legislative process" (Congresscritters looking out for their vested interests) will not look at all like what was proposed; let alone what is now being promised now.

      Oh well. I guess that's why enough of the Nigerian 419 scams are successful that someone keeps trying them. Lots of people think they can get something for nothing.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    18. Re:John Galt by codemaster2b · · Score: 1

      I understand what you mean. Pragmatically speaking, words are only profane if we chose for them to be. I need a better sig anyway. Haven't changed it in years

      --
      And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
    19. Re:John Galt by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll discuss.

      If you think you belong in Galt's Gulch, and that the world is a parasite leeching off your wealth and greatness, please, please, please, dear God please find yourselves some small remote valley where you can celeblate your collective awesomeness together.

      Take whatever you need to make a comfortable life for yourselves there. Stay secluded, or trade with the parasites of the outside world as you like. We'll leave you entirely alone.

      Just don't come back until the world collapses and we beg you to come back and save us with your brilliance.

      I'm sure it will happen within months.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    20. Re:John Galt by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Ayn rand is to political philosophy what Hannibal Lecter is to reconstructive surgery. There's clearly some talent there, but it's being applied improperly.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    21. Re:John Galt by lennier · · Score: 1

      "When I read that passage for the first time myself, I saw that today's society does exactly this with laws."

      Unfortunately what Rand forgot is that the commercial world does exactly the same thing with *contracts*, and that the words coming out of Ferris' mouth would, in our world, actually be coming out of Reardon's. (Or Ballmer's, or Jobs'.)

      You want to live in this country? You swear to uphold our law. You want to rent on my street? You sign the rental agreement. You want to plug your device into our network? You sign our service level agreement. You want to run our software? You click the shrinkwrap EULA.

      And plenty of EULAs today make everyone criminals.

      Except you get to vote on the law, and you don't get to vote on the SLA or EULA. With both states and companies, you can always vote with your feet by moving - but the lock-in cost can be sizeable for both, and that's where the potential for abuse lies.

      Rand was so blinded by her vision of the idealistic, scientific, saintly egoist corporate god-man, that she forgot that both lawmaking and contract-writing are rulesets which can be gamed equally well -- and are -- by the same ruthless men. If you're driven by pure egoism with no sense of responsibility to others, it's just good business, after all, to get the best kind of deal you can, ethics be damned.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    22. Re:John Galt by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      So, what part of believing in only rational, objective reality is a "quaint relic[s] of the Cold War?"

      It seems that you think Rand's ideas are only the plots of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." Those were novels to illustrate her ideas; nothing more. Read some of her essays on rational objectivism before you dismiss her ideas. You might be surprised.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    23. Re:John Galt by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

      And what, pray tell, are those huge gaping holes?

  7. Obama by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama- He's my pick. He might seem socialist- but I don't think anybody can top ol' G.W. these days. I personally want what's good for society. After the past 8 years of crapping on society, killing the economy, and ruining our constitution- it's time for a change. I don't see that change in McCain.

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  8. Obama - A template for future US politics? by Marx_Mrvelous · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm voting for Obama and proud of it. How often do you get a chance to support a candidate that not only uses technology to its fullest potential, but also runs a positive campaign based not on mudslinging and personal attacks, but on a REAL platform?

    --

    Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
    1. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FWIW, the reason Obama wasn't that directly critical of the Republicans was because their failures are so manifest after 8 years of a Bush presidency. If things were as bad as they are, Obama like any merely human politician would probably have done a fair amount of mudslinging himself to rally people to his side.

    2. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Ogive17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Put down the kool-aid. While I agree that Obama ran a better campaign than McCain.. "technology to its' fullest".. Ok, he embraced the internet and txt messaging.. hardly taking it to the limit.

      From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

      REAL platform? That statement is rediculous. His platform is no more real or fake than any other candidate. Just because you agree with it more than McCains doesn't make it more real. In fact I think Obama's platform of "change" can be a bit vague at times and I think he's biting off more than he can chew.

      I was going to vote for Obama, but the scores of mindless drones has really turned me off. I'm off to vote in about 20 minutes, I think I'll throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    3. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A real platform of what? All I've ever heard him talk about is abstract "change" with no specific plans, and his voting record is generally not what I'd agree with. I haven't voted yet--what change, exactly, can I expect from him?

    4. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by altoz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      positive campaign? i really hope you're kidding.

      i've never seen so much vitriol from the left in my lifetime... especially against sarah palin. at least by my count, below-the-belt attacks were at an all time high.

      you may say that "hey, obama's not responsible"... but guess what? his surrogates went on tv talking about the negatives just as fervently as the right.

      before you flame me as a right wing nut, know i'm a registered democrat.

    5. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by jejones · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "...a candidate that not only uses technology to its fullest potential..."

      Yeah, like turning off all the validity checking on credit card donations via his web site to facilitate illegal donations.

    6. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm voting for Obama and proud of it. How often do you get a chance to support a candidate that not only uses technology to its fullest potential, but also runs a positive campaign based not on mudslinging and personal attacks, but on a REAL platform?

      Look at the rallies and campaign stops. Generally speaking, the candidate's support appears to be divided along generational lines - for white people. Young people fill the Obama rallies and old people fill McCain's. Yeah, there's some younger folks voting for McCain and some old folks voting for Obama.

      At my gym's locker room, I overheard some old guys (McCain is only 72 years old! What's the big deal about his age!) say that they respect Obama and his intelligence but they don't want to vote for the dark guy. They actually said dark fellow - no 'N' word; which surprised me since I'm in the South. I guess I'm prejudiced that way.

      Oh yeah, my point. It's not really the technology; it's more that young people relate that way. The next presidential race will probably be fought with pod casts and text messages over phones.

    7. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How often do you get a chance to support a candidate that not only uses technology to its fullest potential, but also runs a positive campaign based not on mudslinging and personal attacks, but on a REAL platform?

      Dunno, but that sure as hell doesn't describe either of the major candidates in 2008...

    8. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can expect your taxes to change to be higher (once Bush's tax cuts expire, Obama forgets to mention that when talking about his tax plans) and you can expect your pay to be lower as Obama raises taxes on the people that actually employ the vast majority of Americans.

      Beyond that, we'll still be in Iraq, the economy will still be in the crapper, the rest of the world will still hate us, and we'll still be under the threat of terrorists.

    9. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh of course you're voting for Obama, Marx Mrvelous, you pinko! Allow me to dismiss your otherwise very sensible points on ideological grounds by labelling you a baby-eating socialist. You're welcome.

      Sincerely,

      Joe the Witch-Hunter.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    10. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 0, Troll

      >> especially against sarah palin... below-the-belt attacks were at an all time high

      Yeah, Obama really licked her below the belt.

    11. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Informative

      but on a REAL platform?

      Unfortunately, like McCain, his "REAL platform" has no common foundation. They each have cherrypicked arbitrary voting blocs, and because there are no common principles behind these choices, they are left to resort to pragmatism: getting by one day at a time, guided only by the magnitude of the complaints coming from various groups.

      This is not sustainable. Until we get a candidate that actually supports those "certain inalienable rights", we're going to continue to limp toward our downfall.

    12. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is."

      It isn't negative campaigning to point out the party, and its President, you are running against has completely sucked for 8 years. If the Republican's don't like that...... they shouldn't have sucked so bad for the last eight years. Its entirely their own fault they are losing, they had their chance, they controlled all the levers of power.... and they blew it. That is the whole idea of a campaign against an unpopular incumbent. Unfortunately for McCain he does in fact support the lion's share of things Bush did with the possible exception of torture, profligate spending and a mismanaged war. Though he originally opposed the Bush tax cuts for the rich, for the obvious reason that they created staggering deficits, he has since flip flopped and has been running on a campaign to make them permanent.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 3, Funny

      You right wing nut with an identity crisis!!

      (I kid I kid) ;)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    14. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I am glad it's over. It was unbearable to listen to NPR and C-SPAN during last n months (only those two channels on my car radio (almost) do not use music).

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    15. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Red+Jesus · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the reason Obama wasn't that directly critical of the Republicans was because their failures are so manifest after 8 years of a Bush presidency.

      OK, fair enough. So why didn't he sling mud at Hillary?

    16. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Ditto. Except technology use was a gimmick. Obama may appear to have been technologically savvy, but in reality it was his much younger volunteers...

      Besides technology has very little to do with the Presidency. It's not like Obama is going to text message the world leaders and say "OMG Did you see the invasion on Youtube? We PWNED them, LOL!"

      Anyway, McCain as a person is a *much* better choice for president. However, I could not see myself rewarding a corrupt GOP party with another 4 years of executive power.

      If McCain was really a "Maverick" he would not have (1) listen to the dumb asses who ran his campaign, (2) allowed them to talk him into picking a prim madonna redneck from Alaska as his running mate, (3) ran as an independent (why not? it's not like the GOP really funded his campaign.), and (4) not allow the dumb asses to start the usual GOP mud slinging that McCain himself thought was dishonorable during his previous attempt to become president.

      The press has mentioned (many times) that McCain has taken the high road during his campaign, while those around him have not. McCain may have just learned a valuable lesson - It's not only who you are, but also who you choose to associate with..

      Who knew running a campaign based on issues and not with just talking points like "Maverick" or "Fighter" would win an election?

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    17. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      The biggest thing I hated about the McCain Campaign is their use of Fear. They wanted people to be afraid. Afraid of Obama, afraid of 'The Middle East', afraid of Russia and China. "Be afraid!" was the message, "Obama will raise your taxes and kill your business and he'll take all your money and give it to illegal immigrants!".

      It's bullying, plain and simple. Keep people afraid and they will follow you.

      Obama's message was more of hope, "Hey, we're in a shitty situation but we can make things better."

      In any case, whoever does win this has such a shithole to try and help get this country to climb out of, I do not envy them.

    18. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      at least by my count, below-the-belt attacks were at an all time high.

      Can you elaborate? What do you consider to be "below-the-belt"? People mocking her when she said stupid things? People pointing out her lack of experience and knowledge? People laughing at her un-presidential mannerisms and speech?

      Some people command respect. Palin isn't one of them.

    19. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good luck with that. I really hope that Obama's presidency comes out as good a people think it will. I'm not so sure myself. I just don't see where Obama will have any near the level of support in congress to pull off his plans. He just hasn't been a political animal long enough.

      I remember Jimmy Carter. He came in with pretty much the same promises that Obama has. Problem with him, like Obama, is he didn't have the political clout to pull it off. What we had was pretty much a lame duck in the Whitehouse for 4 years. That is what I see Obama's presidency is going to be about.

      For the record I'm throwing my vote in with the libertarian party this time around.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    20. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, he embraced the internet and txt messaging.. hardly taking it to the limit.

      Don't forget the iPhone app. It was quite well done, and a top downloaded app for a while.

    21. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      FYI, I think you meant to say "prima donna", although I think the phrase "prim madonna" is very cool and quite apt, too.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    22. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by grub · · Score: 1


      especially against sarah palin. at least by my count, below-the-belt attacks were at an all time high.

      If Obama were to kick Palin below-the-belt he'd break his ankle on her cock.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    23. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least by my count, below-the-belt attacks were at an all time high.

      Can you elaborate? What do you consider to be "below-the-belt"? People mocking her when she said stupid things? People pointing out her lack of experience and knowledge? People laughing at her un-presidential mannerisms and speech?

      Here's a below-the-belt comment. Most Slashdot comments aren't quite that bad, but of course there's a whole spectrum of vileness. I've seen things just as bad posted about Obama. On the internet this year, it's been nasty all around.

      Some people command respect. Palin isn't one of them.

      I guess my views are more like Barack Obama's than yours: "Every human being deserves to live with dignity and respect." -- Barack Obama

    24. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, but I don't agree with his platform. I'm not going to vote for the guy just because he doesn't insult the other candidate. Voting for someone just because they are nice to the other candidate is in fact validating the traditional smear tactics of politics. If I could prove you candidate wasn't a nice person, or provoke your candidate into a display of mudslinging then I would win. Its sort of a paradox.

    25. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Nice catch! I need coffee... coffee... (zombie voice)

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    26. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Mr Anonymous,

      ok, are you are seriously sourcing your below-the-belt comments from Slashdot? Have you checked 4chan? You might find some there too.

      With regards to your second comment, that is a different kind of respect, and you know it. I am specifically referring to respect as a figure of authority.

    27. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

      For me as an outsider (I'm Belgian), McCain actually seemed to try really hard to look like Bush Jr - which makes that statement look more like fact than mudslinging.
      The fact that so many of you see it as negativity goes to show how much G.W. Bush ruined politics for those who believe in small government. I get the distinct feeling that McCain could have won the election if he hadn't been pandering so much to the NeoCon side all of a sudden. Of course, he wouldn't have made it through the primaries if he didn't. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
      I was actually firmly on Obama's side until I saw a balanced documentary on the both of them, and now I understand why the race is close. McCain actually stood for something in his previous bid.

    28. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

      Well let me clue you in, then.

      "John Kerry didn't really earn his Purple Heart or Silver Star" is negative, inherently so, it calls into question his honestly, character and valor.

      "John McCain is unstable, and possibly insane, due to his time as a POW during Vietnam" is negative, inherently so, as it takes an example of the man's tremendous courage and turns it into a negative, questioning his very sanity.

      Compare those to "John McCain is an extension of G.W. Bush's Presidency", that's only negative if you happen to disagree with Bush's policies -- oh which the vast majority of American's do, thus McCain's attempts to distance himself from the man -- but is vastly different than the other examples. It's technically worded as a negatively, but it's no different than saying "I think my opponent's policies are bad for the country", which is what you would want a candidate to be saying in an issue- and policy-based campaign.

      "Going negative" is when you try to smear their character for things other than their political record. Bush did it hardcore to Kerry and to McCain. Obama has by and large avoided it. McCain started off without doing it, but at the extremely poor advice of his advisors decided to start doing it late in the campaign, with the result that he actually turned voters away who are sick of it. This "mindless droning" may turn you off, but that's what the polls show. See, even if you don't see the difference between "Your policies are like George Bush's" and "you pal around with terrorists", most Americans can, and that's part of why Barack Obama is going to be our next President.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    29. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Evidently Safari uses iTunes for spell checking...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    30. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I don't know about anyone else, but the "mav'rick" thing really bothered me. Who describes themselves as a "maverick"? It's a term you apply to other people. It's like describing yourself as a "genius" or a "natural leader".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    31. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by BradleyAndersen · · Score: 1

      Running a positive campaign can not be understated here. It will mean a big deal if people see beyond the mud-slinging and use their brains. Maybe instead of being just an "idea", we can make the USA an actual place on the map.

    32. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Hey, sometimes the truth can be negative too.

      That being said, I hope you "wasted your vote" on Barr.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    33. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Rageon · · Score: 1

      It isn't negative campaigning to point out the party, and its President, you are running against has completely sucked for 8 years.

      It is if the person you are accusing of being "just like Bush" is the most independent minded Republican Senator (at least among those with some real pull in the Senate).

    34. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by blitzkrieg3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

      I'm going to have to say you don't know what negativity is.

    35. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      [quote]It isn't negative campaigning to point out the church, and its Pastor, you are running against and with all the terrorists he has hung out with .[/quote]

      There fixed that for you.

      Except, I'm sure that you'll give O a pass, while still believing GWB is evil. If McCain had ONE of the weird "associates" that Obama has had, it would have been the one and only story till he had to drop out. Simply amazing that nobody on the left cares about who BO's associates are.

      And it is interesting how they left goes after Joe the plumber, Palin and all, with a hatred and vitriol that is unsurpassed in my recent memory. I even heard one left wing radio talk show guy spew that he wished Joe dead.

      If you line up all the left wing loons I can't believe anyone is actually voting for the guy.

      Not that I'm voting for McCain either, because I'm not for either of the top two guys. He's no better than GWB in my opinion. I can barely stand the guy I'm voting for, but I know he can't be elected, so there is some consolation in that!

      The sad state of affairs is such that these are the two best we've got? There's nobody better?

      YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    36. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      McCain stated that torture was necessary in the war on terror to get Bush's support for the election.

      That act alone convinced me that he was willing to sacrifice everything to win, and that he is clearly not fit to lead.

      He's not just an ex-soldier, he's an ex-POW. When he said that torture was ok, he turned his back on every soldier he ever served with and disgraced them and their efforts. He has brought shame to everyone who has ever fought for anything they believed in. And the worst part is he doesn't seem to regret it at all.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    37. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by stanltaaf · · Score: 1

      I agree with the "Put down the Kool-Aid" comment. Some of the most radical growth in spending has been during the last 4. I point out here the legislators in the majority during that time period have not been the "Republicans". Ok, you can mod me as a troll if you like, and please read on if you like, maybe that will mean more people will read... An olive branch here - I think we're all losing here. I think we've been duped into thinking that we need either party. I don't support libertarians/etc. I just think that we've been brainwashed into fearing the last 8 years, or someones 'associations'. Bottomline, I don't like Mc-Pain's grinning or smirking. It makes me think he's a know-it-all. I don't like the Senator from Illinois' track record, either. There are none without cause to doubt their motives in this scenario. I'm for change. I just don't think that's in the fine print right now.

    38. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am no supporter of either candidate. I think neither will actually make a difference. However, in your statement you make the claim that the republicans have done all of this harm(controlling the levers of power). You fail to mention(or possibly understand) that the democrats have controlled the senate for an extended period of time now. They've done just as much harm as the republicans, if not more.

    39. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by huckamania · · Score: 1

      I'd like to say that I'm looking forward to the sitcoms based on an Obama presidency like 'Little Barack' and 'That's my Obama'. I'm also looking forward to the sequel to 'Death of a President' and Oliver Stone should find lots of great material for his next movie 'O', I wonder who will play Ayers and Wright. Somehow I doubt we will see crap like that during an Obama administration.

      I wonder how his supporters will react when the new Commander in Chief is compared to a Monkey and routinely called stupid by the press, as if that would ever happen.

      Bush never had a shot and the liberals in this country never missed a cheap shot. The only good that will come of an Obama presidency is that the Democrats will not have any excuses when their policies completely fail.

    40. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If McCain isn't to be associated to the catastrofic republican administation, who else would be?

    41. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Zader · · Score: 1

      I was going to vote for Obama, but the scores of mindless drones has really turned me off. I'm off to vote in about 20 minutes, I think I'll throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate.

      Personally I was going to vote McCain prior to his VP pick, but I threw my vote in with the Libertarians since I don't want a religious fruitcake (i.e. Palin) so close to the white house. I didn't want Obama in the white house for numerous reasons but I just couldn't stomach voting for McCain. I think he shot himself in the foot with his running mate.

    42. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by zifferent · · Score: 1

      I just don't see where Obama will have any near the level of support in congress to pull off his plans. He just hasn't been a political animal long enough.

      Yeah that impending Democratic majority in the House and filibuster proof majority in the Senate won't help at all. Oh and I don't think you got the memo, but Obama's been planning this presidential run for four years now, and under the tutelage of Dashle has been helping out almost everyone in the Democratic party (particularily with fund raising, is it any wonder he's become so good at it?) Doing that he's built up a mountain of favors over that time.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
    43. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 0

      but on a REAL platform?

      Honestly... what did he REALLY tell you when:

      a) when he voted in favor of the largest payout in US history? this was an across the board tax on every tax-paying American. So he voted to increase taxes with 400 pages of "sweeteners" to turn around reduce them in a year?

      b) when REAL questions were asked, his campaign "locked out" certain media? There are heat::kitchen and Obama::cover-up references here somewhere.

      c) he "wrote a letter" no one has ever seen or commented on? Well hell, that's effective post-mortem leadership isn't it? We'll hear from him in 2 years that he "wrote a letter" to OBL asking him to please stop making the US cry.

      His REAL platform is a joke (IMHO), and unfortunately a majority of American voters were looking for entertainment instead of issues and pressing questions. They hype pre-debates wasn't issues, it was "who is going to start the mudfest" first.

      Disclaimer: The 2 party system is an epic_fail. There needs to be a way to put REALLY smart people in position of power, and not just slick talking, heavily funded snake-oil salesmen. I won't vote for either; I think I'll write-in my Father.

      This is REALLY just another sad day for Americans.

    44. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      I can see from my window my 80 year old neighbour taking a shower everyday. I'm an expert in geriatrics !

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    45. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 1
      Oh what the hey, I have karma to burn.

      If the Republican's don't like that...... they shouldn't have sucked so bad for the last eight years. Its entirely their own fault they are losing, they had their chance, they controlled all the levers of power.... and they blew it.

      "The Republicans" shouldn't have sucked so bad? If by "The Republicans" you mean George Bush and co., then you need to re-evaluate your terminology here.

      The thing is, I understand that Republicans are being thrown under the bus with dubya because of party affiliation, but why does Obama bin Biden (see what I did there?!) keep trying to run a smear campaign calling McCain Bush Jr? I've seen the commercials...

      Obama isn't just "pointing out the party, and its President, you are running against has completely sucked for 8 years." He is saying that McCain IS President Bush, and McCain will suck like Bush by proxy.

      That said, I think both choices suck balls, and I'll be voting independent.

    46. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I just don't see where Obama will have any near the level of support in congress to pull off his plans. He just hasn't been a political animal long enough.

      Joe. Biden.

    47. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by demachina · · Score: 1

      "is the most independent minded Republican Senator "

      This defense of McCain would have worked in 2000. I would have voted for him in 2000. Unfortunately he has abandoned so many of his principles in the last four years to win the Republican nomination he is a pale shadow of his former independent self. Can't really blame for this. He had to do it because he had to get a nomination from a party that is now officially nuts and is dominated by nuts. I feel for him, he was put between a rock and hard place. He had to sell out to get the nomination. In the process of selling out he completely lost the support of independents and moderates he had to get to win the election.

      He sucks to be him in 2008.

      --
      @de_machina
    48. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

      The simple fact that you see pairing McCain and Bush as "negativity" says a whole lot.

    49. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by demachina · · Score: 1

      Nice troll. I probably shouldn't bite but I can't resist....

      First off here is an interesting juxtaposition:

      "It isn't negative campaigning to point out the church, and its Pastor"

      and

      "And it is interesting how they left goes after Joe the plumber, Palin"

      Have you seen the YouTube video of the minister in Palin's church standing behind Palin casting out witches. Do you know exactly how extreme and fringe Palin's Pentecostal church is? Do you know the positions of HER minister, Larry Koon? Palin's church is on par with Wright's for being nuts in the eyes of a lot of people. Not me because I seriously don't care what happens in Palin's or Obama's church as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

      Has the Obama campaign said ANYTHING about Palin's church? Not to my knowledge. A person's religious preference shouldn't really have anything to do with a campaign as long as they don't bring it in to the campaign themselves. This is a basic part of separation of church and state and religious freedom in this country. For just about every religion in this country you will find some large group of people who think its nuts for one reason or another. If you are going to have a country with religious freedom and diversity you need to refrain from being intolerant and obsessive on the subject or its going to look like you are playing "my religion is better than your religion".......Archangel Michael.......

      Only thing that bugs me about this country is its basically impossible for anyone who isn't a Christian to get elected to any important office. It used to be you had to be Protestant before Kennedy broke the taboo on Catholics. Its very hypocritical to claim you live in a country with separation of church and state, and religious freedom but you have to pass a religous litmus test to hold political office.

      As I recall when Palin first ran for mayor she ran on an anti abortion campaign, against an incumbent with a Jewish sounding name who was mostly an indifferent Lutheran. She won almost entirely by bludgeoning him with her religion, with a whiff of antisemitism mixed in. Her minister has some pretty antisemitic positions so does that mean Palin is antisemitic. By your reasoning, yes it does. If so she is screwed winning the Presidency because AIPAC has a lot of political power in this country and will do everything in their power to keep an antisemite from winning.

      --
      @de_machina
    50. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Then your media coverage is pretty biased, because McCain has done all he could the last few months to distance himself from Bush/Cheney. There was a pretty funny skit on Saturday Night Live (not sure if you're familiar with this show) where Will Ferrel came back to play Bush, and Cheney was doing everything he could to get Bush to not endorse him.

      McCain of 2000 probably would've won against Obama pretty easily.. but you're right, he did pander himself out to the NeoCons and that's why Obama will win today.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    51. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      I would have actually considered voting for an independent McCain/Lieberman ticket.

    52. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      So Obama comparing McCain to Bush is a positive thing?

      Who does everyone seem to hate right now, George W. Bush. Who would you compare your opponant to if you wanted to give them some negative publicity.. George W. Bush. Before Obama had any REAL ideas for the change he promised, he was trying to connect McCain to Bush. While some of the comparisons were deserved, I think for someone running a "positive campaign" it was a pretty lame first step.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    53. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by massysett · · Score: 1

      From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

      How is that negativity, when McCain himself has said, forcefully and repeatedly, that he has voted with the Bush administration 90% of the time and has faithfully carried out Bush policies?

      http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/mccain-2005-vs.html

      Quite clearly Obama and McCain simply agree that McCain is a fervent backer of Bush. It's not negative of Obama to point this out.

    54. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      That is a fine and good but all the favors and ass licking won't mean squat if he fucks up the first 100 days. Both the Dems and Reps will simply ignore him if he doesn't get anything done in that time. I'm not ready to rule out the obama presidency yet but he still as all the signs of a lame duck to me.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    55. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

      It is if the person you are accusing of being "just like Bush" is the most independent minded Republican Senator (at least among those with some real pull in the Senate).

      How is voting with President Bush more than 90% of the time(McCain's own words) being the most independent minded?

    56. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not questioning who you voted for but his campaign has run some serious negative mudslinging ad in my home state, doesn't make me support him anyless, just saying.

    57. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Bush is bad, but is NOTHING next to his predecessor. Let's review Clinton's stunning achievements for a moment:

      -Attempted transition from humanitarian aid to nation-building in Somalia, resulting in the deaths of 19 US Soldiers on 3 Oct 93 because the Clinton administration didn't think they needed armor or heavy equipment.
      -Murder of 86 American citizens at Waco, and two more at Ruby Ridge.
      -The fiasco that was HillaryCare.
      -Massive expansion of the ECHELON data-mining system.
      -The totally unconstitutional Assault Weapons Ban.
      -Claimed authority to conduct warrantless searches and wiretaps.
      -Communications Decency Act - massive attempt to censor the Internet.

      More to the point, despite his desperate attempts to make it appear so, Sen. Obama is not running against George Bush, and nor are the many, many Democrats running nation-wide that insist on equating their opponents to the President. Seems half the words that come out of Sen Biden's or Sen Obama's mouth these days are "failed Bush policies," and it's getting real annoying...

      I'll be glad when this election is over.

    58. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by demachina · · Score: 1

      ""The Republicans" shouldn't have sucked so bad? If by "The Republicans" you mean George Bush and co., then you need to re-evaluate your terminology here."

      The "Republican's" nominated and elected the man TWICE. I'd give them a pass on 2000 but by 2004 it becoming pretty obvious what he was. The Republican party overwhelmingly supported him when he was popular, and didn't stop supporting him until his popularity plummeted among independents, moderates and the mdia.... which is extremely convenient. They really didn't turn on him until everyone else did, mostly in the wake of his incompetent handling of Katrina and Iraq around 2005.

      I will grant you there are a lot of good people in the Republican party, and they used to have some good ideas about small government. The fact is those people are fleeing like rats from a sinking ship, and the Republican party was taken over by a bunch of extremists. Bad for them there aren't enough of them left to win a national election any more. Bad for them they've turned themselves in to a far right, fringe party with Sarah Palin as their future standard bearer.

      This is bad because American's want a fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, small government party to vote for and there isn't one. We have a socially fanatic party that spends like a drunken sailor, and another party that also spends like a drunken sailor.

      --
      @de_machina
    59. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you don't have to "throw it away" -- I don't know about your state, but in PA we have the option to vote for "choose not to vote". I've run into several people who say they aren't voting because they don't like either candidate. A vote for nobody is better than not voting at all. (it also accurately reflects your opinion on the candidates)

    60. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the reason Obama wasn't that directly critical of the Republicans was because their failures are so manifest after 8 years of a Bush presidency.

      Good point. Sarah Palin was similar. There was no need to air attack ads about her. Sometimes it's better to just let people keep on talking and let them make fools of themselves. Not only was Palin a gift to satirists, she was the gift that kept on giving.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    61. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If obama wins this election, whats he going to run on in 2012?

      "THIS IS NO TIME FOR CHANGE!"

      Motherfucker loves change, though

    62. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Cheetahfeathers · · Score: 1

      You can expect your taxes to be higher... if you make more than $200k as an individual, or more than $250k as a couple or business. This lowers taxes on the vast majority of Americans that buy from the various companies in the country. Giving tax breaks to corporations goes to the CEOs and shareholders. Very rarely do rarely do corporations employ more people as a result of having more money. They're in the business of making money, not employing people.

    63. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I was going to vote for Obama, but the scores of mindless drones has really turned me off. I'm off to vote in about 20 minutes, I think I'll throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate."

      What a ridiculous reason to throw away your vote. You should vote based on the candidate and their stances, not based on what others around you are doing. There are a lot of sheep out there and you should take pride you're not one of them. :)

    64. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need a campaign of mudslinging when you have the media doing it for you...and you have everyone you've convinced to vote for you mudslinging your opponents.

      MTV is awesome! Rock the Vote!

    65. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by daoine_sidhe · · Score: 1

      I was going to vote for Obama, but the scores of mindless drones has really turned me off. I'm off to vote in about 20 minutes, I think I'll throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate.

      Pick a candidate, and I'll show you supporters of that candidate who are mindless, idiotic, racist, etc. Have the balls to pick the candidate you want, and be honest about why you're picking them. If you don't like any of the candidates, write in someone else or stay home. Stating that you're changing your vote simply because you don't like the "mindless drones" lets the world know that issues mean nothing to you. It's absolutely disgusting that you know that you are throwing your vote away (it wouldn't be throwing your vote away if you actually did support a third party candidate, but that's not what you said), that you're voting for a candidate you don't give a shit about just to what? Make sure you're different then the "mindless drones?"

    66. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      So McCain linking Obama to Jeremiah Wright is not a negative ad? I mean, after all, Obama did attend his church for 20 years so he must have agreed with everything that Wright said.

      Do you understand my point? I think it's a negative ad if you're trying to use a 3rd party's negative attributes to describe the opponant. Not to mention this was the first Obama ad I saw on TV once he got won the Democrat ticket.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    67. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Did you ever consider that he was a Groucho Marxist?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    68. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by sootman · · Score: 1

      From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

      Um... realism? McCain himself announced that he "voted with the president 90% of the time."

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    69. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have an account here - I mostly lurk... so I'll be a coward for now.

      I just want to say that I find your statements refreshing.

      Today I voted for a third party candidate for the very first time not only for president, but also for some other seats in my area including one for senate.

      As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

      I used to believe the argument that you're throwing your vote away if you don't vote democrats or republicans. I wish more Americans would wake up and vote with their heart.

      After a decade of working as a grunt in politics I learned that it really is like world wrestling - its a show. Both democrats and republicans want to do the same thing to us, they only have different opinions on how to get there.

    70. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Put down the kool-aid. While I agree that Obama ran a better campaign than McCain.. "technology to its' fullest".. Ok, he embraced the internet and txt messaging.. hardly taking it to the limit.

      You didn't see the behind the scenes stuff. The cool stuff the volunteers work with is heads & tails above the kind of organization past campaigns have had.

      > From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

      To be fair, McCain DID change his position to toady up to Bush and has done so for the past 3 years. McCain *wasn't* a Bush lackey before that, but he changed. I should know. He's my Senator. He voted against his OWN immigration bill (he wrote the stupid thing).

      I know that IS negativity, but it's not on the same level as calling your opponent a pal of terrorists or persisting in lies that were repeatedly debunked by every single reputable non-partisan fact checker (i.e. bridge to nowhere).

      That said, feel absolutely free to vote your conscience. I don't begrudge you a 3rd party vote by any means. You should vote for the president you want, not the one I want.

    71. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He nominated Palin to mollify the conservative Republican base, without whom the Republicans have very little chance of winning. The Republicans shot themselves in the foot long before the Palin appointment... they shot themselves in the foot when they nominated McCain. Palin is just being used, in fact all conservatives as a group are being used, but few of them seem to care (mostly because they're terrified of what an Obama presidency would do).

    72. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Oh please. If that was really the case MSNBC would have been playing it lead story for the last two months. If that was really the case NYT would have lead story everyday for a week.

      And I would have heard of it. The press is in the tank of BO, and anyone who doesn't see it is a crazy loon.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    73. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      Yes, but does he run Linux?

    74. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by jyurkiw · · Score: 1

      The simple fact that he and his campaign managers were smart enough to buy ads in a number of Videogames and NOT tell anyone about it buys him my vote (if I could vote). It shows an understanding of people in my demographic (and people in general) that the Republicans, frankly, don't have.

    75. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Pointing out the current President's mistakes is not negative campaigning, but calling your opponent names is negative campaigning. (That is, referring to McCain as "Bush Jr." while portraying Bush's policies negatively is negative campaigning, just not quite so direct as calling him a moron.)

    76. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by demachina · · Score: 1

      Let's work through this little list:

      ", resulting in the deaths of 19 US Soldiers on 3 Oct 93 because"

      Kind of small potatoes against the nearly 5,000 dead soldiers and tens of thousands with serious wounds in Iraq, in particular because Bush and Rumsfeld didn't think the Army needed armor on their humvees to ride around streets filled with IED's.

      "-Murder of 86 American citizens at Waco, and two more at Ruby Ridge"

      Yes that was messed up though its still open to debate who started the fire that killed them all. Its 50/50 change it was suicide by fire and Koresh was the murderer. Pretty small potatoes against lying us in to the war in Iraq which has killed hundreds of thousands, Gitmo, Abu Graib, massive spying on Americans without warrants, rendition, water boarding, denying American citizens their basic right to due process etc.

      "-The fiasco that was HillaryCare."

      Excepting of course it never passed and it never was anything other than a legislative and PR fiasco. If it had been actually implemented you might have had something to complain about. Open to debate if it would have been worse than our current system where costs are spiraling out of control mostly to line the pockets of health care and insurance corporations, and the ranks of he uninsured are spiraling out of control because only the affluent can afford insurance now. I wouldn't have voted for Hillary this year because I don't want nationalized health care either. I hope Obama sticks to his word and increases insurance access, and driving down costs, without taxing us all in to the ground to pay for it, but who knows......

      "-Claimed authority to conduct warrantless searches and wiretaps."

      Again totally dwarfed by the two Patriot acts and the Bush administration spying. How can Clinton's be worse other than in precedent, when Bush totally wins on scope.

      You forgot when Clinton left office the budget was in surplus and he was paying off the national debt. Bush doubled it in eight years and will leave us with the largest deficit in history by far next year, especially after a couple trillion in Wall Street bailouts and a severe recession are factored in.

      I kind of feel bad for Obama taking power with this mess because he is going to get a LOT of blame for the disastrous consequences of the Bush administration's incompetence.

      You have a few weak points but your attempt to portray Clinton as worse than Bush failed miserably. Almost no one agrees with you.

      --
      @de_machina
    77. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I get the distinct feeling that McCain could have won the election if he hadn't been pandering so much to the NeoCon side all of a sudden.

      You should disabuse yourself of that feeling. Look back at his poll numbers right before the Republican Convention. Just before he nominated Palin as a running mate, vs right after.

      Regardless of all the talk about independants hate McCain...independants want someone in the center...people are tired of republicanism...blah...blah, the race is nearly a dead heat. Well, it was this morning when I last checked.

      McCain would have been dead in the water if he stuck with his wishy-washy, half-Democrat mantle.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    78. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      McCain started off without doing it, but at the extremely poor advice of his advisors decided to start doing it late in the campaign, with the result that he actually turned voters away who are sick of it. This "mindless droning" may turn you off, but that's what the polls show.

      Which polls would that be? Last I saw, it was still a very tight race, and has closed once McCain finally started showing people who Obama really is.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    79. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      "Religious fruitcake"?

      You dare to use that after both Obama and Biden fighting so hard to proclaim they're Christians?

      Or are you arguing that they're just claiming to be Christians, without actually putting any credence in what Christ taught?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    80. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Besides technology has very little to do with the Presidency. It's not like Obama is going to text message the world leaders and say "OMG Did you see the invasion on Youtube? We PWNED them, LOL!"

      I don't know about that. After some of the other dumbass naive things he has said about international politics (We'll invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden, being the foremost). I could see him doing that.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    81. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Here's an example from Fox, here's one from ABC. Far more people think McCain is running a negative campain than actually give a damn about the Ayers connection. The number of people who care about Ayers are far less than the number of people who say they will vote for McCain; it's reasonable to assume that the one is a subset of the other. More people think McCain has gone too far with the attacks than care about Ayers. The poll tightening is not due to McCain showing people "who Obama really is". People care about issues, it's the economy stupid, not these tenuous connections to slander-by-association.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    82. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      runs a positive campaign based not on mudslinging and personal attacks, but on a REAL platform?

      Oh please. Obama's campaign was often petty and personal too -- see his attacks on McCain's houses and the dirty ad linking McCain to Limbaugh. Obama's REAL platform is peddling "change" and "hope". You might watch the 1972 movie The Candidate.

    83. Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to live a libertarian lifestyle move to Somalia. You'll love it there. Please do it soon!

  9. No problem by Verteiron · · Score: 4, Informative

    Voted in western IL about 20 minutes ago. No lines (but lots of people), 8 polling booths, paper ballots filled out with a marker. A rather menacing-looking Diebold machine increased its displayed tally when I fed it my ballot.

    All in all I hope everyone's voting experience was as painless as mine.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
    1. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A rather menacing-looking Diebold machine increased its displayed tally when I fed it my ballot.

      Did yours grow eyes and try to eat you the closer you got to it too? My Diebold machine slowed down time as I approached it and I spent an eternity inside it. I'm starting to wish I hadn't got bored in line and dropped a whole sheet of acid. Still, after I appeased the machine with the correct vote, the Boob King of Boobopolis did let me wash his large breasted daughter in the boob fountain. Mammaries!

    2. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voted in a small southeastern Wisconsin city this morning. Got in line outside around 6:40am with ~150-200 people- polls opened at 7am.

      Within 5-10 minutes the majority of people were in the building, at which point the nice line became a mob of people running around. Thankfully it was a mild mannered (or sleepy) crowd. Some rushed to their particular ward's lines immediately, others to register, and others to the maps posted on the walls to determine what ward line to get in/register for.

      Although I didn't need to register I did need to change my address, which surprisingly only took a few minutes. The poll worker made one or two small mistakes on the form which were corrected by the woman working with him (school district versus county district, etc).

      With my change of address form filled out and in hand I got into my ward's line. This wait took considerably longer than the other portions, despite the fact that the line was probably 30 people long. Three times I saw people turned away from the front of the line, presumably due to a lack of registration / in the wrong line. One man exclaimed "this is bullshit" before storming off. I don't know if he returned or not.

      When I finally got to the front of the line the woman working there could not identify my pink change of address form (the one filled out by a different poll worker earlier). After consulting with her peers they determined what to do, and wrote my name / voter registration number down and handed me a ballot. This poll worker was a bit rude.

      Glancing around, there were no electronic voting machines. The paper ballot I used had the traditional "fill in the bubble" approach. Although there was a straight line party option, there were no democratic/independent candidates for the majority of seats. There were no referendums to vote on.

      Overall the experience took about an hour. Considering I had to change my address I didn't think that was too unreasonable. A little more training on the part of the poll workers would have been nice. The lack of direction/signs/voter knowledge was obviously resulting in voter frustration. I fear that the situation will become more heated this evening as people leaving work hit the polls.

      On a cosmetic note, the I Voted sticker I received was different than in past elections (has stars/stripes behind the text). It is also considerably different than some coworkers who voted in other districts.

    3. Re:No problem by WDot · · Score: 1

      Voted in NE Ohio early at roughly 7:00am. The poll was in a small elementary school gym. There were relatively long lines given the size of the building, but it only took about 15 minutes for everything to happen. There was a bake sale going on next to the line, which was an excellent idea considering most people hadn't eaten yet. We had completely electronic ballot machines (by Diebold of course), but at this point there's nothing I can do about that. My campus' student government is hosting a party at 8:00pm for everyone to wait to see who is announced President-elect. That might be a fun way to have this whole election over and done with.

      I can't speak for everyone, but considering all the ugly debate that's been going on in my classes and labs, it's nice that the election will end on a positive note.

    4. Re:No problem by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      The Diebold machine over at my polling place was actually quite cute.
      When you fed your paper ballot into the slot, it dinged up a number and said "Your freedom is delicious."

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    5. Re:No problem by booyabazooka · · Score: 1

      Just got back from voting in Fulton County GA. Not a lot of people, no line whatsoever. About 10 Diebold machines.

      Using the machine did not inspire me to put much faith in it. The interface has the look and feel of a Swing application. It takes about half a second to load each page of the ballot, during which you can watch each box render one by one. How can you get such bad performance from a single-purpose device?

    6. Re:No problem by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A rather menacing-looking Diebold machine increased its displayed tally when I fed it my ballot.

      Hang on, I'm confused. You're telling me it told you the current tally of number of votes?? That could seriously influence people's choices.

    7. Re:No problem by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      No no, it just incremented the number of ballot sheets it had been fed. Actually displaying the vote tallies in real time would be insanely illegal, wouldn't it?

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    8. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voted in Jackson, WY (Teton County). Was able to register and vote on the spot. I asked "Do I get a receipt that I voted?" and the poll worker handed me an "I voted." sticker. "There's your receipt."

      I lack confidence that my vote is going to be recorded properly.

  10. I am just glad that it is over! by Mortiss · · Score: 1

    ... now cue the flames.

  11. Vote for CowboyNeal. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    Went fine and no I'm not telling.

    Anyway regardless of whom we get in, I'm more concerned for the after.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  12. My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Fished · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wrote the following for the blog I recently started ... I come at Politics from an Anabaptist (radical Christian from the 16th century) perspective, so I spend more time justifying the decision to vote in the first place than justifying who I vote for. The blog's at <a href="http://digitalscriptorium.info/">http://digitalscriptorium.info/</a> if you're interested.

    --

    So, here we are two days short of the election, and I suppose it's finally time for me to make up my mind. I often waver between three choices rather than the usual two:

    1. I can not vote at all.
    2. I can vote for Obama.
    3. I can vote for McCain.

    Let me state at the outset that my natural predisposition is not to vote at all. That is the choice that I've taken in the last 3 elections, and a goodly part of me wants to continue the tradition.

    Now that I've offended all right-minded and morally straight Christians, in Ameirca and beyond, I hope you'll stick with me long enough to hear why, because my reasoning on this subject will inform my ultimate decision in this election. I believe that, as a Christian, I owe my primary allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and that that allegiance is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of secular government. As Philippians 3.20 says: "our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." I believe that it is no accident that here (as elsewhere) Paul borrows political imagery to describe the church--the church is, in fact, an alternative power structure that should fundamentally subvert traditional power relationships.

    Now, I can already see some who will read this jumping up and down, raising their hands, and dying to say, "but we can be citizens of the kingdom of God and citizens of the United States!" Any second now, someone will bring up Romans 13 and think that they've proved me wrong. The problem with this sort of interpretation is that it reads back the political situation of the 4th century into the first, by assuming that Christian participation in government was a real possibility that Paul envisioned in the first century. Let's be clear here: first century Christians were not the rulers, they were the ruled. The issue at hand in the first century was whether Christians should submit to secular government, not whether they should join it. Paul's admonition to make prayers for kings (1Timothy 2.2) is not given so that they may be successful in their secular purposes, but so that the church may live at peace.

    There is a reason to suppose that this sharp division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is necessary, which is scripturally attested both in secular political science and in scripture. Scripture first:

    Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." (John 18.36)

    Notice the contrast: there are two sorts of kingdoms. One comes from this world, and (we might say by extension) depends on worldly methods, that is, violence. The other comes from somewhere else, and seems to render violence not so much unnecessary as irrelevant. That is scripture's description of the kingdom of God. Contrariwise, scripture describes the politics (or kingdom) of this world in Romans 13, where world rulers are described as the servants of God "to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13.4b) But these wrongdoers are, to Paul, outside the church. Paul elsewhere envisions the church as having its own judicial function, whose sole sanction is expulsion from the church--see 1Corinthians 5.9-6.8. The division in scripture between the kingdom of this world and the earthly kingdoms is wide, deep, and complete. Our sole relation to them is to "render unto Caesar" by paying taxes, which is the real "take-home point" of Roma

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      i believe that, as a Christian, I owe my primary allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and that that allegiance is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of secular government

      Please don't vote, we don't need nutjobs influencing something as important as who governs a country.

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    2. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Crane+Style · · Score: 1

      Interesting to see that someone utilizing Christianity as their reasoning for their vote would vote for someone that blatantly lied to the world about the roots of his Christianity.

      If your religion was that important to you, surely you wouldn't cast your lot with someone that disrespects it so.

    3. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I think its best that religious folks stay home.

      they've done ENOUGH DAMAGE to our political system already.

      'kingdom of god' - what are you smoking?? look around the world, mate; do you see ANY evidence of a christian god here?

      some people simply like fairy tales so much they can't tell that its just not real.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr

    5. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      I somewhat agree with you, save that I think that the state can serve as a certain protection for the furtherance of the kingdom (though should not as an agent); and that God HAS given it the "power of the sword" to enforce laws (which, btw, Paul nor Peter never disputed, even to their own death at the hands of the Romans).

      I think, however, that a VERY good case can be made Biblically for the death penalty, but I respect opinions to the contrary. I side with you on the abortion issue, and that's one of the reasons I voted McCain.

      I think the biggest reason I voted against Obama is that he blatantly is pushing for more government interference and power (health care, fairness doctrine, leftist judges, eminent domain, firearms). I also think that he will attempt to, in a sense, through tax dollars, attempt to tell me where and when I can be charitable.

      That being said, Christ (who dined with sinners) nor Paul ever promoted removal and isolation from secular society, and from what we can tell, took part in it as far as they weren't sinning. We have the ability, and therefore the obligation, to affect secular society in government, but we must ALWAYS realize, as Christians, that real change is affecting the culture through the Gospel, NOT by trying to make sinners not sin through the law.

    6. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, Brother, to all of that. Nice to hear someone who is really able and willing to consider these things. I am afraid many Christians have been bought into support for many murders and wars by lip service for the pro-life position. I am with you.

    7. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by DerCed · · Score: 1

      What the bloody hell? If such trolls are voted "Interesting" on Slashdot, one really loses hope for America...

    8. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then for the love of god, don't vote.

    9. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by stanltaaf · · Score: 1

      I appreciate that you have thoughtfully thought out your position. I sincerely respect it. Can you expand on why you feel that your choice of candidate is trustworthy and therefore deserving of your vote? Is there a way to produce evidence that supports your conclusion? I ask because I too am concerned. I'm concerned that perhaps we're all losers here. I think we've all been duped that we feel like we can really, I mean really trust these folks with the future. I enjoy hearing speeches from the candidate you've chosen. I've been around awhile, heard a lot of promises. That's why I tend to look at past life experiences. I believe that your candidate cares deeply. I'm just not clear on what, exactly. Same goes for most politicians...

    10. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you didn't read the part where he said that you can't be president and actually be a Biblical christian. Also the bit where he said he was concerned with the welfare of the people under the government alone, and not with Obama's personal issues except insofar as they relate to that concern.

    11. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by jasenj1 · · Score: 1

      that real change is affecting the culture through the Gospel, NOT by trying to make sinners not sin through the law.

      Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying this. I am SO sick of Christians who believe we should legislate our morality onto those who don't share our convictions.

      There are limits to this, and it gets sticky. For example abortion. If a person believes abortion is murder, then they should do what they can to oppose state sanctioning of murder. But when it gets to the point of advocating dress codes on beaches (see FL bans on T-back bikinis), I think Christians have gone off the deep end.

      - Jasen.

    12. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      some people simply like fairy tales so much they can't tell that its just not real

      Not that there's anything wrong with that. We all believe fairy tales that make life easier. I choose to believe that people are basically decent individuals and will eventually reach mutually beneficial objectives via consensus and co-operation. He believes that there is an invisible man in the sky who loves him. There isn't much evidence to support either of our fairy tales, but they help both of us participate in society.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      So, here we are two days short of the election, and I suppose it's finally time for me to make up my mind. I often waver between three choices rather than the usual two:

      1. I can not vote at all.
      2. I can vote for Obama.
      3. I can vote for McCain.

      really? so you rabidly hate the other presidential candidates?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_third_party_presidential_candidates

      did you even find out what they stood for?

      Very closed minded of you.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus was a creation of the Roman Empire and Titus Flavius...he's not real

    15. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      You should vote for the Constitutionalist Party since you are both drinking the same kool-ade.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    16. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      I think its best that religious folks stay home.

      I think it's best if intolerant people (regardless of religious affiliation) stay at home.

      they've done ENOUGH DAMAGE to our political system already.

      Religion has nothing to do with how intelligent of a decision someone can make about our leaders. There are Christians who make smart and dumb votes, there are non-religious folks who make smart and dumb votes. Take the Obama-bots, for example. Many of them aren't religious, but will do a great deal of damage to our country today by voting for that man, because they've been sucked in by his false promises of "change".

      some people simply like fairy tales so much they can't tell that its just not real.

      If you want to make such a claim, prove it. Those who claim something is true must present proof, but so must those who claim it is false, especially when they choose to mock others' beliefs based on their claim that those beliefs are false.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    17. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

      someone that blatantly lied to the world about the roots of his Christianity.

      I never heard about that. Could you point to somewhere for more on the subject?

      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    18. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut the fuck up

      civilized discussion

      hypocrite much?

    19. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      No, it's when people label an interesting, well-thought-out and well-written analysis of someone's voting plan as "troll" that one really loses hope.

      Religious intolerance has reached a new low on /. when someone is called a troll merely for talking about their faith. Sad.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    20. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought the principle of democracy was that we need everyone to vote, including those you consider "nutjobs".

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    21. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by jmorris42 · · Score: 0

      > I think its best that religious folks stay home.

      Can't we all just feel the tolerance this asshole is radiating?

      It is fairly typical for a modern leftist. They believe in tolerance for all of their positions and utter hatred of all others. They believe in diversity in as much as they want all races, breeds, sexual variations to all come together and vote for Obama as one.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    22. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're nuts.

      Your religion and its so-called scripture is nothing but the invention of 8th century Hebraic priests added to 6th century Babylonian expatriates and compounded with 1st & 2nd century inventions from Middle-Eastern mystics, finally compiled by 5th century con men. To center your life around such a myth and a fantasy is totally irrational.

      There is no "other world" or "kingdom of god". There is the Universe, that's it, and it is more wondrous than we know and imagine, but it is not beyond our own nature.

    23. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      shut the fuck up

      civilized discussion

      hypocrite much?

      A valid criticism. I choose not to respond civilly to those who are not themselves civil. I've become so sick of /.'s rabid, irrational intolerance for religion that I'm going to bitch at those who practice it, even if it does make me look like an asshole.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    24. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Well, well said. I'm glad to know that there's at least someone else besides me who sees this problem.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    25. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by redscare2k4 · · Score: 1

      +5 Flamebait FTW!!

    26. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by snarfies · · Score: 1

      What about option 4: You can vote third-party? Surely that's better than not voting at all? Sends a much clearer message, too. And there's always an off-chance that if enough others do the same the candidate you voted for might actually win. Surely there's some third party out there whose positions you can agree with...?

    27. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      I too will vote. I, too, consider the two kingdoms separate.

      However, my vote is impelled because of obedience. Our government wants us to vote, if we can. So I will. My church (Roman Catholic) says that I basically must make pro-life a most-important issue, as a "disqualifying" issue. But that includes both fetal cell research (McCain) and abortion (Obama).

      I won't vote on economic issues this election, because I think we've worshipped our economy as a god, and our economy is struck by God, and no president will be able to do any good. If my worst fears (of a Revelations type event) are founded, they might bring the economy "back from a mortal blow", but I don't intend to vote based upon that.

      In the end, my vote is going to be against the way the Republican leadership have abused and used both the religious conservatives and the libertarians, and done so corruptly. My presidential vote will be a write in "Palin", and my VP vote will be a write in "Ron Paul".

      If Obama should barely win Virginia, the Republicans will surely look at the write-ins, and that will give ammo for eliminating leadership like that of John Warner (whose voice called my phone, expressing both support for McCain, and in my opinion, a warm bucket of spit.)

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    28. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought that "render unto Caesar" was Jesus' way of affirming the barrier between church and state, not eliminating it. He's pretty much saying that the government is its own (albeit unGodly) entity and that a person's relationship with God should in no way be referenced in dealings with the state.

    29. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      I'm with you. Though it's an idiocy to say "you can't legislate morality," when that's pretty much most of what we legislate (don't murder, don't steal), there are limitations that are supposed to be there.

      And if we do our "job" as Christians, there becomes no need to try and legislate.

    30. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose to believe that people are basically decent individuals and will eventually reach mutually beneficial objectives via consensus and co-operation. He believes that there is an invisible man in the sky who loves him. There isn't much evidence to support either of our fairy tales

      On the contrary, there is good evidence to suggest you are right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

      The problem is not belief per se, but the unwavering faith that the premise (the existence of god) is absolutely correct.

    31. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I was just thinking: Matthew 17.4

    32. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree with your opinions, but nothing scares me more than Buffett becoming secretary of the Treasury, I don't think there's anyone more fully controled by avarice than him. His public pronouncements are consistently structured to create public support for using the government to personally benefit him. His stance on taxes, is a good example. He's an insurance company and annuities are tax sheltered savings or envestment products (that pay very large fees to insurance companies), so of course he's for higher taxes on the rich (more of them would have to pay him fees.
      His statements on derivatives are as well, the products he's talking about directly compete with businesses he operates in, so of course he'd like to see them regulated out of competing with him, he wasn't arguing that they be operated on the same basis as he is, he wants them banned. He's very bright, and has done an amazing job building a public image, but his business success should be a clue that his financial advice might not be that of a disinterested expert. Related to your point on energy, the only alternative to petroleum will be nuclear or perhaps solar with a much larger investment (think microwave beaming satellites), I haven't seen nearly enough to suggest that Obama will cross with enough of the powerful in his party to push a heavily nuclear agenda, although, you're probably right that he has potential to do so.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    33. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Than we (voters) don't want to hear any complaints about the way things are run. If you do not vote you lose the right to complain.

    34. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 5 for 'Interesting'? That's about the biggest waste of horse manure I ever had the displeasure of laying my nostrils on.

    35. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your religion is a falsehood. Your book is made up.

    36. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, magic

    37. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the first problem I can see with your logical process is that you accept the bible as the source of all truth, which is ludicrous. It's an ancient work of fiction, most of which is wildly inaccurate and all of which is unreliable.

      By framing your argument wholly within biblical passages, as though no other logic is acceptable to you, you attempt to ensure that any philosophical argument involving your views occurs according to your own restrictive rules, giving you a home-court advantage and preventing a real discussion from taking place.

      I can defeat your entire attempt by simply saying this: I disagree with your fundamental principles, and in particular, I would like to affirm that your source of received "wisdom" is utterly false and unreliable, therefore, your entire argument is based on flawed and unacceptable logic.

      Poof.

      Now, before you begin talking about kingdoms in heaven, please begin by proving that God exists, that Jesus existed, that there IS a "heaven" (even though we've been watching the heavens with telescopes for five hundred years and have yet to see so much as a single cherub) and that God actually believes the things you ascribe to him.

      In your analysis, please explain how God can appear to different cultures in such radically different ways.

      If you want a REALLY fun assignment, explain how immortality works when it has been established that our bodies are completely devoured by the soil within ten or twenty years, and there's no physical mechanism that could account for our minds continuing to exist after brain death.

      While you're at it, why not explain how exactly you think people from the 1300's, 1400's, 1500's, 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's would manage to get along with the free-love twentieth century folks that are wandering into your "heaven" right about now.

      How exactly, pray tell, is all that organized up there? Are there dormitory assignments? Segregated neighborhoods? Are all the Mongols given some steppes and non-player characters to kill? What about the Romans, for whom heaven would be a gigantic orgy? How do they get along with the puritans, for whom sex was dirty and disgusting?

      I can't WAIT to hear your answer.

      But I bet you chicken out on me. :)

    38. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      flaw in the reasoning is that more often that not, the parallel that is MEANT by religion (rarely is it meant to be taken literally) is totally lost and any abstraction beyond 'bearded sky wizard' is lost on the population.

      give the population really wrong data and worse yet, have them NOT be able to tell a story from reality and you have major problems.

      witness all the 'us vs them' thinking that religion causes. all the wars DUE to religion, including the current one (at its heart).

      this is not just 'one guy likes vanilla and another likes chocolate'. we don't encourage creationism in schools since its FAULTY THINKING. so why the tolerance for mainstream religion?

      too many people give religion a pass. THAT is the problem. critical thinking is out the window for much of the american public ;(

      some personal choices are socially harmful. religion is one of them. problem is, they 'get you' when you are too young to defend yourself and once the emotion takes hold of you, reason takes a backseat to 'dont you want to live forever?' kind of fake promises.

      religion is a crime since it encourages illogical and actually harmful 'thinking'.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    39. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Voting 3rd-party would be approximately the same as not voting at all.

      And I say that as someone who fully intends to vote for neither Obama nor McCain. I'd rather throw away my vote (and yeah, I'll be making a statement in my choice of candidates, but I don't have any grand delusions about people actually paying attention). I do, however, want to vote on the other ballot issues, so I'll be heading over to the polling place.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    40. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Cowmonaut · · Score: 1

      He's the most rational "nutjob" that has ever posted on Slashdot. He actually knows full well what his beliefs entail, and believes in separation of church and state on religious principals.

      Our country gives him the RIGHT to vote if he so chooses. He chooses to act responsibly and not vote most of the time because of his religious beliefs.

      He chooses to vote this time because even this "nutjob" can see one choice for President MUST NOT be elected.

      An observation: People who are anti-religion seem to make a religion out of discriminating against people that have a belief system. I find that sad.

      Disclaimer: I don't think about religion 98% of the time, but instead try to think how to make life better for as many people as possible. To put it another way, I don't care if you have faith, I don't care if you're atheist. Just be nice to one another whenever possible.

      The irony of God (if the daft bugger did/does exist) is that few have more faith than the atheists, and few act more anti-christian than his most "devoted."

    41. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose to believe that people are basically decent individuals and will eventually reach mutually beneficial objectives via consensus and co-operation. He believes that there is an invisible man in the sky who loves him. There isn't much evidence to support either of our fairy tales, but they help both of us participate in society.

      There is a lot of evidence to support your "fairy tale" of consensus and co-operation.
      There is also a lot of evidence that contradicts it.
      Using all that evidence, we can create models suggesting which people (and when) will engage in consensus and co-operation.

      On the other hand, there is minimal/zero evidence* that supports or contradicts the invisible man in the sky fairy tale.

      *Evidence that supports or contradicts events in [religious text] is not the
      same thing as evidence for or against invisible sky men with supernatural power.

    42. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea: Base your vote or lack there of on reality instead of a book written by drug addicts describing a fiction.

    43. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. Enough said.

    44. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I wish more people understood that concept as you do; I give you +1 Insightful in spirit.

      Far too often, people act like this instead:

      http://xkcd.com/386/

      I'm as guilty of acting like that comic as anyone sometimes, but at least I recognize it ;)

    45. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone out there actually understand the concept you point out here. I give you +1 Insightful in spirit.

      Far too often, people act like this instead...

    46. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You quote Paul. Have you considered what Jesus said to the disciples when questioned about paying taxes? Do you think that your only debt to a free society is your taxes?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    47. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 1

      Well said sir.

      As much as i like to wish for world peace on my birthday and the like, people, please stop being horrible to each other just because you want to play your side of the game a different way. It's just immature, regardless of which irrelevant wing of the political spectrum you think you subscribe to.

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    48. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 1

      If only things were so clear cut, you could just round them all up and have a big heckling party, and they'd fall in a heap and bemoan their bad haircuts and lack of proper breeding.

      Sadly, some leftists aren't like you describe, the world really isn't black and white, and you're actually doing what you're accusing the leftists of doing.. though i guess it's alright, because you never claimed that you (or 'the right', whatever that is.. ) didn't, and i guess the leftists (whoever they are) did. Or maybe that was Jesus.

      Please, i also don't pretend to be tolerating what you're saying (since i'm posting and all) but propagating the hate doesn't help anything.

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    49. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 1

      it's a modus ponens thing.. That is, laws come from morals, not the other way around. You can't just make a law, say that it's the right way to do things, and then expect the other half of the equation to fall into line...

      Well said about doing your/our jobs as Christians.. while i'm not really one myself, i still wish more people (regardless of religion) would follow ol' J.C's golden rule.

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    50. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who's your sky-daddy!

    51. Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) by Scootesti · · Score: 1

      To the Parent and GGP, all I can say is wow, that's some of the most intelligent thinking I've ever read here. You are both clearly well educated and can form your own thoughts; which is worthy of applause (though it's clear that that's not what either of you are looking for) You both understand the world far better than the grabastic atheist religion haters (I'm neither atheist nor an active member of an organized religion) in that you understand that a view of the world is entirely subjective, and that your view isn't what everyone else absolutely must share.

      We've seen far too much of xenophobia in American politics (freedom fries anyone?) There's no room in this world for intolerance. Not at the level of the fundamentalist republicans, who's fundamentals don't rely nearly as much on the Christian beleifs as they would have you believe; What's more of a christian fundamental than "Turn the other Cheek?" And when was the last time the Republicans advocated that? However having said that, there is also no room for those who would bully those who have a belief structure, how are you any better if you bully the bully (or better yet someone who you associate with the bully, because he shares similar beleifs)?

      I do beleive that religion and politics should be separate entities, that doesn't mean that the moral values of somebody's belief structure can't influence them in a positive way.

      That's my opinion, which is subjective, not objective, I don't expect everyone to drop what they're doing and agree with me, I'm just speaking my mind. As a Canadian who was stuck voting for a liar or a bunch of idiots, I can't help but be a bit jealous that we didn't have a candidate who was clearly the leader of the pack.

      Cheers!

      --
      "So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet
  13. Lines by scubamage · · Score: 2, Funny

    As of this morning at 6:50 am there was a line of 2-300 people at our polling place. It makes me happy to see the high turnout, even at that time of day. Now bring on the free ben and jerrys, krispy kremes, and starbucks!

    1. Re:Lines by neoform · · Score: 4, Informative

      My question is this: Why are the lines so long? I voted in the Canadian federal election a few weeks ago, I stood in line for no more than 10 minutes and I'm in a very large riding in downtown Montreal..

      If I was told I had to wait several hours to vote, I'd be very mad.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    2. Re:Lines by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      So there were 2-300=-298 people? Does that mean 298 votes will be missing?

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    3. Re:Lines by scubamage · · Score: 1

      I'm actually not sure. The polling place we were at this morning had maybe 3 people working there. One was guiding people in and out of the poll booths, one was checking IDs, and one was having people sign in the register. Probably had 4 booths total as well. I think there were a couple bottlenecks. At least everyone was in good spirits this morning :)

    4. Re:Lines by dancomfort · · Score: 1

      In south Minneapolis I got to the polls 10 minutes after they opened. The line was 3/4 block long. I waited in line an hour to help make history.

      Our governor vetoed early voting this year; I think it will pass next year.

    5. Re:Lines by andrewd18 · · Score: 1

      Why are the lines so long?

      When you're only expecting 50 percent of the population to turn out, you only hire enough poll workers to handle 50 percent of the population.

    6. Re:Lines by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Well, he said that was at 6:50. My polling place doesn't open until 8:00.

    7. Re:Lines by mckinnsb · · Score: 1

      Because the Elections in America are financed with the following assumption in mind: That not every eligible American will vote on Election Day.

      Not only is this assumption flawed in principle because elections should be financed to allow all people to vote easily regardless of likely turnout percentages, it also seems to be flawed on a mechanical level. However, don't fear - people who wait in the long lines may have water and hot chocolate delivered to them by Obama's "comfort teams" - groups of volunteers who don't campaign or canvas but focus on keeping people in that ballot line. He really did think of nearly everything.

    8. Re:Lines by grub · · Score: 1


      So there were 2-300=-298 people? Does that mean 298 votes will be missing?

      That's called The Diebold Factor The exact formula is known only to those at Diebold and a few high ranking Republicans.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    9. Re:Lines by TBoon · · Score: 1

      I would assume that the long lines are more the exception than the rule. And I guess it's because people have heard stories about long lines, so they turn up early to make sure they get to vote. Obviously there is a big line when everyone comes at the same time, instead of scattered all through the day, like we do in countries where we trust the voting system to actually work the whole day and without major mishaps.

    10. Re:Lines by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Turnouts in American elections are historically rather low. The largest turnouts are for Presidential elections, and those only get maybe a little more than 50%; some other elections get turnouts of 10% or less.

      So we're not prepared for a much larger-than-normal turnout.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    11. Re:Lines by timholman · · Score: 1

      My question is this: Why are the lines so long? I voted in the Canadian federal election a few weeks ago, I stood in line for no more than 10 minutes and I'm in a very large riding in downtown Montreal.

      The long lines you've been reading about were for early voting in the U.S., not the regular election. On Election Day every voting precinct is open and manned, but for early voting you have only a handful of places you can cast your ballot. Consequently, if you wait until the last minute for early voting, you'll be in a long line.

      I've never spent more than 15 minutes in line for a regular election. Frankly all of the people who wasted hours in line last week would have been better off if they'd waited until today to vote.

    12. Re:Lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turnout for the recent Canadian election was historically low.

      Turnout for this US election will be historically high.

    13. Re:Lines by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      My question is this: Why are the lines so long? I voted in the Canadian federal election a few weeks ago, I stood in line for no more than 10 minutes and I'm in a very large riding in downtown Montreal..

      I'm 53; I've voted in (I think) eight UK general elections, about twelve local elections and all three Scottish Parliament elections. I've never queued up - stood in line - to vote in my life. I've worked as a party worker in at least five of those elections, and I've never seen anyone else stand in line for more than a couple of minutes, either.

      Over here we tend to have enough polling booths for the voters.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    14. Re:Lines by Straif · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't understand people from outside the US who don't understand why the lines are so long.

      In Canada our choices fit on a single piece of paper, about the size of a note passed in class, since we only vote for the representative for our ridings. The whole voting process should take about 20 seconds, and thats if you review you decision.

      In the US (and God only knows why) they see fit to vote for everything from the various levels of court judge in the State, sherrifs, prosecutors, congressman, some Senators, dog catcher, any propositions some committee raised enough signatures for and a dozen other political positions in addition to the President.

      Add to all that the fact there is no overriding federal standards for ballots or registrations so that no two districts ballots have to look the same and some polls are doing on the spot voter registration, it's very easy to see why someone who wants to actually vote the full ballot can take a long time.

      Then there's also the fact they have 10 times our population in a smaller geographical size thereby resulting in a much higher concentration of voters per polling station.

      Step 1 to getting all this election mess cleared up is to start staggering some of these election cycles so that not everything falls on super tuesday. Step 2 is to get the states together to try and set some common rules for registration and vote processing. Of course thats asking for a lot because in some cases you get tightwad legislators who just don't want to spend any cash upgrading their systems and in others you get more corrupt pols who prefer to keep the mess they have on hand to make 'fixing' things easier.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    15. Re:Lines by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      They are always long, but this year is a record turnout. Maybe it's the internet, maybe it's the choice (or lack thereof) of candidates, but there are definitely more people voting this year than ever before. In fact, 3 people in my family are voting for the first time this year out of 4. (I think the other isn't voting at all, as usual.)

      Personally, I'm voting because I wish I'd voted in the last election. 4 years of 'Oh man, I should have voted' are enough for me. My parents are voting because they want to make sure a particular candidate is elected. It all ends up the same.

      The line at my center was already about 20 minutes long when I got there 5 minutes before they opened. It slimmed down to about 10 minutes after about half an hour, though. It will probably pick up worse later. The early voting centers in my area were swamped, though. They each served a much wider area, and everyone was trying to avoid the rush on election day.

      Personally, I think they need to work on a way I can vote from the privacy of my own home. In this day and age, there's no reason I should have to physically go somewhere and have someone inexpertly check that I am me and haven't voted already. Someday, maybe the government will catch up to civilian technology.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    16. Re:Lines by autophile · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think they need to work on a way I can vote from the privacy of my own home. In this day and age, there's no reason I should have to physically go somewhere and have someone inexpertly check that I am me and haven't voted already. Someday, maybe the government will catch up to civilian technology.

      What civilian technology is available that will identify a particular person uniquely yet anonymously, is not subject to tampering, and will work for everyone regardless of age? "Voting over teh Intarweb" is not as easy as it sounds.

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    17. Re:Lines by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      Same here just outside of Vancouver. Took me about 15 minutes to vote.(plus another 30 to tour my old high school) I'd suspect that it's because voter turnout in the US will be one of the highest ever. This is the biggest election of our gereration, I'd wager.... We only had a 58% turnout in Canada.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    18. Re:Lines by neoform · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you said except:

      Then there's also the fact they have 10 times our population in a smaller geographical size thereby resulting in a much higher concentration of voters per polling station.

      The population of Canada is far more densely arranged. Everyone crowds into big cities, whereas most of Americans live in small to medium sized cities. Think about it, Toronto has 5.5M people, Montreal has 3.6M people, those two cities alone account for about 30% of Canada's population.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    19. Re:Lines by Floritard · · Score: 1

      Consequently, if you wait until the last minute for early voting, you'll be in a long line.

      Just wanted to say that we arrived 20 minutes after the place opened on Sunday, and ended up waiting 3.5 hours to vote. Florida here. Apparently more early voters turned out than ever before. I guess they just weren't prepared for such interest.

      At least we got indoors before the rain, though it was kind of inspiring to see a block of people standing around with umbrellas for hours just to cast their votes.

    20. Re:Lines by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I waited till today and still got to burn an hour and a half standing in line.

      The problem at least in the process I witnessed is in how voter 'sign in' is handled. Think being split up based on what letter your last name starts with just like when you go to get your schedule at school.

      Now for each of 5 or so sections of names there is *one* person doing lookups in a record book. Except when one person is gone to take a smoke, then you wait, or else hope the next poll worker will grab the book and sign you in.

      It's retardedly slow, especially when (as i saw) you happen to have six people come in with last names that all start with the same letter. So one lady has a line of six people, and the other sign in stations are sitting empty.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    21. Re:Lines by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      True, but I'd be surprised if "analog" voting survives the next 5-10 years. I, for one, will miss it.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    22. Re:Lines by Straif · · Score: 1

      Population is not a true measure of density. In terms of density Toronto is basically just on par with many US cities, both large and small. Montreal, being primarily and island, is actually much more densely populated. (all measures are /square mile).

      Toronto: 10,287
      Philly: 10,882
      Montreal: 11,496
      New York: 10,482
      Miami: 11,483
      Chicago: 12,649
      Ottawa: 791 (4th largest Canadian city)

      These were just randomly chosen as they came to mind.

      So yes, Canadians tend to live in a only a small portion of the country but American cities still tend to be more dense (take from that what you want). So where most of Canada's overpopulation problems are confined to 1 or 2 areas in the entire country, which makes them rather easy to predict and handle from a Federal perspective for such things as elections, it's a much more widespread issue in the States and especially problematic when you have no common standards.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    23. Re:Lines by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Somewhat off-topic, but the polling person told me she didn't need to see my ID. Did she simply recognize me somehow?

    24. Re:Lines by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Programmed correctly, it's easy to take someone's vote and mark their account 'voted' and not actually link the vote to their account specifically. Yes, it's possible to modify that code and not tell anyone, but they could also fingerprint that piece of paper I turned in and have the info as well.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  14. Voted!! by Sporkinum · · Score: 4, Informative

    Small town in Iowa. Polls opened at 7am and I was there at 7:15. Polls were only 3 blocks away at local library, so walked. Seemed like everyone in line was excited to vote. Wait in line took about 15 minutes, voting took about 5. Used paper optically scanned ballot, though there was one electronic voting machine for people who felt like gambling.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    1. Re:Voted!! by lordofthechia · · Score: 4, Funny

      We'll see what the lines are like tomorrow, when it's the Republican's turn to vote! Don't get too cocky yet you crazy liberals!

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    2. Re:Voted!! by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Davenport, Iowa, here. Downtown. Went at ~8:10. No line whatsoever. Fed the ballot in to a Diebold scanner thingy that presumably kept it in a bin underneath. A little uneasy seeing that brand on the box, but at least it wasn't an electronic voting machine.

      I must say, it's nice to vote in a place where it counts. I was in Kansas last time, so my only somewhat meaningful choice was a protest vote for a third party.

    3. Re:Voted!! by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      Voted in Herndon, Virginia, sometime between 7:30 and 8:00 (6:30-7:00, Iowa time). Parking was a breeze because I rode my bike, which got me past all the annoying campaign workers. There was a bit of a line, but I didn't get much reading done. There were what looked to be some exit poll people standing inside the designated "no electioneering" zone (which is outside the school building), and I asked the poll worker if they oughtn't to be chased away. They were. I don't care which side they were on, or if they were news media -- no one should be calling the election until polls close in Hawaii.

      FWIW, there were no Obama signs anywhere along the road on my route out of town. I hope the miscreants get their comeuppance.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    4. Re:Voted!! by ibm1130 · · Score: 1

      See your problem is you actually care about voting. You got up early, knew where your polling place was, you probably had your sample ballot filled out and you followed directions.
      If you roll out of bed at noon, can barely find your own buttocks with both hands, are mininmally literate and unable to fill in the registration form without massive intervention, of course it'll be a trying experience when you go to vote.
      Hell, without minions of the Obomination at your elbow you might end up voting for god only knows who.

    5. Re:Voted!! by jmanforever · · Score: 1

      No problems here in small town Nebraska. Voted just after 8:00 this morning at the local fire station. There was a very short line, and the 4 workers were running things very efficiently, so there was almost no wait... 2 minutes at most. There were 8 stand-up booths, and 2 wheelchair access booths available for voters, as well as 1 electronic voting machine, which had not been booted up, but they said that it could be turned on if anyone wanted to use it. I used the "fill in the oval" optical-scan paper ballots of course, just like everyone else was doing.

    6. Re:Voted!! by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      Another small town in Iowa. Had to drive since it is 7 miles from where I live. Got there at 7:00 and there was a bit of a line but not too bad. Everything went smoothly and my wife and I were back in the car heading to work by 7:20.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
  15. We'll know tomorrow...? by El+Fantasmo · · Score: 1

    We won't know who won the election until the law suits are settled or the inauguration happens first. $0.02

  16. Irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, um, let's see...satellite and aerial photography combined with shrinking wilderness make Galt's Gulch impossible...NEXT TOPIC!

    1. Re:Irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could send all the people who subscribe to Ayn Rand's philosophy to Mars. There's water there.

    2. Re:Irrelevant. by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      See today's other article regarding the capacity of a steganographic channel. My guess is that we'll hide in plain site.

      As for me, the first thing I'll do if Obama wins is research how to "offshore" our savings. I just want to make sure we don't get caught in the "you're too wealthy" trap just because we've lived within our means, saved, managed our debts, etc.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
  17. ha ha ha by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, right. No false accusations at all.

    Good one.

  18. Cthulhu! by CSMatt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why pick the lesser evil?

    1. Re:Cthulhu! by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not for president, but I did vote Cthulhu for one of the other (unopposed) races. Because somethimes, Cthulhu is the lesser evil.

    2. Re:Cthulhu! by s31523 · · Score: 1

      I prefer the evil lesser myself!

    3. Re:Cthulhu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why pick the lesser evil?

      Vote Megatron.

    4. Re:Cthulhu! by houghi · · Score: 1

      Compared to politicians, Cthulhu is the lesser evil.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Cthulhu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're modded as funny, but my wife and I have been talking about the election for the last few weeks and you've just encapsulated my new mantra.

      Eight years ago, I voted for Bush. I didn't like the guy and his "compassionate conservatism" but he seemed like the lesser of two bad choices. I didn't want to "throw away" my vote by voting for the third party candidate whose views most matched mine, because I knew he wouldn't win.

      After the Patriot Act, the massive increase in government spending, and the Iraq war nonsense, I have made a solemn vow: NEVER AGAIN.

      I am never again going to vote for the lesser of two evils. I am going to vote my conscience and vote for the person I believe is the best candidate and to hell with the consequences.

      I'm off to vote in a little bit, and you can bet I won't be casting a vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum.

    6. Re:Cthulhu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's the lesser of 2 evils.

    7. Re:Cthulhu! by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      And pencil in J.R. "Bob" Dobbs while you're at it!

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    8. Re:Cthulhu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, unleash the Shuggoth so that they might envelope and destroy that lesser evil which is the politician! Let the Fishmen rise up from the sea to destroy the lesser coruption's of the political party's. Why should we fear each other when fear itself dwells dead but dreaming in R'lyeh! Let the stars align tonight! Cthulhu Fhtagn!

    9. Re:Cthulhu! by Garfok · · Score: 1

      Yes unleash the Shuggoth to destroy the politicians! Let the Fish Men run rampant to crush the evil that is our political party's! May the Mi-go make congress in Yithian Meat Puppets! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

    10. Re:Cthulhu! by arootbeer · · Score: 1

      Gesundheit!

  19. The link by Fished · · Score: 1

    Arg. The link should be http://digitalscriptorium.info/.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  20. Florida Checking In by dudepigeon · · Score: 1

    OK - no dumb florida voter jokes! We use old fashion fill in the blob voting sheets. To insure I did not screw it up, I had my 10 yo son fill in my votes.

    1. Re:Florida Checking In by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Voting insurance?
      Whoah

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    2. Re:Florida Checking In by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

      You're screwed, he probably wrote in Ron Paul, since he's got all the young people on board with the freedom message. ;-)

      *Drum roll*

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
  21. No secret ballot? by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I voted today in New York State. The poll workers recorded each voter's name and the number the voting machine assigned to his vote. I asked them why and they replied that the board of elections told them to.

    What is going on? The board of elections can now see who everybody voted for. I thought we had the right to a secret ballot.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    1. Re:No secret ballot? by felix9x · · Score: 5, Informative

      The fact that you voted is not secret. Only who you picked is.

    2. Re:No secret ballot? by unixwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your votes mix with everybody elses.. Think about it.. If that machine craps out or there are any questions, they can call you back in to re-vote..

    3. Re:No secret ballot? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      I figured the machine printed a paper ballot with the number stamped on it. I should have checked the machine's make and model.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    4. Re:No secret ballot? by GrimNotepad · · Score: 1

      my guess is they are going to check it against registered democratic/republican voters to gauge electronic machine confidence. (even if they don't check it against if your registered one way or the other, its just instead of a guy doing a tick in the electronic or not columns, they have some kinda unique identifier)

    5. Re:No secret ballot? by characterZer0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Then why do they need to record the number the machine assigned to my vote? That I walked into the machine and pulled the lever should just get a check next to my name.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    6. Re:No secret ballot? by Anivair · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Boy, i sure am glad that New York is being carefully watched. Because I'm not sure which way New York will go. that Democratic vote might be iffy there. As I've said elsewhere, the Democrats would win New York if they ran a candidate named Baby-Killer von Hitler-Darth-Vader. Can we please get some people keeping an eye on, say, Ohio and Florida?

    7. Re:No secret ballot? by scubamage · · Score: 1, Informative

      After browsing through the constitution, I don't see anything guaranteeing you from being identified with your vote. Sorry. Maybe my cursory glance missed it?

    8. Re:No secret ballot? by dtolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So if the machine has a problem, they know whose votes were affected? If you're in NY, your probably using the old fashioned lever voting machine - their is no way they can keep track of individual votes with it. It only tracks the totals.

    9. Re:No secret ballot? by mxs · · Score: 1

      Was a voting machine used ? Does it keep timestamped logs ? Whoops, not secret anymore.

    10. Re:No secret ballot? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      You'll find that in the laws of the individual states.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    11. Re:No secret ballot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that who he picked is not secret anymore. They can link up his name to the ballot number that was scanned in, and see who he voted for.

      This sounds highly illegal to me. Hopefully your union boss doesn't get a hold of that list and find out you voted for McCain...

    12. Re:No secret ballot? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 0, Troll

      That way they can audit the voting machine.

      Say the machine had counted 100 votes, but the poll worker had sent only 95 people into the machine. Obviously there is something wrong with the machine.

      (On the other hand, if the poll worker had sent 105 people into the machine, it could just mean that 5 people abstained from that particular election.)

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    13. Re:No secret ballot? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      I voted as well in NY and they had me sign my name in the book that lists registrations, and entered in my number in line (59) which, I'm assuming, was how many people have voted at that location including me up to that point. There was only one booth with the levers you pull down for who you vote for. I guess if they keep track of when each vote was entered, they can correlate it with you. However, I honestly don't care. As long as my vote isn't changed because they look me up and I'm a part of some group (ie. Male, Under 25, etc) that they don't like, then I'm OK with it.

      Also, I'm glad we don't have the computer voting machines. Though, I don't quite trust that lever that opens the curtain to record my vote, either...

      --
      -SaNo
    14. Re:No secret ballot? by TBoon · · Score: 1

      Knowing how many people were supposed to have used each machine seems like a simple way of knowing if any votes were added to its total. As long as the machine doesn't keep a track of the order of votes, it's still secret what you choose.

    15. Re:No secret ballot? by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      Public ballots are good enough for union elections, they should be good enough for government elections!

    16. Re:No secret ballot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not understand what the secret ballot actually is. It does not mean that it is "secret" that you voted (which would encourage even more voter fraud than there already is) it instead means that nobody knows who you voted for.
          In your case, the poll workers recorded the fact that you voted (required by law) and as an added measure they recorded which machine you used. Well guess what... that means nothing about determining who you actually voted for since it is likely that at least a few hundred other people will use the same machine, meaning your vote will just be one of many others.
          I suppose it might be possible to determine how you voted if you wrote yourself in for president or something crazy like that, but aside from that your vote is quite secret.

    17. Re:No secret ballot? by rbarreira · · Score: 0, Troll

      In what way does knowning which machine you voted on constitute a violation of your vote's privacy? There are many people voting on the same machine.

      As others have said, it's probably for auditing reasons and in case the machine breaks down.

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    18. Re:No secret ballot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed this last year when I voted in NY. I also asked questions. They assured me that they could not correlate my name to my vote, and it is just for auditing purposes to make sure that they can account the number of votes to the number of people.

    19. Re:No secret ballot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol at all the paranoid Slashdot voters and prepare for a lot of made up stories of how they were dragged down to the polling place and forced to vote for a Republican candidate.

    20. Re:No secret ballot? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      I voted today in New York State. The poll workers recorded each voter's name and the number the voting machine assigned to his vote. I asked them why and they replied that the board of elections told them to.

      What is going on? The board of elections can now see who everybody voted for. I thought we had the right to a secret ballot.

      In recent UK elections, election officials have written the voter's electoral roll number on the (numbered) counterfoil of the voting slip. That strikes me as dangerous for exactly the same reason - the vote is no longer secret - but I as told when I challenged the officers at the last election that it was done to allow auditing in case of suspected vote rigging.

      Personally, I don't like it.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    21. Re:No secret ballot? by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Did the ballot number stay on your ballot?

      When I voted, they wrote down the ballot number on both the sheet of paper I filled out and in their log book. Thus, my name was directly tied to the ballot number in 2 locations. However, the ballot number was printed at the top of the ballot on a perforated section, and before I fed it into the scanner the poll worker tore off the top section, thus there was no longer a ballot number attached to my ballot.

      Of course, I'm sure they could do some forensic work to match the unique arrangement of paper fibers between the top section and the actual ballots, but I'm not THAT worried about it.

    22. Re:No secret ballot? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      So they can audit total number of voters for each machine.

    23. Re:No secret ballot? by viruswatts · · Score: 1

      Then why do they need to record the number the machine assigned to my vote?

      If there is a number of errors that occur to a number of people, they want to know which machine it happened on.

    24. Re:No secret ballot? by dtolman · · Score: 1

      New York State still uses the Lever based voting machine. There is no way to tie an individual voter, to an individual vote. Voting just increments a bunch of dials.

    25. Re:No secret ballot? by ibm1130 · · Score: 1

      OK, here's a question.
      Who runs the Board of Election in your City/County/Etc.
      I'd be willing to bet money it isn't Republicans.

    26. Re:No secret ballot? by HadouKen24 · · Score: 1

      In addition to what everyone else has said, it may also be to make sure you vote on the correct machine. In the 2004 election, there polling places where people from multiple districts met. The candidates for each position rotate through the numbers for each successive district, so the ballot for each district is one number off the next. There were people who, in confusion, went to the wrong machines. Which meant that a vote for Kerry accidentally went to Bush or vice versa. Making sure people go to the right machines may be a state-wide rule designed to prevent that from happening.

    27. Re:No secret ballot? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Voting machines are typically designed to obfuscate that sort of information. They aren't always successful, due to a mixture of nontrivial design bugs and outright stupidity; but they do try.

    28. Re:No secret ballot? by underworld · · Score: 1

      I noticed that they recorded my ballot number next to my name. Hmmm.... I don't care if they know who I voted for. In fact, I like the idea that I could find my "paper trail" if needed.

    29. Re:No secret ballot? by underworld · · Score: 1

      Although I did just realize how this actually works. My ballot is a 2-part paper ballot. At the top is a ballot serial number that gets recorded next to my name in "the big book" where I put my signature. The trick to keeping my vote secret is that when I put my ballot into the machine, the operator separates the 2 parts of the ballot. One part contains my votes, the other part contains the ballot serial number. Once separated, theoretically you don't know which ballot has which number... but you also have a tally outside of the machine of how many ballots should be counted. In other words, they audit the machine by counting the ballot "stubs" ... if everything matches, that's good. If not, they have to reconcile the difference somehow.

    30. Re:No secret ballot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless everybody vote on the same side. I already saw some political organiser vote for the other side and got caught because nobody vote for their side on their poll

    31. Re:No secret ballot? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      If it printed the votes on a paper ribbon, it kept track of the order of votes.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    32. Re:No secret ballot? by Anivair · · Score: 1

      Did I just get called Flamebait for noticing that New York is a Democratic state? I guess I hadn't heard about the stating the obvious rule.

    33. Re:No secret ballot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although who you picked is only as secret as the closed-source voting machine you used keeps it...

      Make your state get with it. The right way of voting is with genuine, recountable paper ballots, tallied by an optical scanner while you wait.

  22. Obama's sense of responsability by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Insightful
    One thing the democratic party has brought is a sense that the solutions to ou rproblems is something we have to bring forward as we accept responsability for our mistakes. You can't fix your problems until you accept they exist. All the while, a constant line from republican speeches has been to blame others for the problems. Blame the democrats, blame big foreign oil, blame Osama, blame Obama. Blame other republicans, too.

    We're getting sick of the buck getting passed.

    1. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Obama does not comment in every speech that all of our problems were caused by the last 8 years of the present administration? How is that taking responsiblity and not blaming others?

    2. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by Flint+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What? I'm pretty darn sure the Democrats blamed Republicans, blamed Bush, blamed big domestic oil, etc... let's at least be objective here... sheesh.

    3. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      accept responsability for our mistakes

      Name one stump speech in which Obama blamed his fellow Dems that are running both houses of congress for one shred of what's wrong. Name one stump speech in which he said that anything was wrong except for "eight years of failed Bush blah blah blah." Obama has been absolutely spineless about the major philosophical and practical wounds inflicted by his own party. That's "taking responsibility?"

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by ageoffri · · Score: 1
      Wow, I'm not sure which election you are talking about. The Democratic party and Obama in particular have mastered the art of vagueness this election. Everything is Bush's fault according to Obama. Just watch the ad where Bush is in the side mirrors and rear view mirrors.

      Already Obama is lowering where he will raise taxes, not quite to the $100,000 I've been saying he is going to hit, but getting close.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    5. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Name one stump speech in which Obama blamed his fellow Dems"

      Firstly, it's not about blame, and it's not about blaming the government. It's about people accepting responsibility for their situations and realizing that if they want things to change, they need to actually do something, not just vote for Obama.

    6. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      One thing the democratic party has brought is a sense that the solutions to our problems is something we have to bring forward as we accept responsability for our mistakes.

      Why should the rest of the public be held responsible for the mistakes of a few risk-takers?

    7. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Obama has been absolutely spineless about the major philosophical and practical wounds inflicted by his own party.

      Has Obama EVER taken a position against the majority of his party?

      Has Obama EVER challenged the corruption of the Chicago machine?

      Has Obama ever accomplished ANY major achievement?

      Obama promises to remake the world. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Name one concrete accomplishment of Senator Obama in his career. Most people seeking POTUS can point to at least one major signature accomplishment. Obama? He gave a great speech at the '04 Democratic Convention.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    8. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's plenty of blame to go around (Barney "Everything's fine at Fannie and Freddie" Frank, I'm looking at you!)

      However, Obama isn't going to "solve" anything.

      As with any government intervention: If you think the problem is bad, wait till you see their solutions.

    9. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      Name one concrete accomplishment of Senator Obama in his career.

      Well he's run an amazing campaign that even the (liberal?) media didn't see coming at first, he beat the Clinton machine, and oh, is likely on his way to winning the big office today. So... yeah... nothing important...

    10. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What? I'm pretty darn sure the Democrats blamed Republicans, blamed Bush, blamed big domestic oil, etc... let's at least be objective here... sheesh.

      I know. Terrible isn't it? Republicans in charge of the executive and legislative branch for 6 years and all people can do is hold them responsible for what they've done. Blaming the administration for the administration's failures indeed. Tsk tsk! Imagine thinking that the buck stopped on the President's desk.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    11. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      he's run an amazing campaign

      Which is especially easy if you lie about how you'll finance your campaign, and then take in huge amounts of private cash after going back on your word. It also helps, of course, when the majority of the media outlets are out there aggressively looking to get you elected. He made plenty of mistakes in his campaign - but they were completely sugar-coated by most of the news outlets. I don't consider his ability to let other people make it easy for him to be an indication that he's got any sort of spine, integrity, or capability to actually do the job. Getting uncritical cover from the people holding the microphones and video cameras is not the same as actually, substantially, doing anything constructive. The guy hasn't held a press conference in a month and a half. If the ability to avoid questions is your measure of the man, then prehaps you're onto something, there.

      even the (liberal?) media didn't see coming

      See coming? They produced it for him!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Name one stump speech in which Obama blamed his fellow Dems"

      Not sure you understand this politics thing. You say what you have to say to get elected, attacking your base usually doesn't work. You could uphold your principals, and always say what you think, but that will also mean you probably wont get elected. If you don't get elected then you wont have a chance to actually do any of the things you really want to do, and which hopefully you think will benefit society, or at least part of it.

      It takes someone with immense wisdom, judgment and temperament to do what you have to do to get elected, without completely selling out, and then still act on your principals to do what you think is right when you get there. When you get there you have to make a whole bunch more compromises to get the political support to pass your legislation. Obama has done about as well as can be expected at this balancing act. McCain has been a disaster at it. To win over party to get the nomination he sold out most of this principals, and he completely alienated all the independents and moderates he needed to actually win the general election. Obama is playing the politics game a lot smarter and better than McCain, cut him some slack.

      They only political leaders who can say what they think are dictators. They in practice don't do it either because they just lie and tell their subjects what they want to hear and then do whatever they want anyway. They are also pretty heavily compromised by the fact they have to constantly and ruthlessly crush all opposition and that exacts a pretty heavy political toll too.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one 'major philosophical/practical wound' inflicted by his own party in the past 8 years ?

    14. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      accept responsability for our mistakes

      Name one stump speech in which Obama blamed his fellow Dems that are running both houses of congress for one shred of what's wrong. Name one stump speech in which he said that anything was wrong except for "eight years of failed Bush blah blah blah." Obama has been absolutely spineless about the major philosophical and practical wounds inflicted by his own party. That's "taking responsibility?"

      One of the benefits of not doing anything is that nothing is done wrong.

    15. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      Well he's run an amazing campaign that even the (liberal?) media didn't see coming at first, he beat the Clinton machine, and oh, is likely on his way to winning the big office today. So... yeah... nothing important...

      So his greatest achievement comes from his gift of self promotion.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    16. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      So his greatest achievement comes from his gift of self promotion.

      Self promotion is how stuff gets done in Washington. It's not merit based - it's a sales job.

    17. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      Which is especially easy if you lie about how you'll finance your campaign, and then take in huge amounts of private cash after going back on your word.

      I'm confused by this. I admit I haven't looked into or really cared about this particular issue. My limited understanding is he said he might(?) take public funds.. then didn't. How is this bad? Aren't the public funds from, say, my tax dollars? By not using them, it seems he saved me some money. What am I missing about this?

      He made plenty of mistakes in his campaign - but they were completely sugar-coated by most of the news outlets.

      Like...? You're talking to someone who wants to believe Obama is the right guy. You can't just drop unsubstantiated bombs like that. I have no idea what you're talking about as I and other Obama supporters have been largely blinded by self-induced faith in him... :p

      The guy hasn't held a press conference in a month and a half.

      What would you have asked him? What did you want to know that wasn't already out there? When did Palin last have a real one? I heard she was notoriously hard to get interviews with. (And for good reason from what I can tell - she sucks at them.)

      See coming? They produced it for him!

      Not at first. At first it was all Hillary - and he managed to win the nomination in spite of that.

    18. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speech earlier this year in reference to the mortgage crisis, a direct quote: âoeUnder Republican and Democratic administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practicesâ

      It doesn't sound like he is whitewashing the Dems complicity in the mess. Admittedly, later in the same speech he resorted to his standard rhetoric of linking McCain to Bush.

    19. Re:Obama's sense of responsability by ramandu · · Score: 1

      If how some one runs a campaign is such an excellent measure of character Obama's campaign manager should be the one running.

      --
      Know thyself. -- Delphic Oracle, 8th century BC
  23. Campaign Spending by Diss+Champ · · Score: 1

    I'm not even in a battleground state, and amoung the many messages on my answering machine were two offers of breakfast tacos from & one invite to a bar from the Democrats. Last night I got the a robocall at 10pm after getting back from a trip and going to sleep early- if I hadn't voted early, I probably would have let the call go long enough to figure out who they wanted me to vote for and made sure to vote the opposite.

    1. Re:Campaign Spending by kd5zex · · Score: 0

      The Democrats are goiong to give away breakfast tacos and free beer!!!! Count me in!!!

  24. Choice of paper or electronic by AnonymousJackass · · Score: 1

    Voting in Virginia this morning I was pleased to discover that they offered the option of paper voting for those that did not want to use (or trust) the electronic machines. They were actually very encouraging of folks like me that wanted the paper. I'd say at least two-thirds chose paper (by-eye estimate).

    1. Re:Choice of paper or electronic by kevin_conaway · · Score: 1

      Indeed. We voted paper here in Arlington. In fact, the election officials were encouraging people to vote paper as it made the lines move faster.

      We arrived at 6:20 (polls opened at 6) and it took us just under 2 hours to complete the process

    2. Re:Choice of paper or electronic by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      No such luck in Norfolk. Electronic machines only, and people older than home electrical service trying to get people logged in to vote. 2:15 wait.

    3. Re:Choice of paper or electronic by richg74 · · Score: 1

      I'm also in Virginia (Loudoun County, an outer suburb of DC), and I voted this morning at about 10:30. There was a sizable line, but it moved along pretty well.

      (The lines are always organized alphabetically by the first letter of one's surname. Since mine begins with 'G', I'm always in one of the longer lines. I wonder if someone at the Board of Elections will ever have the wit to spend five minutes looking at the telephone directory, and realize that the distribution of names across the alphabet is not exactly uniform.)

      We also had the choice of paper (optical-scan) ballots or voting machines. While I was waiting, I was trying to estimate the proportions of voters choosing each. I would say at least 75% of people chose paper ballots. I thought that was kind of interesting, since this area is home to a lot of hi-tech firms and their employees.

  25. Chicago Celebration by nemo11 · · Score: 1

    There weren't that many more people downtown Chicago as I walked to work (just a few more policemen), but with a million people expected to be in town by the time I get off, all I'm really hoping for is a way to get back home this election day.

    1. Re:Chicago Celebration by WMD_88 · · Score: 1

      I was in Chicago during the air show a few months back, another downtown high-volume event. At that rate, you shouldn't have any trouble getting home if you take the train...but the expressways will be pretty harsh.

  26. Is Dave Barry on the ballot? by mykepredko · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm curious because he always has a "Dave Barry for President in ####" where "####" is the year of the next election.

    I'm wondering how easy it is to get on the ballot.

    myke

    1. Re:Is Dave Barry on the ballot? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Dave Barry has always unofficially run as a write-in candidate. You can write in any eligible candidate you wish.

  27. Does it Really Matter? by alphasubzero949 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I hate to be the victor of this election after Bush leaves (if he does). There is going to be a lot to mop up starting with what is left of our Constitution. Unfortunately if things take the turn for the worse, the opposition will have an easy scapegoat in 2012.

    1. Re:Does it Really Matter? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      You actually think the next in line cares about cleaning up the mess Bush & co made of the constitution? Or by "mop up" did you mean "finish off/Coup d'grace", because that outcome is more likely.

    2. Re:Does it Really Matter? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. my thought is that the winner is winning a Phyrric victory. They certainly have a hell of a mess to deal with.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    3. Re:Does it Really Matter? by Aero · · Score: 1

      This is why I was hoping to the gods that Hillary didn't end up on the ticket, much less winning. Everything else about her aside, I would not have wanted our first female president to have inherited this mess, ended up a one-termer (for I do believe that no matter who wins, he's likely to be a one-termer), and have folks pointing fingers in 2012 saying "this is what we get for electing a woman to the presidency" and making it impossible for a woman to be elected for another 50-100 years.

      --
      We can believe in you for 3 minutes, but beyond that, even the King of All Cosmos can't be expected to wait.
    4. Re:Does it Really Matter? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      From what I've read of Obama's views on the Constitution, I remain quite skeptical that he actually intends to move closer to it...

  28. have fun by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

    You won't really be missed.

  29. Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I am 57-years old and for all of my life my country has been at war. I voted for the only person that offers peace...Ron Paul

  30. 350+ EV by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    For Obama of course. Who wants to bet?

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  31. Don't Blame Me by Todd+Fisher · · Score: 1

    I voted for Kodos.

    --


    --I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
    1. Re:Don't Blame Me by Anivair · · Score: 1

      ... alternately you could have stayed home and played with yourself. Same warm feeling, same result.

    2. Re:Don't blame me by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      is bob dole running AGAIN??

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Don't blame me by ibm1130 · · Score: 1

      Imbecile!
      I voted a straight Kang ticket.

    4. Re:Don't blame me by EricWright · · Score: 1

      Maybe Bob Dole should run. Bob Dole thinks Bob Dole should. Actually, Bob Dole just wants to hear Bob Dole talk about Bob Dole.

      Bob Dole!

      </ob_Simpsons_reference>

    5. Re:Don't Blame Me by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I'd like to agree with you, but you're wrong.
      The prospects of independants in the next election is entirely dependant on this one. Mike Munger, running for Governor of North Carolina, is running for 4% of the vote. That gets him on the ballot for next election, and then he doesn't have to spend nearly his whole budget just trying to get on the ballot. Then he can advertise and be seen as a viable candidate. You don't get contribution and all the free airtime from the news networks unless you're seen as a viable candidate.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  32. Report from Buffalo. by saintlupus · · Score: 1

    We still use the old-school mechanical voting machines here in the Empire State. I love those. A real kerthunk of Electoral Justice.

    I showed up to my polling place at 8:15 this morning, and I was the 70th voter at my station. I usually show up at about that time, on my way to work, and I'm normally more like number 20. There's going to be a _lot_ of turnout today.

    --saint

  33. 1 hour lines @ 7am by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who are your picks and why.

    Third party, since I don't like either main candidate. This happened to be Barr, since I figured he probably has the best (but unfortunately still very small) chance of getting enough votes to scare some sense into the duopoly.

    And also what about your actual experience voting today?

    I got there at almost exactly 7am (when the polls opened), and the line was almost exactly 1 hour (I finished voting and left at 8:05). There were 10 Diebold voting machines lined up along one wall with no privacy screens, just little flaps on the sides.

    Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?

    Well, that's kinda hard to know, isn't it? (Some might say that's kinda the point of buying from Diebold.)

    1. Re:1 hour lines @ 7am by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      As for Barr, I was leaning towards him but his stance on Roe v. Wade is turn overturn it. Nader (even though he's crazy old) seemed a better choice for me.

      I got to the polls ~6:30am (opened at 6am) and probably 15 mins from getting in line to walking to my car. It took longer at the Dunkin' Donuts for my coffee...

      --
      -SaNo
    2. Re:1 hour lines @ 7am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had the diebold ballot readers at my polling place. I was routinely filling out the judges portion and happened to double mark without noticing (I failed scantron in college). The machine spit my ballot out immediately and told me I had overvoted. Which was a little reassuring that the machine was able to tell me immediately that I was a bonehead and where I screwed up. I got it right the 2nd time though.

      Also, as for lines, I had none and it was nice and quick. The lines seemed to be the early riser crowd lining up before the open and then others showing up between 7 and 7:30. At 8 it was just a steady flow moving fast enough that it never had time to backup.

    3. Re:1 hour lines @ 7am by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I figured he probably has the best (but unfortunately still very small) chance of getting enough votes to scare some sense into the duopoly.

      You could read the pools instead of guessing. Nader polls around 2.3%, Barr at 1.5%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_vs_mccain_with_barr_nader-957.html

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:1 hour lines @ 7am by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Or reading polls could work, if you can't find the answer in your swimming pool.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:1 hour lines @ 7am by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      ...oops. Too much avoiding those incessant annoying campaigns and everything related, filtered out something that would actually have been useful. :-/

      Or, throw all the candidates in a pool, tied up. If they float, they'll enlarge the federal government and should be burned at the stake. If they sink, they probably would have been OK.

    6. Re:1 hour lines @ 7am by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Same on the third party choices, but we're all pen and paper in our little town of ~3k. With a half-dozen tables set up, with partitions for 4 people at each, I didn't have any wait. Voting is easy - fill in the bubbles next to the people you like, run it into the (unfortunately Diebold) optical scanner, and it's all done. The scan results get announced a 8pm, and then the handcount double-checks it for an official number in the next 24 hrs.

      Even though my dear grandma is a hardcore Republican, I'm confident about our system. She's too honest to cheat when she helps count the votes.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  34. In Illinois... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...I had the option of either voting by electronic machine or paper ballot. As you might imagine, I chose paper ballot for the simple reason that it leaves unchangeable records. Electronic voting machines are far too easy to manipulate or are far too likely to have glitches. (Especially the Diebold machines based on Microsoft Access.)

    The downside is that the Illinois ballots are *bleep*ing insane! First, there's no simple checkbox. Instead, you have these bizarre arrows you have to fill in. i.e.:

    Bob &lt; D
    Larry &lt; D

    You are supposed to draw a line for the vote you want to cast. e.g.:

    Bob &lt;----D
    Larry &lt; D

    Which is then complicated by a list of about a bazillion judges to vote in or out of office. No judge runs against another judge, so you simply fill out the arrow or you don't. Incumbent judges have a "Yes/No" option to possibly vote them out of office.

    I got up pretty early this morning, so it ended up taking more time to fill out these super-ballots than it did to wait in line. I then went home and listened to WGN ponder why it was taking Obama so long to vote for himself. Perhaps someone should show them one of these ballots! :-P

    1. Re:In Illinois... by bbernard · · Score: 1

      As another Illinois voter I just want to point out that ballots in Illinois vary in technology by polling authority. You can clearly see from pictures that Obama used a paper ballot and optical reader. When I early voted in DuPage county last week, we used electronic voting machines with paper-trail backup. And I know from the DuPage county board of elections site that if I had voted today I would have a paper ballot with "fill in the oval" style voting at my usual voting place.

      Not sure where you were that you had the "line" style optical ballot, that's the first I've heard of it.

      On a WGN note, I will miss Spike when he leaves next month.

      --
      ----- Connection reset by beer
    2. Re:In Illinois... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      It's in Chicago, at the very least. I had to deal with the same mess. At least it wasn't a touch screen machine though.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    3. Re:In Illinois... by andrewd18 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Wisconsin uses a similar ballot. I'm not a fan of them - I'd prefer electronic voting if the machines didn't have so many problems. As such, I simply put up with it and read all the fine print before drawing my lines.

    4. Re:In Illinois... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you were that you had the "line" style optical ballot, that's the first I've heard of it.

      Cook County. (Hey, I can see your county from my house! :-P) Based on what I saw on WGN, it looked like Obama was voting with the same ballot I used. They had the same machines, same booths, same privacy cover sheets (which Obama appears to have placed *under* his ballot after voting... DOH!), etc. The ballots appeared to be the same size and same number of pages, so I'd say he probably used the same system as I did.

    5. Re:In Illinois... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See, back when I voted in Sauk County we had simple bubbles to fill in. The ballots were slightly confusing in the way that SAT/ACT tests are, but nothing untoward. And they were a lot easier to use than trying to draw a straight line. (Which I happen to be horrific at. :-P) Of course, the polling stations were usually much better configured and managed than in Illinois. And you didn't have to get up before the crack of dawn to get your vote in. (Though that's probably a population density issue.)

    6. Re:In Illinois... by edward2020 · · Score: 1

      I just used the same ballot here in Missouri. I didn't find any difficulty in using it either.

      --
      Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
    7. Re:In Illinois... by houghi · · Score: 1

      As you might imagine, I chose paper ballot

      This site is one of the most pro-computer minded sites where many make money with computers. It amazes me that nobody seems to listen to people who understand the matter.

      What worries me more is that if they so blatantly ignore knowledge in this field, they will ignore it anywhere else as well. Be it national security, privacy, schools, economy and anything else you can come up with.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:In Illinois... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, Illinois ballots. That's Obama's home state. Is that Cook County? It's ruled by Democrats and is one of the most corrupt in the country!

    9. Re:In Illinois... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, it might be that everybody except you listens to people who understand the matter. What makes you trust anybody who claims a modern US electronic voting machine without paper trail is reliable?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:In Illinois... by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      The downside is that the Illinois ballots are *bleep*ing insane! First, there's no simple checkbox. Instead, you have these bizarre arrows you have to fill in. i.e.:

      In NC (At least where I live)we used to have the arrows, now we have the bubbles you fill in. I didn't mind the arrows so much, it wasn't that hard to figure out.

      Which is then complicated by a list of about a bazillion judges to vote in or out of office. No judge runs against another judge, so you simply fill out the arrow or you don't. Incumbent judges have a "Yes/No" option to possibly vote them out of office.

      I can imagine where this would be confusing. NC elects all judges without any of the retention elections.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
  35. Amen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the media and popular (prime-time) television has done more to sway the popular opinion than it should have. Ok, so because of the media (TV) Obama wins. Its a given. Hollywood and TV loves Obama. Plain and simple [Ellen, The View].

    Sad to say that the American people are sheep to this degree of soft mind control.

    Undecided voter? No, I'm an unimpressed voter.

  36. Diebold by FalseModesty · · Score: 1

    Diebold doesn't eat "my" vote. Either it eats everybody's vote or nobody's. Either it steals the election or it doesn't.

  37. (slightly OT) As a European, I'd like to say... by g253 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...screw these elections of yours, I want to be able to watch the next episode of House MD, dammit!
    ;)

    More seriously, I am watching this election closely and dearly hoping that USians will not be as disappointing as in the last two. It's looking good, but I'm wary... Last minute disappointments are not unheard of.

    I hope Obama wins, because I'd like to see the US become a good example again, instead of the very bad exemple they've become.

    ...
    Still, I'm a bit upset to have to wait one more week to know what happens between House and Cuddy.

  38. paper ballots by Raleel · · Score: 1

    In Washington, we have mail in paper ballots. I like it for a number of reasons, but the most important of those is that you can sit down and make decisions with a voter information pamphlet.

    I didn't vote straight party line... I honestly believe that some mentalities are better suited to different positions. I believe that some contention should exist in government, just not enough to paralyze it. Differing viewpoints more often lead to the truth than one.

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
    1. Re:paper ballots by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I haven't found anything like Washington's voter pamphlet elsewhere in the US. It's something I really miss from there. For those outside the state the secretary of Washington State prints a book sent to every house and available in many other places free, with statements by each person running for every office on the ballot and a pro and con statement as well as rebuttal for each ballot issue. It's really, an excellent product. http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/Pages/OnlineVoterGuideGeneral2008.aspx?ShowAll=True&ElectionID=26 It's online. I was pretty surprised when I found it difficult to find anything about the candidates running for local offices here in Virginia.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  39. Tomorrow we'll know... by Freeside1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I remember thinking this on election day 2000

  40. Tomorrow we'll know??? O RLY??? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Current polls show 52% think we will know our next President by tomorrow, with a margin of error of +/- 3%.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  41. I voted this morning in NH by prgrmr · · Score: 1

    There were about 100 people there at 8am this morning when I got to the polls, but it took longer for me to find a place to park than to stand in line to vote. Apparently people started lining up at 7:30. The process was quick and well ordered, which is what paper ballots will do for you. If there's a controversy this year with votes, it's won't be from NH.

    1. Re:I voted this morning in NH by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure my polling place is 4 blocks from my house, and I'm planning on walking. FWIW.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:I voted this morning in NH by tyrione · · Score: 1

      They've already reported that New Hampshire turnout from Democratic projections is much lower than the Obama campaign had stipulated and hoped would reveal.

      Sounds great to me.

    3. Re:I voted this morning in NH by prgrmr · · Score: 1

      Who are "they" and what is their URL?

  42. Let's hope! by sootman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tomorrow we'll know.

    You must be new here.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Let's hope! by Flint+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Actually, haven't the news agencies decided that they will declare a winner before the West Coast polls closes if one candidate is projected to have 270 EVs?

    2. Re:Let's hope! by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Actually, haven't the news agencies decided that they will declare a winner before the West Coast polls closes if one candidate is projected to have 270 EVs?

      Yes. Headlines will read "Dewey Defeats Truman".

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  43. Stood in line as polls opened by Boone^ · · Score: 1

    Polls opened at 7:00 AM, I was in line at 6:40 AM. We use "complete the arrow using this marker" paper ballots which are optically scanned. Everything was smooth this morning here in Wisconsin.

  44. The King Is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long Live The King!

  45. Jay by NetDanzr · · Score: 1

    I voted for Jay. Not the ideal choice, but still the closest to my beliefs. I'm past the "lesser evil" compromise stage; I now vote only for candidates I like the most.

  46. Florida voting smooth so far by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Called my dad this morning and he said they were in and out in an hour. About 35 people in line but it went fast. He said the poll workers were really helpful and seemed well organized. I'm sure it's not going that well everywhere but the news isn't all bad.

    If the Republicans get crushed and lose Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, I wonder if they're going to clean house or keep on with same failed people and platform that put them in the tank? Or if they'll blame Palin and minority turn out?

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Florida voting smooth so far by italbrew · · Score: 1

      Is your father in a Republican or Democratic leaning district?

    2. Re:Florida voting smooth so far by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      I don't know. It's a retirement park so people come from all over. The area is one of the traditional Democratic strongholds in FL but their situation is unique.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  47. Election? by Subm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Election? What election?

    I pride myself on keeping apprised of current events, but I wasn't aware of an election today.

    Who is running and for what position?

    Srsly, whoever this CmdrTaco is who posted the story should at least give us this basic information in the summary.

    1. Re:Election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, finger slipped, sorry for the flamebait mod :S

    2. Re:Election? by freddy_dreddy · · Score: 1

      They're electing the guy who's best at being
      elected today. Don't worry,it'll mostly affect
      people that don't live in your country.

      --
      "Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
    3. Re:Election? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Just my molning election, nothing to wolly about.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re:Election? by Elsan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he didn't even say what country.

    5. Re:Election? by iphayd · · Score: 1

      Just remember, you can always write in Cowboy Neal.

    6. Re:Election? by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      Spoiler: Obama won.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  48. Linus Says! by Pazy · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately/Thankfully im not American but id vote for Obama because Linus says so: http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html Linus is my president ;) lol

  49. Voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Voted for Obama, was in and out of the polling place in 5min.

  50. Why not discuss religion too? by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Since this topic is essentially an open invitation to a giant flamewar, might as well go all the way.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  51. well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that Muslim guy's gonna win, there's no way you can lose running on a platform of spare change

    1. Re:well... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      I think that Muslim guy's gonna win, there's no way you can lose running on a platform of spare change

      I don't trust him. I heard he consorts with Terriers.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  52. Obama should win. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that he's better than McCain, but he does have a better running mate.
    If something were to happen to the president I'd be more comfortable if Joe Biden were to take over than that fucking loon that McCain chose.

  53. Bias Language on Ballots by armada · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was amazed by the wording of some of the proposed amendments to the Florida constitution. One example was the marriage "keep the gays from marrying" proposal. First off, I happen to believe that marriage is a personal issue and has no need for government intervention but that is not my point here. The language was worded very biased, in that it started by stating that passing this amendment would "Protect marriage". As if I voted not my wife would someone stop loving me tomorrow or something. Second, it was the only amendment that ended with an entire paragraph dedicated to informing us voters that if we pass this the economic effect on the budget is "unknown at this time but likely minimal". This was on no other initiative. Holy bias Batman!

    --
    "This message was sent from an Apple //GS"
    1. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by Sporkinum · · Score: 2, Funny

      That reminded me of the "Idiot" amendment that was on our ballot.
      On Election Day, Iowa voters will have more to consider than just the usual public offices. Also on the ballot is what some Iowans are referring to as the "Idiot Amendment." The proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution regarding voting limitations for mentally incompetent Iowans finally makes it onto the ballot 11 years after Rep. Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque, and former Rep. Betty Grundberg wrote the proposal. The proposed amendment affects Article II 5 ("Disqualified Persons"), which currently reads: "No idiot, or insane person, or person convicted of any infamous crime, shall be entitled to the privilege of an elector." Iowans are asked to vote on whether to strike "idiot" and "insane person" from ; in place of the outdated and offensive terminology, "mentally incompetent" will be inserted into the Constitution.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    2. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about Florida, but in in my home state (Oregon) that language is is written by the authors of the ballot measure, and isn't subject to revision (unless a court determines that its misleading).

    3. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by svallarian · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why any state would vote to write discrimination into the state constitution. I mean, if the same amendment said "All black people can never vote." it wouldn't pass. Why is gay marriage any different?

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
    4. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why any state would vote to write discrimination into the state constitution. I mean, if the same amendment said "All black people can never vote." it wouldn't pass. Why is gay marriage any different?

      1) Marriage is a contract. Between two people, pretty much by definition. Though there is no intrinsic requirement that it be limited to two people other than the (currently) discriminating laws on the subject.

      2) Marriage is within the proper sphere of interest of government. That is, government may (or may not) have an interest in promoting or discouraging the activity. The reasons that government may promote or discourage marriage (or any other activity) depend entirely on the objectives of the lawmakers.

      3) Marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with sex, children, love, or much of anything else other than certain economic realities. Contrary to popular romour. Fact is, I'm not required to marry the person I love, or love the person I marry. Nor am I required to have children with the person I marry, or refrain from doing so with others. And sex doesn't even enter into the issue anymore.

      4) Current marriage laws in the USA and other countries are NOT discriminatory. They apply equally to all people. Any unmarried man may marry any unmarried woman. And vice versa. Since love is not relevant to the subject, the question of whether the man and woman are "in love" is irrelevant to the question or whether marriage is discriminatory.

      Note that if we were to remove "discrimination" from marriage, we'd have to allow polygamy. And if "love" were relevant to marriage, then we'd be pretty much required to approve of marriages between adults and children or children and children (ask any 13 year old if they're in "love" with their current bf/gf if you doubt me).

      Now, as to the economic elements of marriage. Certainly, there are some economic factors that are relevant issues that suggest the desirability of gay marriage (and of polygamy, by the by - Mormons take note). But, fact is, most of the economic issues are self-inflicted by a government trying to "help" us. HIPA, for instance. Or the income tax progression for married couples (note that the latter was intended to deal with the extra costs associated with raising children, which the government has an economic interest in - more children means a new generation of taxpayers, after all).

      On balance, I can't see a good reason to allow gay marriage. On the other hand, I can't see a good reason to forbid it, either. So I guess I have to come down on the status quo ante side of the argument - leave it as is, and stop trying to change society to no great purpose. Save the effort for something that matters, because this isn't it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse, the protection of marriage section actually also includes couples who live together but aren't married. They would lose their benefits, but who would realize that from the ballot? I only knew 'cause of a family friend who will be affected by this.

      When I early voted in SW Florida last week it took me only half an hour, but it took my sister four hours in Orlando. Here's to hoping election day runs smoother than the early voting did.

    6. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by 77Punker · · Score: 1

      What do those words mean anyway? I have ADD. Would I still be able to vote? I've got a good friend with bipolar disorder. Would he be able to vote? I've got an in-law who's been diagnosed with schizophrenia, though he's got his act together as much as anyone else.

      What's the deal with thing like this (and gay marriage) where some folks go out of their way to interfere with others?

    7. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      What we need is an idiot amendment that would prevent them from running, not from voting.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    8. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by stang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Note that if we were to remove "discrimination" from marriage, we'd have to allow polygamy.

      Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples of exclusivity in our laws; so, for an individual, we don't have to allow more than one marriage to be valid at any one time. I'm not so sure about group marriages, where the "marriage contract" is between 3 or more individuals; but it seems as if [disallowing group marriages] might not be discriminatory. Frankly, I don't have a problem with group marriage -- I mean, if the 3 or 4 or whatever of you think you can deal with it, why should the government stop it?

      And if "love" were relevant to marriage, then we'd be pretty much required to approve of marriages between adults and children or children and children

      You forgot between adults and animals, or adults and inanimate objects.

      This I definitely don't agree with. Children are a protected class of citizen, and do not have full rights under our laws. Children cannot vote, they cannot be drafted, they cannot enter into [some] legally binding agreements. If your argument was valid, then we'd have to allow marriage involving children today, assuming that they're heterosexual.

      On balance, I can't see a good reason to allow gay marriage. On the other hand, I can't see a good reason to forbid it, either. So I guess I have to come down on the status quo ante side of the argument - leave it as is, and stop trying to change society to no great purpose. Save the effort for something that matters, because this isn't it.

      50 years ago, marriage between whites and non-whites was considered "an abomination against God" and not part of the "natural order of things". Even when I was a kid (I'm 43), I can remember when a mixed couple out in public caused people to stare.

      The only reason to forbid gay marriage is because you don't like homosexuality. Either because your church says it's evil, because you fear you might be turned gay, because you're just "uncomfortable" with it, because you're ignorant, or some other reason. IMHO, that's just too damn bad. Your dislike of the lifestyle of others is absolutely no reason to abrogate their rights and force the government to treat them as second class citizens. *You* don't have to hang out with "teh gayz", and your church won't have to marry them (after all, I can't get married in a Catholic church without being a Catholic). That's different. We're talking about the government here, and the government should not be permitted to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.

      Leaving things "as is" is the same thing--when it comes to the law--as being hardcore, rabidly anti-gay. Whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not, unless you live in a cave as a hermit, you know gay people. Outlawing gay marriage won't make them go away. Society is changing, and does so all the time. If you truly believe in the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal", you owe it to yourself to vote down these ridiculous attempts to codify discrimination and hate into our laws.

      --
      "200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
    9. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by Floritard · · Score: 1

      I noticed that too. Unless you have a real problem with gays I don't know how you could have read that part as anything but intolerant. I almost wanted a copy of it. It's that sort of thing, like segregation, you know you'll just look back on and think wow how primitive times were. Hopefully anyway.

    10. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In cali all the initiatives had a "effect unknown, but cost a lotta money" type paragraph after each thing.

    11. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that this is supposed to be on all such items. For instance, on school levies the phrase goes something like 'voting for this is voting for a property tax increase'.

      Could be wrong however.

    12. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples of exclusivity in our laws; so, for an individual, we don't have to allow more than one marriage to be valid at any one time. I'm not so sure about group marriages, where the "marriage contract" is between 3 or more individuals; but it seems as if [disallowing group marriages] might not be discriminatory.

      Let's see. We change the laws to allow one group who formerly couldn't marry to do so, but forbid another group who can't marry from doing so. Sounds like a textbook definition of discrimination to me.

      You forgot between adults and animals, or adults and inanimate objects.

      It's a contract. Animals and inanimate objects neither need nor are able to sign contracts.

      This I definitely don't agree with. Children are a protected class of citizen, and do not have full rights under our laws. Children cannot vote, they cannot be drafted, they cannot enter into [some] legally binding agreements. If your argument was valid, then we'd have to allow marriage involving children today, assuming that they're heterosexual.

      Children are protected, yes. They also cannot, in general, sign contracts. Except whatever they have to sign to get an abortion, of course. But...

      It's not actually against the law for a child of 16 to marry in most places. Requires parental consent, of course. But abortions used to require parental consent too. It would be very easy to justify changes to marriage laws allowing marriage to occur freely with anyone above the age of consent (mostly 16, sometimes 15), especially if those idiotic exceptions for "statutory rape" were removed (note that saying that it is good, right and moral for a 16 year old to bed a 16 year old whose birthday is tomorrow, but it's an immoral, evil act for the same person to bed someone who turned 17 yesterday is silly, at best).

      The best argument against allowing child marriage would actually be contract law. Of course, we've inserted that exception for abortions. That exception won't get narrower with time, it'll widen.

      Note also that heterosexuality is as irrelevant to marriage as homosexuality. Or did you skip the part in my previous where I said that sex was irrelevant to marriage. Get over the notion that marriage is required to screw, or even to legitimize screwing. Screw whomever, or whatever, you'd like, as long as you don't do it in public and frighten the horses.

      The only reason to forbid gay marriage is because you don't like homosexuality.

      No, the only real reason is because it serves no public good to allow it. If current laws allowed it, then opposing it would be because you don't like homosexuality. Since current laws don't allow it, then there really needs to be some social benefit to changing the laws for it to be worth the bother. And I can't see one. If you can see one (qualifier: that doesn't involve some irrelevancy like sex,love, kids), then feel free to point it out.

      Note, by the way, that with the current social mores, if there were no marriage laws in place, there'd be no reason to bother to create them, since they'd serve no useful public good. Marriage laws were created under different social mores, and served (at the time) a useful purpose. They no longer do so, and I'd be as inclined to remove existing marriage laws as to extend them.

      If I were inclined to change laws for no reason at all. Which I'm not.

      Whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not, unless you live in a cave as a hermit, you know gay people. Outlawing gay marriage won't make them go away. Society is changing, and does so all the time. If you truly believe in the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal", you owe it to yourself to vote down these ridiculous attempts to codify discrimination and hate into our laws.

      Yep. I know som

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by Sir.Cracked · · Score: 1

      Heh, Fellow Iowan here. That item made me laugh out loud. Personaly, I voted NO. I LIKE the fact that the Iowa constitution, as written, dissallows idiots from voting. It's only too bad that there's not a process for identifying them or enforcing the concept.

      --
      Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
    14. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      Children are not - by law, capable of consent.

    15. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a divorce.

    16. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In MO they had something on the ballot that...

      1. removed the limitations on how much you could lose at casinos
      2. outlawed any future limitations
      3. forbids anyone who doesnt already own a casino in MO from opening a new one .... oh and
      4. made a tiny increase in how much casino revenue "goes to the schools"

      Makes me wonder how much the casinos paid for that bill.

    17. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Children are not - by law, capable of consent.

      Of course, the definition of child varies from place to place, and from time to time. And it should be pointed out that a child of 15 can legally give consent to another 15 year old, but not to a 17 year old. Odd, isn't it, how it's possible to be legally competent or not depending on the date of birth of some other person?

      Note that the ages above are about average for the USA. Some states allow younger children to give consent, some restrict it a bit more, some specify the acceptable age of the consentee a bit higher or lower.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    18. Re:Bias Language on Ballots by Starcub · · Score: 1

      First off, I happen to believe that marriage is a personal issue and has no need for government intervention but that is not my point here.

      The state has traditionally supported marriage by granting special priviledges to married persons because it has been recognized to be the optimal vehicle for the building up of society as a whole.

      Extending priviledges to persons outside of the traditional family union opens up a whole can of worms that would ultimately give any kind of cohabitational relationship priviledged status, thus making the instituion meaningless.

      The amendment is not intended to deny gay couples any rights they are otherwise constituionally entitled to, but to ensure the protection of privlidges granted to traditional marriage relationships.

      Agreed the amendment is poorly worded (almost enough to keep me from voting for it). Its full impact will ultimately be decided by the courts, which in FL, are liberal leaning...

  54. dixville notch by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    most of us know it as the tiny hamlet clser to montreal than anything else in far northern new hampshire that releases its election results shortly after midnight on election day (since there is only 21 people voting there)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch,_New_Hampshire#Midnight_voting_tradition

    quaint and pointless mostly. this year, they landslided for obama (15 for obama to 6 for mccain)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7707667.stm

    why is that notable?

    in all previous elections, back to 1968, they landslided republican

    so that's an interesting changeup, north country new hampshire, solidly republican, giving us a glimpse of a new trend?

    portent of things to come later this evening for the rest of us perhaps?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:dixville notch by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      What's really astounding about that result is that New Hampshire was a strong supporter of John McCain in 2000. There were many reasons for this, notably that a lot of the independents in New Hampshire (myself included) were really really trying to prevent George W Bush from being elected.

      The down-ballot results are also rather astounding in that department: not too long ago having a (D) after your name was political suicide in NH even if you weren't named "Dick Swett".

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:dixville notch by mahsah · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't forget the 2 write-in votes for Mr. Paul :3

  55. Shhhh... by davidwr · · Score: 5, Funny

    She kicked it off last Saturday.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  56. If Obama is NOT the next president by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The USA is simply doomed. I live outside the USA, and I can assure you, the rest of the world is }{ close to pulling the plug on the USA, economically, diplomatically, socially, the whole works.

    If McCain is the next president, the world will say "Ya know what? We're done here. Game over. Thanks for playing" and it will hurt (a lot) in the short run, but once the American Empire's wings are clipped, the rest of the planet can set about building a future that works.

    Economic? Send the dollars back home. How? Buy up the assets. Devalue the currency. Don't loan them money.

    Diplomatic? The USA as a pariah state, sim. N Korea today or Libya back in the day. Turn off the WTO and IMF. Look elsewhere for partnership.

    Socially? Don't let Americans out of America. Make travel difficult. Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES.

    The Americans would bitch and moan and threaten and swagger, but since they're basically bankrupt and have dumped a substantial amount of their wealth into non-wealth generating assets (the military, first and foremost) the USA is really at the mercy of the rest of the planet and some. And if some swaggering third rate imperialist like McCain or, godferbid, his delusional retard of a VP, Palin, comes around acting like a dork, the simple and obvious reply is to shun them.

    Now, before you think I'm some sort of Obama supporter, you're wrong. Obama is every bit the imperialist that McCain is - it's just that his focus is not on global domination, but on the much more realistic goal of regional domination. In other words, McCain is a unipolar imperialist and Obama is a multipolar imperialist. The multipolar option is the ONLY realistic option for the USA right now.

    So, if the USA has ANY sense of self preservation, it will put Obama in as president. If it wants to drive itself off the cliff of history and explode on the rocks of self-inflicted stupidity, then it should vote for McCain.

    The reality that is going to come crashing in is simple: energy. You either have it and use it wisely and with great thrift, or you act like Americans and permit atrocities like Las Vegas and the Cadillac Escalade to exist. Get with the program, or die off. It's a simple choice.

    Now, go vote, and vote wisely.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by characterZer0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You want to tell the US government to go fuck itself. So do a huge number of US citizens, myself included.

      But do you really think that the leaders of the other first world and developing countries are not the same kind of power-hungry, lying, cheating politicians, and that they will not work with others of the same ilk to get more power at your expense?

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by pubjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But do you really think that the leaders of the other first world and developing countries are not the same kind of power-hungry, lying, cheating politicians, and that they will not work with others of the same ilk to get more power at your expense?

      Actually, no I don't. And it is depressing that this kind of attitude is so prevalent in the USA today.

    3. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even if the trend is against American Influence, we are leaps and bounds above 80-90% of the world. Our infrastructure, our educated class does much of the world's intellectual productions here, the sheer size of our economy (it can stand to lost more than just a couple of percentage points).

      We do have our problems. Just saying keep everything in perspective.

    4. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by gmac63 · · Score: 1

      Unqualified ass.

      --

      INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
    5. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA is simply doomed. I live outside the USA, and I can assure you, the rest of the world is }{ close to pulling the plug on the USA, economically, diplomatically, socially, the whole works.

      In your dreams buddy. The US is still the most powerful economic country in the world, whether you like it or not. If the US was on the verge of being disenfranchised as you make up, the other stock markets around the world won't keep reacting whenever there's a blip in the US.

      Your wet dream is just that. The US will control the world for decades to come. Maybe around 2100 China will be in the same position, assuming they haven't all died from their appalling pollution problem in the meantime.

    6. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      What attitude? Recognition that the politicians are willing to screw their constituents for money and power? Which country are you from in which that is not the case? I might like to move there.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    7. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BLAH BLAH BLAH IF YOU DON'T VOTE THE WAY I TELL YOU TO YOU'RE ALL DOOMED BLAH BLAH BLAH

      Seriously, go fuck yourself with a chainsaw you whiny, self-important douche. If you want Obama to be president, you should become a citizen of the United States and vote for him.

      Most Americans don't preach at Europeans about who they should elect, but Europeans somehow feel that we should all follow their very wordy political directions on the basis that Obama is "really popular" in whatever country.

      Seriously. I'm so fucking sick of the European peanut gallery condescending to me because I refuse to lower myself to vote for Obama (or McCain for that matter.)

      If you honestly think that McCain and Obama are worlds apart on anything other than the specifics for how they want to pillage this country, you have a child-like understanding of American politics.

      But it's okay though. None of this shit really matters - we'll have 8 years of "progressive" legislation, a half-ass universal health care system, a hobbled and failing economy and more failing schools. People will pin this on the "evil liberals", and then we'll get more of the "neo-cons" crawling out of the woodwork, preaching that it's time to go back to "family values" and all of that shit. Repeat, ad infinitum.

      Whoever votes for either of these crooks will get exactly what they deserve.

    8. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by naetuir · · Score: 1

      The Americans would bitch and moan and threaten and swagger, but since they're basically bankrupt and have dumped a substantial amount of their wealth into non-wealth generating assets (the military, first and foremost) the USA is really at the mercy of the rest of the planet and some.

      That has got to be the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot thus far today.

      So.. because we have the biggest military...we're...at...everyone elses..mercy?

      I like it. :)

      --
      Use what works.
    9. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by twmcneil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the USA had ANY sense of self preservation we wouldn't have elected Bush - twice.

      --
      "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
    10. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by KovaaK · · Score: 1

      Socially? Don't let Americans out of America. Make travel difficult. Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES.

      So, if some fluke of the electoral college allows McCain to get in, every single American (many of whom didn't vote for McCain) should be stuck here? By this logic, should I have seen this coming and preemptively left the country to avoid being shunned, or would it not have made a difference?

      Just think for a few seconds what it would be like if you happened to be a citizen of this country and still had the same views.

    11. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were doomed either way then - because Obama will bankrupt the entire country, hence foreign money will pull out. You know, the lady that will help Obama said she expects her car payment and mortgage to be paid. That money will have to come from somewhere, and when the corporations leave because of taxes, and foreign money pulls out that will leave the middle class and I'm not paying to for two fucking mortgages, The whole thing will collapse. Call me selfish - go ahead I don't care becasue it's bullshit.

    12. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by rshepherd · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are as smart as you think you are.

    13. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote Terry Prachett (not regarding US):
      "By the way that's my pike you are pointing at me and you holding my shield. And take the hat off when talking to me you little horrible debtor."

    14. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Poor, naive youth! :-P

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    15. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      And yet we have the Iranians after one of their ministers because he lied about having an honorary degree from Oxford. Politics is politics, only the slant of the story gets changed.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    16. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      The USA is simply doomed. I live outside the USA, and I can assure you, the rest of the world is }{ close to pulling the plug on the USA, economically, diplomatically, socially, the whole works.

      Oh, horseshit. I can understand that you don't like what our leaders have done. Hell's bells, I don't like what they have done. But, don't give me this pull-the-plug crap. Everyone knows that China will be more than happy to continue making junk for McDonalds and Wal Mart. Everyone knows that when Mother Nature shits all over some part of the world, aid from the US will not be turned down.

      If you are waiting for the US to become a perfect country, you are in for a long and painful wait. Sometimes we do better, sometimes we do worse. So, when you bitch about the Caddy, you better include all the other impractical cars made around the world. When you whine about Vegas, better include Dubai and the Palm Islands.

      Sheesh. I normally don't go off like that on people that know Firesign Theater.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    17. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard.

    18. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by louferd · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that the united states is an irrational crackpot state with the most powerful military in the world, and your plan is to provoke a fight? Nice. Good luck with that. :)

    19. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by AmeerCB · · Score: 1

      The USA is simply doomed. I live outside the USA, and I can assure you, the rest of the world is }{ close to pulling the plug on the USA, economically, diplomatically, socially, the whole works.

      Ok, look - "living outside the USA" does not give you the sudden ability to know that the "the rest of the world is close to pulling the plug..."

      I don't agree with US foreign policy AT ALL right now, but be realistic here. Look what's going on in the global economy due to a blip in the US markets. No one is "pulling any plugs" if the wrong candidate gets elected and I'm realistic enough to understand that my candidate (and I voted Obama) getting elected does not mean our foreign policy problems are suddenly gone.

    20. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily disagree with you, but...

      the rest of the planet can set about building a future that works.

      ... because the U.N. has done a whole lot on its own? The U.S. went to Iraq in part because the U.N. sat on its thumbs and did not carry out the consequences of ignoring the rules they had placed on Saddam's government. Had the U.N. been doing its job, the U.S. would have only been a part of the military force that moved in.

      Just saying.

    21. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by xhrit · · Score: 1

      >The Americans would bitch and moan and threaten and swagger, but since they're basically bankrupt and have dumped a substantial amount of their wealth into non-wealth generating assets (the military, first and foremost) the USA is really at the mercy of the rest of the planet and some.

      I am not worried. The military will protect our economic interests, as it has done for teh past 200 years.

    22. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there was any truth to this I would simply say "good riddence" as it's a sure sign the everyone outside of the US is a complete fucking moron. If you honestly think that one man, president or not, can make that much of a difference than it shows that you have no idea how the system works. So I already went and voted wisely. BTW: It wasn't Obama. So feel free to pull the plug. I won't miss you. You can shove a flag pole up your ass.

      People in this country who went out to vote for the first time today because this presidency is "the most important issue evahs!!!!11111!!!!onehundredeleven!" are just as clueless and hopefully this will be the last election they involve themselves in.

    23. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by khallow · · Score: 1

      Tough talk for an Internet Tough Guy. I bet you're not even from Earth.

      Aside an irrelevant aside, if that happened, the US could go two ways like North Korea or like Paraguay. That is, it could turn into a basketcase or it could be like the country that tried to take over South America and made a pretty impressive showing for a small, crazy, vastly outnumbered country. Check it out. The thing to note here was that Paraguay of the time was a paranoid, isolated country. Yet somehow it managed to become the most technologically advanced and militarily powerful country of the continent. My take is that the US could do pretty well for itself, being that it is in a stronger position than Paraguay was.

    24. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by khallow · · Score: 1

      What attitude? It's healthy skeptism. You'd do well to pick up a little yourself.

    25. Re:If Obama is NOT the next president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A recent international poll revealed that in every country surveyed, between 1/3 and 3/4 of the population WANTED TO MOVE TO THE U.S. That's right, sweetheart. The poll included wealthy western European countries (with their precious socialism thst's supposed to be so great) and third-world countries (800 million Indians want to move here!).

      Get a clue, moron.

  57. Re:No matter who wins... by SebaSOFT · · Score: 0

    America is a continent

  58. I'm wondering how easy it is to get on the ballot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It depends on if you are one of the major parties that make the rules or not.

    There are really 2 standards of rules. One set of rules (which can routinely ignored) for the dems and reps.

    And another set of much harder rules for anyone who would dare to compete with the dems and reps.

  59. Best tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    !democracy

  60. Myths and urban legends by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Snopes has some good articles about myths and urban legends about each candidate.
    McCain
    Obama
    Joe Biden
    Sarah Palin

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Myths and urban legends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to laugh at how Snopes has become the internet's standard for "truth".

    2. Re:Myths and urban legends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, Obama endorsed by the KKK?

      Seriously, who comes up with these things?

    3. Re:Myths and urban legends by sanosuke001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's far short of being "each candidate" isn't it?

      --
      -SaNo
    4. Re:Myths and urban legends by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      That's far short of being "each candidate" isn't it?

      Good point, that should be, "each candidate that has greater than a snowball's chance in hell of winning."

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:Myths and urban legends by ekimminau · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, as much as I once thought Snopes was a "disinterested third party, seeking the truth", they are not. They are firmly in the back pocket of Obama. While they clearly have dismissed the allegations that Obama is not a natural born US citizen, the Phillip J. Berg vs. Obama case is on its way to the Supreme court with Sworn affidavits from a priest and a Bishop along with a live recording of Obamas paternal grandmother confirming multiple times she was in the delivery room in Kenya when Barack was born.
      I would point you to http://obamacrimes.com/ but suddenly "this blog has exceeded its bandwidth limit".

      Instead, try these:

      Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae - PDF (3707 KB)

      http://comments.blogware.com/Affidavit_20of_20Bishop_20Ron_20McRae.pdf

      Exhibits for Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae - PDF (178 KB)

      http://comments.blogware.com/Exhibits_20for_20Affidavit_20of_20Bishop_20Ron_20McRae.pdf

      Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia - PDF (146 KB)

      http://comments.blogware.com/Affidavit_20of_20Reverend_20Kweli_20Shuhubia.pdf

      U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari - PDF (202 KB)

      http://comments.blogware.com/U_20S_20Supreme_20Court_20Writ_20of_20Certiorari10_30_08.pdf

      Application to Justice David H. Souter for a stay of the Presidential Elections and/or a Temp. Injunction staying the Presidential Election pending resolution of the Writ of Certiorari - PDF (206 KB)

      http://comments.blogware.com/Application_20to_20Justice_20David_20H._20Souter_20for_20stay.pdf

      --
      Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    6. Re:Myths and urban legends by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      What the heck? Where are all the Biden "myths"? Only two entries? I wanted to have his gaffes about FDR responding to the crash of '29 on television recorded for posterity. Or the time he asked a crippled man to please stand up. Or the guy from Florida who introduced him as "Senator John McCain". Or the statement that Obama would be "challenged with an international crisis" in the first few months of his Presidency. Or his various drunk appearances. Or the time he told the press that he would never, ever, ever, under any circumstances run for Vice President.

      I mean, Biden is comedy gold! Not to mention the best shot for a whole list of "myths" that are "true". At this rate, he'll be the most interesting Vice President since Dan Quayle! :-P

    7. Re:Myths and urban legends by chrb · · Score: 1

      According to those articles, there were 7 completely untrue urban legends about McCain, and 29 (!!) completely untrue urban legends about Obama.

  61. Slot machines... by 0WaitState · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just a thought, from a guy who used to work on gambling ("gaming") systems back in the 90s--your average 20-year-old slot machine is light years ahead of a current voting terminal, in terms of the independent multiple party audit capability, internal logging requirements, tamper detection, and ruggedness.

    Me, I'll be demanding a paper ballot at my polling place.

    --

    Remain calm! All is well!
    1. Re:Slot machines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a thought, from a guy who used to work on gambling ("gaming") systems back in the 90s--your average 20-year-old slot machine is light years ahead of a current voting terminal, in terms of the independent multiple party audit capability, internal logging requirements, tamper detection, and ruggedness.

      Me, I'll be demanding a paper ballot at my polling place.

      I've thought for several years that we (particularly Slashdotters) should put together a model set of regulations for electronic voting machines. One important element I want to include:

      The security protocols for electronic voting machines (including physical, information, software validation, etc.) shall be AT LEAST as stringent as the jurisdiction's security protocols for electronic gambling / gaming machines.

    2. Re:Slot machines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a thought, from a guy who used to work on gambling ("gaming") systems...
      Me, I'll be demanding a paper ballot at my polling place.

      Not if you live where they actually deploy those gaming systems. I just got back from voting in Clark County, Nevada (think Las Vegas). There is only one option for voting--electronic. No paper ballots allowed.

  62. Time to watch the polls on senate seats by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The presidential election is OVER. Has been for a long time. Obama has won this in a big way. The question is the senate seats. The pubs pulled all their dollars on McCain nearly a month ago, as well as a number of seats such as Colorado's Schaffers and Musgrave. Instead, they targeted seats that are on the edge such as Coleman (vs. franken) in minn. If there is any cheating going on, it is doubtful that it will be systemic. But if the polls, and exit polls match up with results in most areas, BUT do not match up with those contested seats, then it will be time to consider what is going on. And I fully expect that neo-cons will pull garbage in those areas IFF they have the capability.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  63. Wasn't going to bother by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    As I figure it, we're boned no matter which joker wins, so why give one or the other the tacit approval of being "the lesser evil." My plan was to skip it entirely.

    Of course, these inbred redneck quasi-sentients decided to screw up my plans by making Florida one of the states with the hypocritical "pro-marriage" amendments on the ballot.

    Some days it just sucks to have principles...

  64. Don't blame me by rlp · · Score: 4, Funny

    I voted for Kodos.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  65. Would I know if Diebold ate my vote? by jep77 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was thinking about this as I showed my 7 year-old daughter how we vote in MD (this year anyway...diebold is going away). She pressed the green button and the machine spit out my card with a "kachunk" and said my vote was registered. I walked away feeling a bit incomplete. My daughter said, "That's it?" That's how I felt about it. I felt the same way four years ago. How would I know if the computer actually registered my vote. I feel like if I can't slip a ballot into a box I should at least get a receipt. Probably the most disappointing moment was when I had to get the I Voted sticker off the roll myself. I could have taken the whole roll if I wanted to. My daughter loves stickers. Seriously though, does anyone have a story where they're certain the machine did NOT register their vote?

    1. Re:Would I know if Diebold ate my vote? by stubob · · Score: 1

      At some point, you have to turn your trust over. Why does it make a difference if you put your ballot into a box to be counted compared to pushing a button on a computer? There's still other people involved in actually totaling and reporting those votes.

      I voted by mail-in ballot. How do I know where those votes go? Who counts them? When do they count them? Where did the ballots go after being counted? A recount doesn't do any good. If an area has discrepancies or is too close to call, vote again.

      --
      Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
  66. Other countries (or: Is it over please?) by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    Even here in Holland the newspapers are full with election 'news'. Quoting poll after poll with meaningless numbers because we all know what can happen despite a candidate having a solid lead. Most of the so-called important news shows are making a special program tonight which starts at (local time) midnight and ends tomorrow morning 9am. A nine hour news report about things that hardly concerns us.

    Is it this in other countries as well? I'm really curious.

    1. Re:Other countries (or: Is it over please?) by xaxa · · Score: 1

      It's the case in the UK too.

      I haven't read a newspaper, but the BBC News website is covered with stars and stripes. They have radio coverage from midnight to 5:30 GMT on Radio 4 (so presumably the World Service too), and I think they have TV coverage for longer than that, but I don't intend to watch.

    2. Re:Other countries (or: Is it over please?) by g-san · · Score: 1

      I find this interesting. I am amazed at how much other countries cover US elections. Canada had elections a few weeks back, they are one of our two neighbors and I saw nearly zero coverage in US media. We never hear about other countries elections, maybe the UK. Last time before that was something in Israel, something about Hamas being terrorists.

      I can imagine few in any other country gives a rats ass about our election. But it gets pushed so much. Is that media conglomeration pushing agenda? Does it matter to someone in Australia, or Tanzania, or India, or France, or Netherlands, that much? Why don't we get bombarded over here with other countries and their politics and elections? Is it just that I am reading the english language version of those sources and only seeing stories about US? I hear non-Americans having an opinion on which candidate they like! I never overhear discussions on who the next King of Belgium or Italy is going to be, much less anyone over here having an opinion or even being informed.

      At any rate, I apologize. We are just as tired of it as you are. It is broken beyond our control, has taken on a life of its own, and is rapidly getting worse. Our only hope is that it will collapse on itself.

  67. Stock Market is rallying despite other bad news... by Yarcofin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tends to suggest that Obama has already won and the rest is just semantics.

  68. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is that what the Mayans forsaw, the event which caused the end of this round of civilization?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  69. I Voted by ddillman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The polling place was much busier than I've ever seen it in the 24 years I've been voting. I usually vote in the morning because the polls are less busy. Normally I have a 5 minute wait, tops. This morning, about 40 minutes. My vote was #91 to go through the tabulator. It was a longer ballot than some years due to a constitutional amendment question and three local school district levy questions.

    We have (in central Minnesota) a fill-in-the-oval ballot which is then read by machine similar to tests in school. I saw no issues with either the election judges or the ballots, and the machine seemed to be working fine, although you really can't tell if it correctly tabulated your vote. But it's pretty low tech, so should be fairly reliable. Ballots were readable and the ovals were clearly aligned with the listed choices. On the whole, MN seems to have pretty good voting methods and equipment.

    --
    Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse. -- L. Long
  70. Insurance: bet on McCain by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    William Hill are offering odds of 13:2 against McCain winning, so I'm thinking of putting £20 on. That way if he gets in at least I have the consolation of a free Xbox 360.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Insurance: bet on McCain by LordHaart · · Score: 1

      Awesome. I love some of the posts here, especially the one which says both that "the media elected Obama" and at the same time that "the media shows all of Obamas bad points and none of McCains because McCain has none..." Contradictory much?

  71. That wasn't maths by davidwr · · Score: 1

    That was a range. There were between two people and three hundred people. In esimation maths, that's what we call sacrificing precision for accuracy.

    I daresay most polling places had more than one person and less than three hundred and one people in line in the early hours.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  72. Did Diebold eat my vote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Diebold appeared to do everything flawlessly, but how would I (or an auditor) know if it ate my vote instead? Maryland voter -- looking forward to going back to Scantron system next time

    1. Re:Did Diebold eat my vote? by cyphergirl · · Score: 1

      I too was so happy to hear we are going back to paper next time around. It always worked well -- I never heard of any problems with the Scantron ballots.

      Waited 45 minutes this morning. There were about 15 of the Diebold machines at my polling place, but only two or three had voters at any given time because the election judges were taking so long to get people checked in.

      --
      --Insert catchy .sig line here--
  73. Voted Early And Often by zbuffered · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I voted early, but got a call from the Obama campaign saying that the county hadn't received my ballot (which I mailed). I showed up at the county courthouse yesterday and they were right. I filled out another one.

    Voted straight Dem ticket this year, except the county auditor (who was in the room -- small county) who is an R. I figure, the fact that my ballot didn't arrive may not have been his fault, but the fact that I found out about it and was able to correct it is at least partly due to him, so kudos, and 4 more years!

    Also I wrote myself in for sheriff. I feel good about that.

    --
    Synergy is your friend
    1. Re:Voted Early And Often by forceman130 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I voted early, but got a call from the Obama campaign saying that the county hadn't received my ballot (which I mailed). I showed up at the county courthouse yesterday and they were right. I filled out another one.

      How did the Obama campaign know the county didn't have your vote? How did they know you voted for him? How did they get access to the county voting records? How does the county know not to count your mail-in ballot (since you also voted in person) if they find it on the floor later today?

      That comment raises a lot of questions for me.

      --
      Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
    2. Re:Voted Early And Often by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I voted early, but got a call from the Obama campaign saying that the county hadn't received my ballot (which I mailed)

      ?!?! I didn't even know this was possible.

  74. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the rest of the funny mods for this, that was good.

  75. Smile, King Kong died for your sins by Nimey · · Score: 1

    and there is no Goddess but Goddess and She is your Goddess. Non serviam.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  76. typo: esTimation by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I was gud at maths but eye failed spellings and keyboreding.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  77. yeah that was weird by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    never noticed that before

    voter in new york state here too

    previously, you sign your name on a sheet, and go vote

    this year, they had TWO sheets, and we signed our name twice. the second, new sheet, had a number next to our name. i didn't know what that number was for until i just read your comment here

    but i don't think they can match a name to a vote, unless they serialize all the votes, and trust the sign in sheet to match the same voting order exactly... which is not necessarily a perfect match, as people coming from the sign in desk to the voting machine were often out of order in which they signed the sheet

    so, yes, odd, i wonder at the point of the exercise. but i don't see a massive privacy breach here

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:yeah that was weird by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      At the location where I voted, they were being very careful that the number next to the name matched the number on the machine. I stayed and watched for a while, and every handful of votes the guy next to the machine and the lady with the piece of paper made sure they were at the same number.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:yeah that was weird by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      In Rochester, I walked up, told them my name, signed a sheet (they double checked my license as my signature has changed in the last 12 years)...

      They had two booths, one for one part of the district and one for the other...that's it. No secret numbers, no signing multiple sheets. It was the old lever system with the little flip down things...like it's been for 12 years. There is no way they can track my vote...the names were alphabetical on the list.

  78. Paper Ballot & Incompetent Election Officials by fotbr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Title pretty much sums it up. The election officials don't know their ABCs, so you pretty much had to grab the book and find your name in it. They didn't have pencil sharpeners, but they had boxes and boxes of brand-new unsharpened pencils.

    Remarkably, the R's and D's were behaving themselves, across the street from the polling place, quietly holding their signs.

    Supporters of other issues on the ballot (mostly new sales taxes to support special-interest groups) were campaigning INSIDE the polling place and refusing to leave, in violation of state law. I expect they were eventually escorted out by the police, but I didn't have time to stick around and watch. Election officials just ignored the whole issue.

  79. PAPER BALLOTS! by edremy · · Score: 1
    So I'm standing in line today at the polling place and I watch the voting machine crash in front of me. The poll worker was busy trying to call the election HQ to figure out if he needed to reboot it and so forth, but it didn't look good. (Something along the line of SYSTEM ERROR: INVALID MEMORY ACCESS)

    Did it matter? Not really. My district was smart enough to use paper ballots with an optical reader. Reader not working? Just drop the paper ballot in the box. It still wasn't back up when I left, but it didn't slow down the long line of folks who followed me. Even if the reader just corrupted its entire database, it's no big worry- they'll pull out the ballots and count them by hand.

    I managed to get a call on the air on the local NPR station to point out how critical this issue is- don't trust *anything* you can't backup and verify by hand.

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  80. 10 seconds per vote by DevCybiko · · Score: 1

    while i waited 45 minutes to vote, i noticed that our voting machine counted 360 votes in the first hour. Thats one vote every 10 seconds. Not too shabby.

  81. I wish this was different by mpapet · · Score: 1

    Sadly, both candidates senior campaign workers have long histories in government promoting the most conventional positions in American government. Look where that's gotten the country.

    This is your Republic. I'm not sure why all of you dissatisfied citizens think that participating in a single election cycle will change very much. One needs to participate in your government. That means more than a few minutes once every two to four years.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  82. They did that by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    because it brings out those inbred rednecks to vote, and they will vote Republican.

    We in Missouri dealt with that in 2004 (unfortunately, the white trash got the Constitution amended successfully), so maybe we'll go Dem this time.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:They did that by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Yeah, pretty sure they'll win here too. Probably by a huge margin. If so, sucks for the gays, but I voted against it. All I can do after that is patronize the big corporate stores rather than the locally-owned shops, and stop giving to local charities. Ironic.

  83. Early Louisiana Voter by Yoda2 · · Score: 1

    I participated in early voting last week in rural Louisiana so I barely had to wait to have my vote not counted. No worries though because all of my dead relatives are voting today.

    1. Re:Early Louisiana Voter by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      I'm from Louisiana, and I honestly know how unfunny this can be. Mary Landrieu IS running, isn't she...

  84. I Didn't Vote For Obama by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    . . . but I'll be damned proud of my country if he's elected.

    We've come a long way in the past 30 years - and we still have a long way to go, but I have faith America will fulfill the promise made to us in the Declaration of Independence - that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    God bless America.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:I Didn't Vote For Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what would you be proud of.........

      the fact that 92% plus of a racial demographic disregarded issues and went for race in their vote cast (obama) while touting diversity when its convenient except when it conflicts with their perceptions and decisions

      the fact that candidate a) has a long and public record for all good and bad of which the bad pales in comparison to candidate b's lack of experience and long list of questionable associations, ideological beliefs if not dubious eligiibility for presidency i.e. Rev wright/farrakhan/ayers, marxist/socialist leanings, where is his real birth cert.

      You will be proud? What a fucking joke, you should be frightened and ashamed at the stupidity of the electorate, the complicity of the media and scared for the future

    2. Re:I Didn't Vote For Obama by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

      You will be proud? What a fucking joke, you should be frightened and ashamed at the stupidity of the electorate, the complicity of the media and scared for the future

      With you serving as an excellent example. But I know you're a small minority - you and your twisted opinions don't matter at all in the scale of ages.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:I Didn't Vote For Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you didn't vote for Obama. Why not? You have a 6-digit UID, so I figure you're probably old enough to vote, which means you're probably a felon. That explains the bit about fulfilling the promise of ALL men having the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and such...

    4. Re:I Didn't Vote For Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up obamaton, there are hundreds of million of me and thats why your candidate spent over a half a billion to manage a virtual tie.

            Your the epitome of the idiocy that abounds you fucking slashtard!

      P.S. My twisted opinions aka facts, blacks voted for the black man regardless of substance, no wonder their misery has perpetuated for so long in this the post civil rights era, they are their own worst enemy and your the fucking guilty white liberal enabler you fucking dick!

  85. NJ, Chicago, and Philadelphia Voters: by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2, Funny

    Make sure you vote at least 5 times before lunch, and at least 3 afterwards.

    Thank you.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  86. Truth of the matter is... by gmac63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its not the President that is going to make the necessary change. Its Congress, American business, and the America people.

    1. Congress makes the decisions on domestic policy and passes legislation. The President can sign or veto the proposed legislation, but congress can override that veto by a 2/3 majority

    "After passage by both houses, a bill is submitted to the President. The President may choose to sign the bill, thereby making it law. The President may also choose to veto the bill, returning it to Congress with his objections. In such a case, the bill only becomes law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress]

    So what good is the President on domestic policy when his decisions can be overridden?

    2. Look at the current credit/economic crisis in America. Greed and overspending on the part of business and the populus. Short of the SEC and Fed making mistakes, 90% of that is due to non-governmental factors.

    3. The President [at this time] has the obligation to preside over foreign policy matters and matters of national security. Thus, the next President must have a keen sense of foreign policy and diplomacy as we do live in a now "global" community.

    In as far as either major candidate (yes, there are four others), I don't think any of them have the intelligence and experience to meet today's requirements.

    Congress, That's where we need a change. They are the branch of Federal Government that is responsible for 90% of our domestic policy. Make the change there.

    BTW, The House is majority Dems and the Senate, tho is 49/49 Rep/Dem, the remaining two seats have aligned themselves with the Dems, giving them de facto control.

    --

    INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
    1. Re:Truth of the matter is... by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      Technically, yes, but it has been, so far, easily filibustered.

    2. Re:Truth of the matter is... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      There's one other thing the President can do that can have far-reaching effects - the President gets to appoint replacements for the Supreme Court. (For example, if McCain were to somehow win, he could appoint more conservative judges, and they could then invalidate Roe v. Wade.)

    3. Re:Truth of the matter is... by gmac63 · · Score: 1

      There's one other thing the President can do that can have far-reaching effects - the President gets to appoint replacements for the Supreme Court. (For example, if McCain were to somehow win, he could appoint more conservative judges, and they could then invalidate Roe v. Wade.)

      Well said and quite true!

      --

      INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
  87. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I went to vote this morning there were 12 people waiting in line to use the single touch screen machine, meanwhile paper ballot = no waiting. Raise your hand if you would wait in line to use a touch screen machine - yeah, didn't think so.

  88. moot point by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    not taking or taking responsibility for breaking the cup in the kitchen is besides the point, when republicans are clearly responsible for sinking the entire ship in the last 8 years:

    1. a pointless war in iraq
    2. no oversight of wall street resulting in a horrible crash
    3. fumbling hurricane karina to the point of looking like they cared less about american citizens than iraqis
    4. massive new deficit
    5. going full retard on basic science (supporting creationism, denying stem cell research, etc.)
    6. etc.

    yes, democrats and republicans have both made mistakes in the last 8 years, but the awful, huge, major embarassing mistakes made by the republican leadership dwarfs anything you could pin in the democrats in the last 8 years

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:moot point by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      1. a pointless war in iraq

      IMO the Iraq war was not pointless, it has served to be a magnet for terrorists. Terrorists attacking the US Military over there are not terrorists destroying skyscrapers here.

      2. no oversight of wall street resulting in a horrible crash

      I think there is enough blame on this one to share with everyone in D.C. and Wall Street. Clinton is the one who got the ball rolling with these sub-prime mortgages, Bush did nothing to fix it.

      3. fumbling hurricane karina to the point of looking like they cared less about american citizens than iraqis

      Yes, that was definitely not one of Bush's finer moments.

      4. massive new deficit

      No argument there. But I don't see Obama doing much about it... he can't extract enough cash out of $250K+ people to make up for the tax cuts to the under $250K people _and_ reduce the deficit.

      5. going full retard on basic science (supporting creationism, denying stem cell research, etc.)

      Agreed.

    2. Re:moot point by Tritoch · · Score: 1

      1. a pointless war in iraq

      Try telling that to the Iraqi citizens that were Kurds and/or weren't part of the Ba'ath Party from 1979 and 2003. Yes, the Bush administration severely botched (and continues to botch to an extent) the execution of the war (and our intelligence agencies botched the WMD evidence that was used to sell it to the American people), but booting the man responsible for the atrocities carried out during that time period is worth it if we're there 50 more years IMO. Whether cleaning up Iraq was our job to start with is a debate in itself, but the fact that we did has made the world a slightly better place. The growing pains Iraq is facing now are certainly better than the mass murder, torture, gassings, etc. it endured before.

  89. The long national nightmare is over by russotto · · Score: 1

    No, not Bush. Just the campaign. I voted against one Republican candidate (not for President, for state senate) precisely because I was constantly getting campaign ads from him; frequently two a day in the mail, and often some stuck on my door. It was just too much. Also the ads didn't have any specifics, just said what a great guy he was.

  90. Applying science to the vote by Chairboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I saw three choices this year. I could:

    1. Vote for someone
    2. Vote AGAINST someone
    or
    3. Vote my conscience.

    #1 and #2 would involve votes for people I didn't really agree with but either of which had a realistic chance of winning. Once I had worked this out, I realized that I was being suckered into the classic popularity contest. Not the one where "I'm popular", but the one where "I successfully picked the WINNER!".

    That was crap.

    So I went back to the ballot to find someone that I agreed with... and came up semi-blank. The solution, it was clear, was going to be more complicated that I had thought.

    I began working my way through the party descriptions again, looking for something I might have missed. Then I compared the track records of the elected officials that identify w/ each party and worked out a rough graph with two axis to determine how well each candidate had met the stated goals of their party. I thought of it as a 'Truth in Advertising' metric. How often do candidates of party X meet their promises? Once I had that, I aggregated the data and set it aside.

    I then wrote down my core beliefs and popped them into Excel alongside the data for the 'TiA' metric and generated a quick 3D histogram to find which political parties were closest both in belief to my own and high in followthrough (the TiA number). Finally, I had my spreadsheet take this graph and do a pivot on the results and generate the party answer.

    Unfortunately, my grasp of Excel is presumably sub-par, so the answer field populated with some sort of complicated error. I tried debugging it, but I didn't know how to modify VBS, and then when I _could_ get to it, I couldn't figure out how to set tracepoints. I tried to bypass the error by initializing a pointer that I could push and pop to in a handy little block of assembly, but I couldn't quite seem to figure out how to use pointers in VBS, so eventually I just voted the Libertarian party.

    1. Re:Applying science to the vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First time, huh?

      It always hurts the first time.

    2. Re:Applying science to the vote by codepunk · · Score: 1

      The reason you where having such issues with the graphing is because Obama has no data points. Hard to graph someone with
      zero historical data points.

      --


      Got Code?
  91. VOTE KANG! by Deadplant · · Score: 1

    Vote for Kang or you are stupid!
    Kodos will ruin this country and he is a secret space-muslim!

  92. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by El+Fantasmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look up "aencephaly." And tell me if it's fair/moral to knowingly bring this child into the world. Let me help, so you don't have to RTFA! Most of the baby's brain is missing with a gaping hole in the back of its head and it's spinal cord is mostly exposed. It will die shortly after birth, and spend its brief moment of life on meds or in agonizing pain and mother knows this for most of the pregnancy. There is NO medical treatment for this, it is 100% lethal! Then she gets to watch her child die. Does this make God happy? Who is this fair to, the mother, father, grandparents, or the child? Don't give me any of this it's God's plan crap. Who does it benefit to not allow this mother an elective abortion? This is only one example of many. For a human to choose death is not always wrong. Thank God for freedom of religion or freedom from it!

  93. More importantly.... by PinkyDead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about curtailing it a little next time lads?

    (Speaking from an outside-US position) I've been following this whole thing with great interest since the Obama/Clinton things started - and going back a bit I stayed up all night watching the Gore/Bush thing - so I'm not knocking it.

    But do you not think it's a bit long in the tooth at this stage? It's been pretty much going for two years and when you think about it, all you are doing is selecting one individual from a list of 30 or so - surely you don't need 2 years to make that decision.

    Maybe some work needs to be done on limiting the scale of the thing - both in terms of time and of money, which is verging on the ridiculous too.

    See you in 2 years time...

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    1. Re:More importantly.... by jemtallon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You obviously don't understand America at all. Talking loudly about nothing while spending shameful amounts of money are basically all we do! I hope the next election is super-sized too! *wanders off to order a triple quarter-pounder with bacon and a gallon of cola*

    2. Re:More importantly.... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      How about curtailing it a little next time lads?

      Trust me, most Americans have no more interest in two-year campaigns than you do.

      Alas, since Clinton and Obama decided to start two years before election this time, it'll happen earlier next time, as all the hypothetical candidates decide that the reason Obama got the nomination was that he started working on name recognition really early.

      I'm expecting the next campaign to start by the end of 2009. And again in 2013, right after Inauguration. By 2016, the new campaign will start the day after the election.

      This assuming that Obama doesn't start campaigning for election/reelection (depending on whether he loses/wins today) tomorrow. Which I about half expect.

      The other half of me thinks Hillary will start campaigning tomorrow, no matter whether Obama wins or loses.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:More importantly.... by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      And the shameful thing is that we know relatively little about the candidates and their real strengths and weaknesses after two years.

    4. Re:More importantly.... by Golias · · Score: 1

      As another non-US thinker once said:

      "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all those other forms that have been tried."

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:More importantly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, so long as McCain doesn't win and die in the next few years, the next election cycle will not be any where near as much of a circus as this one. Since only one party will be selecting its candidate.

    6. Re:More importantly.... by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      *wanders off to order a triple quarter-pounder with bacon and a gallon of cola*

      Dude... this is America - you can't just order the small combo meal! Supersize it!

    7. Re:More importantly.... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      As another non-US thinker once said:

      "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all those other forms that have been tried."

      Really? Maybe the US should give it a shot then...

    8. Re:More importantly.... by smudge · · Score: 1

      In what other area can you abandon your current job (Obama, McCain and Clinton are "currently" senators) for 2 years trying to get a new 1 and NOT GET FIRED?

      So when they start campaigning even earlier next time, perhaps we can have an interim election to fill their vacated seat and not pay them.

    9. Re:More importantly.... by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Actually I understand Hillary is kicking off her campaign for President tomorrow.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    10. Re:More importantly.... by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      But do you not think it's a bit long in the tooth at this stage? It's been pretty much going for two years and when you think about it, all you are doing is selecting one individual from a list of 30 or so - surely you don't need 2 years to make that decision.

      This is partly because of the primary system. Two states have become the sacred starters (Iowa and New Hampshire) so their caucus and primary are held first which brings them the most attention from the candidates. Other states saw this attention and wanted in on the action so they started moving their primary dates up as close as possible (This led to the Michigan and Florida fiasco)which is why Iowa and New Hampshire are now voting in January (Because they loose too much if they are not first).

      If all the primaries were moved back to late spring, perhaps the candidates wouldn't feel the need to start running until the previous fall. Personally, I think the time has come for a national primary day but it seems that this whole thing will continue to be a total cluster fuck again next time so look for the candidates to start running right after the 2010 midterms.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    11. Re:More importantly.... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      You can expect half as much, since there won't be a nomination battle on the side that wins today. It's worse than usual for this election because both parties had hotly contested primaries.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    12. Re:More importantly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not deciding who to pick. I know from outside the US this would be pretty confusing.

      We're weeding out those who are competent. If we had someone who was truly competent in office then we would have to find someone else to blame.

      Does it make sense now. It does to me.

    13. Re:More importantly.... by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      wanders off to order a triple quarter-pounder with bacon

      Wouldn't that be a 3/4 pounder?

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  94. Voter handouts by RemoWilliams84 · · Score: 1

    I went to vote this morning and while waiting in line just outside the polling place, a black man was handing out pamphlets to other black people. I told him i wanted one, just so I could see what it was and it was telling the people who to vote for. I'm pretty sure this is illegal as I remember last election seeing people get arrested on tv for this. Anyone know if it is illegal and what are your thoughts on that. I know if I was a black person I would be offended that they are kind of saying, here's this in case you're to stupid to vote for who you think should win.

    --
    "I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
  95. 123 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I stroked myself in the ballot box.

  96. Relax by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    ALL THE MACHINES are tied to voters. I had to enter a code at the booth that I was at earlier. On the butterflies that I use to vote at, it was recorded on the outside of the ballot. All in all, they want to KNOW who voted where. After all, it is their job to prevent fraud. BUT your vote is secret, UNLESS 100% of everybody at that booth voted the exact same way as you.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  97. My voting experience by HansieC · · Score: 1

    About 2 months ago, I registered as an overseas voter. About a month ago, I received a "sample" ballot pack in the mail. About 2 weeks ago, I received the actual ballot pack which I filled out, put in the purple reply envelope, signed, and paid the AUD$4 to send it back (worth it for me). Before filling out, I tried my darndest to find out as much as I could about local measures that I was able to vote on. I'm registered in California, but was disappointed at the lack of options for some seats I was voting for. I'll have to get back over there at some stage and see about changing that. Overall, I know I'm going to end up being tremendously disappointed, but I'm happy to be involved in the process. And it's interesting to see how other countries do it.

  98. WAY TOO LONG!!!! by Wardish · · Score: 1

    I want a constitutional amendment that prohibits anyone from running for office or from supporting anyone who may run for office or from reporting about running for office until 6 months prior to the election.

    As has been said before. This is fricking way to much.

    --
    Ward

    . Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
    1. Re:WAY TOO LONG!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're arguing that LESS civic engagement is preferable to MORE civic engagement??

  99. Better Choices? by nobodyman · · Score: 1

    Regardless of what people say, I'm much happier with the choices this election that in the previous one.

    Though I voted for Obama, I have great respect for John McCain. That is much more than I can say for either George Bush or John Kerry.

  100. choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Slashdot had many more people interested in the other candidates.

  101. I hate to be the one to break this to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but the campaign for the 2010 congressional elections and the 2012 presidential election begins tomorrow.

    Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  102. Voting by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    I voted for Obama/Biden for President, Mark Warner (D - former VA governor) for Senate, and Rob Wittman (R) for House.

    In my former life (until July when I just couldn't take it anymore) I was a lobbyist. I've met every one of the candidates with a real shot at winning except Sarah Palin, and she's largely responsible for me not voting for McCain (that and all my friends and family in Iraq (in the military, i'm a cracker-american)).

    Gilmore nearly bankrupted the state as governor and his wife, who had been an adjunct professor of classics at my school was a 'tard who made me catch cold in St Alban's in England in January by rambling on about insulae in a sleet storm.

    I think I made all the right choices -- let's just hope they don't come back to bite me.

  103. Need another party! by Wardish · · Score: 1

    It's time for a new party. One that I believe will appeal to the majority of people in this country.

    Lets try Fiscally conservative and socially liberal for a change.

    In other words, keep the Government out of my life for the most part. Not a totally libertarian position, I do think the government does have a job to do. Namely to defend the BORDERS and provide reliable information to the citizens so THEY can decide how to live their lives.

    *sigh*
     

    --
    Ward

    . Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
  104. i voted for obama, but by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    even if mccain won, none of the things you say woudl come to pass

    your problem is you are confusing popularity with power. certianly, the usa has become immensely unpopular under bush, but it has lost none of its power. continue bush's policies though, and it WOULD lose power, but not because of anything you worte, but simply because america's ability to create and project power would be diminished because of internal factors

    for example, before the global economic meltdown over the last 2 months, there was much hemming and hawing about becoming a non-us centered world, economically. however, as the meltdown progressed, the us dollar perversely gained in value. simply because, even though the problem was started in the usa, it was still the most stable thing still standing as the whole world went down with the usa

    someday, the usa will indeed not be the center of the world economically and militarily. but it won't be for any of the flowery and powerless popularity contest-level considerations you put forth, but simply becaus esome other country, such as china, will siply be able to create and project economic and military power, again, simply because of internal efforts, having nothign whatsoever to do with what the rest of the world thinks of china

    your understanding of how the world actually works is quite... silly

    for example: "Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES."

    any country that woudl be foolish enough to do that, would see their economy suffer, since americna businessmen wouldn't be able to get in the country and do business. do you know any country then that would give up millions or billions simply to make a statement that they hate americans?

    again, learn: popularity is not the same thing as power

    it is possible to be deeply hated, but be in complete control

    it is also possible, by the way, hint hint, to be loved everywhere you go in the world, but be absolutely powerless to affect any change about any issue you care about

    no, the truth is, even if obama wins (and please god, let him win), the usa will be hated by many (and loved by some), and see its power still quite large in the world, but still slowly dimming while china slowly amps up. and this would be true even if mccain won

    power!=popularity

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i voted for obama, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, your vote did not count the same as a vote in one of the "battleground" or "swing" (or whatever you want to call it) states.

      That is exactly why voting for President in the US is a farce, unless you live in one of them. Otherwise, there isn't much point, as the statewide herd will decide the state electoral votes for you.

      Until the electoral college goes away, this will be a constant problem. It used to serve a purpose, but no longer does.

      Of course, you don't realize this, since you are not rational.

  105. My Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm voting for McCain because I have no other choice. McCain is the lesser of evils. I will let history judge me. If history shows I'm wrong, and Obama makes things great so be it I will be happy to admit I'm wrong. But, If history shows I'm right, I'll be laughing all the way, reminding everyone on slashdot and digg of what a bunch of morons you were because you wouldn't listen.

    1. Re:My vote by hacker · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately, my candidate does not exist"

      Your candidate exists, he's just not on the ballot this year.

      Incidentally, he's my candidate as well. I also did not vote in this election.

  106. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mayan Doomsday: December 21, 2012
    Inauguration Day: January 20, 2013

    Seems like the Mayans were a bit off...

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  107. Money spent on advertising... by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

    ... is the one issue I've had with this election. Barack Obama raised over $639 million dollars, and spent over $573 million dollars throughout this election (source).

    Yes, it's common for politicians to spend huge amounts of money on advertising for their Presidential elections, but in a time when the economy is going to hell and back... maybe a 30 minute TV commercial on the major TV stations in a prime-time slot was a bit... wasteful.

    I'm not saying I don't like Obama - he's my favorite candidate, and I hope he's elected President, but the money he raised could be used a lot of different ways. Some of the things he used the money on really helped his campaign and was worth it, but some things were unnecessary...

    1. Re:Money spent on advertising... by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      People donated the money to make sure he won. It's not like he could donate it to charity.

  108. only took 1 minute to cancel your vote ;^P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if you vote again, I'll be back to do it again ;^b

  109. Go, Libertarians! by vrmlguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The good news is that, like Ron Paul's supporters, I'll be able to easily tell if Diebold ate my vote.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  110. I don't think it matters anymore. by arizwebfoot · · Score: 1

    December 21st, 2012 the world is going to end as we know it - do the research:
    The Oracle at Delphi
    The Mayan Calendar
    The I Ching
    and the Hopi Indian Nation
    all independently predicted that the world would end as we know it on December 21st, 2012.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
  111. Re:No matter who wins... by edward2020 · · Score: 1

    Actually, there exists no continent named solely 'America.' Also, when the topic of the article is the US presidential election, using the word 'America' is totally appropriate because only an idiot would be confused.

    I live in America. I'm an American. Now, it just so happens that the United States of America is, in addition, located within North America. So, I'm like doubly-American. Er, yeah...

    --
    Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
  112. No Winners by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't like either of the major candidates and am still wondering how we ended up with the two of them as our only reasonable choices. Neither were front runners in the early days.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:No Winners by stanltaaf · · Score: 1

      I agree in that they are our choices. I don't agree that they are reasonable. Our process has turned into a 'beauty pageant' of sorts. The the wide distribution of information now-adays, it seems that the meaning behind our words is diluted. Perhaps fewer words can convey more meaning.

  113. Third Parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's upsetting how many people in this country think/act that there are only two candidates. What's worse is the number who feel they have no choice but to try to chose the lesser of two evils, picking between two men in a race to be the lowest common denominator. There are other choices.

    Libertarian
    Constitution
    Green

    1. Re:Third Parties by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      Im sick of the 3rd parties not working to get involved in the lower levels of Gov't... What have they done to earn our trust or respect? they have no track record, and *if* they somehow won the White House they would have absolutly NO support from the two chambers.

      Until they can show that they can do something starting as city councilors, mayorals, state senators, or governors. then I dont believe you will be able to do anything better than the rest of the clowns in D.C.

      Give us a reason other than "we ain't them"

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    2. Re:Third Parties by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      Republicans and Democrats have been playing this game of football for many many years. The best that either party can do, given the reality or politics in Washington, is move the ball a few feet one direction or the other toward their endzone.

      Third party candidates don't even have any teammates in the game, but they promise that if elected they will score a touchdown, despite the fact that both major parties in congress will be their opposition.

    3. Re:Third Parties by greenhuey · · Score: 1

      I agree, third parties have a lot of big ideas but fall short on the actual work of getting things done. The best example being the work less party. Perhaps a fine idea, but hampered by a lack of work ethic. :-p

      --
      I added the word "nerds" to http://wordandlink.com/, you should add a word too.
    4. Re:Third Parties by greenhuey · · Score: 1

      Jeepers, posting that was a lot of work. Phew!

      --
      I added the word "nerds" to http://wordandlink.com/, you should add a word too.
  114. Strictly speaking... by PinkyDead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Obama were a Marxist (which is a laughable concept when you take the world view) then you wouldn't be paying tax, you would be returning that which you had stolen from the working classes.

    And while we're on the subject I would definitely argue that a negative income tax isn't Marxist or Socialist - the idea was invented by Milton Friedman, the darling economist of those notorious lefties Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    1. Re:Strictly speaking... by Tenek · · Score: 1

      It's also an element (somewhat) of the FairTax ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax ) - the government hands you money to cover your tax bill up to the poverty level. Free money if you can live on less.

    2. Re:Strictly speaking... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      What's laughable is your naivete. Do you think a true out of the closet Marxist could get elected in this country? So let's say your not a total idiot but yet still somehow manage to believe in Marxist ideals. Would you immediately propose massive wealth redistribution or would you do it slowly, subtly, and over the course of 8-16 years?

    3. Re:Strictly speaking... by Theolojin · · Score: 1

      If Obama were a Marxist (which is a laughable concept when you take the world view) then you wouldn't be paying tax, you would be returning that which you had stolen from the working classes.

      That is what he implies! When Senator Obama tells a private citizen that he wants to take money away from those who earned it and give it to others who did not earn it, he is clearly implying that it was wrongfully gained. It's like he's saying the rich have no right to keep the money they earned. That's not laughable.

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    4. Re:Strictly speaking... by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      No, as an alternative let's just assume that you are a total idiot.

      Don't read the word "Marxist" and then go into moron autopilot - read what I wrote, I didn't propose anything nor did I suggest that I believed anything.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    5. Re:Strictly speaking... by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      "who earned it" - according to who?

      Are you saying that a guy who gets up a 6am everyday and takes the bus to job where he works 8-10 hours of back breaking work for minimum wage and the guy who works on Wall Street and gets $250m for 4 hours pushing a few buttons and bending a few laws are being paid the true value of their work.

      You might reasonably say that you're neither of these people - but are you truly worth what you're paid?

      The amount you are paid is the base true value of your work (which is quite small) plus a highly inflated and subjective pseudo-value that your employer places on your work, more often than not to ensure that you don't sod off to some other company. It's not really fair that you should get that margin - and the government is being a lot more reasonable when it taxes you on your - if not ill-gotten - ill-deserved gains.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    6. Re:Strictly speaking... by lennier · · Score: 1

      "It's like he's saying the rich have no right to keep the money they earned. That's not laughable."

      Indeed, it's not at all laughable to say that the immensely rich have no right to keep the money they earned, if you start from the assumption that they didn't *earn* it in the first place by doing productive acts but *won* it in an economic casino by inheriting family wealth, excluding others from shared commons resources, centralising power, intimidating workers, and crushing honest competitors.

      But of course, we all know that banks don't indulge in risky speculation, companies never try to block labour unionisation, and corporations don't seek monopoly power but pass all their profits on to workers and consumers as higher wages and lower prices -- so it's perfectly obvious that Marx was absolutely wrong and should be completely ignored.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  115. Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I know that Ron Paul isn't even on the ballot, I will be voting for him via write-in. He's still the only candidate this election that I truly feel cares about the people and the Constitution that the country was founded upon. He also was the only one who wasn't constantly using "God" as motivation or justification for any of his political beliefs. That alone wins my vote.

  116. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 0

    For a human to choose death is not always wrong.

    No, but for a human to choose death for another human is always wrong.

    - a very strongly pro-life non-Christian.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  117. Re:My vote doesn't count by rshepherd · · Score: 1

    I am consistently amazed by the lack of general awareness of how the electoral college actually works. It's old and broken.

  118. Commodify your discontent.... by Braintrust · · Score: 1

    I remember reading this article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.04/strategies.html in the months after 9/11... and the phrase that stuck with me from it, was that the "US will commodify your discontent, sell it back to you on DVD."

    At the time I took this to mean that the almost overwhelming cultural power of the United States (I am not American.), would eventually embrace and replace all others, because that would always be the most profitable course of action. While it certainly does mean this in part, watching the ascent of Barack Obama (I would not vote for Mr. Obama.) on a global level has caused me to re-evaluate Mr. Sterling's words.

    By electing Obama, I see the ultimate example of the United States co-opting the worlds discontent. Because after his seemingly inevitable election, it's not the United States that will have no more excuses to hide behind, but the rest of the world that will have run out of straw-men to blame for their own, self-made dilemmas.

    You wanted the Unites States to be led by 'one of you'? Bam, you got it. Now you can stop blaming the Unites States for all the worlds ills, and take some responsibility for yourselves for a change. That would be most welcome.

    May he actually live up to the impossible, messianic expectations... why would any rational person hope otherwise? Make sure to buy the DVD.

    --
    Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48, and am what some people call "mentally retarded".
  119. Sue Slashdot! by dtabraha · · Score: 2, Funny

    Isn't it obvious??

    CmdrTaco doesn't want the Slashdot community to go out and vote today, so he posted this to keep us busy with flame wars all day!!

    Conspiracy!!

  120. Voted Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This year I realized what my actual philosophy is, so I voted that way. Voting for the lesser evil is still... evil.

    The voting machines around here are still mechanical-lever type, so I'm pretty confident the vote was tallied correctly.

  121. The myth of "spreading the wealth" by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obama's tax cuts are aimed at people who actually work, so lazy people who are sitting around and not contributing aren't going to get anything back.

    Now, let's talk about Alaska. They don't pay income tax up there. In fact, every single man, woman, and child (even infants) get paid by the government to live there. Alaskans all receive an "equitable share of the state's non-renewable resources." That certainly doesn't happen in Texas!

    Now, let's talk about Palin.

    Palin said: "Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"

    Palin passed a windfall profits tax , literally taking profits away from oil companies, and redistributed it amongst every man, woman, and child in America, to the tune of an extra $1200 on top of what Alaskans got that year from the Permanent Fund Dividend.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:The myth of "spreading the wealth" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's tax cuts are aimed at people who actually work, so lazy people who are sitting around and not contributing aren't going to get anything back.

      Those lazy people who are not contributing shouldn't be getting anything at all.

      Here is a nice little email that has been making the rounds, and sums it up nicely:

      I asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.
      She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal
      Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be
        the first thing you would do?'
      She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

      'Wow...what a worthy goal,' I told her, 'You don't have to wait until you're
      President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and
      sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where
      the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'
      She thought that over for a few seconds while her Mom glared at me, then she
      looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy
      come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'
      I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'
      Her folks still aren't talking to me.

    2. Re:The myth of "spreading the wealth" by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of people saying the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend is some kind of socialist program. This money is not being forcibly taken from the rich and given to the poor. There is absolutely NO social aspect to it. If the city you live in were to find a thousand tons of pure gold beneath it, and then decided to share it equally among all currently recognized citizens, would you call that socialist?

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    3. Re:The myth of "spreading the wealth" by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Where does that money come from? Out of thin air? No, it comes from the pockets of all the other Americans who buy the fuel made from the oil from Alaska. So, yes, it is a distribution of wealth from the rest of America to Alaskans.

    4. Re:The myth of "spreading the wealth" by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part where Palin taxed the profits of the oil companies? They were taxed because they were making a killer profit (hence "windfall profits tax"), but you seem to be confused because it's shared with everyone instead of just the poor. Socialism does not necessarily mean Robin Hood.

      How about this. If you find oil underneath your house, who is getting the money for that oil?

      In Texas, ONLY YOU get the money for that oil.

      In Alaska, EVERYONE gets the money for that oil.

      Specifically for your analogy, the guy who found the gold under his house would get all the money, normally. If the town forced him to split the revenue among every man, woman, and child in the town, that would in fact be socialism. If he had only one child, and another family had two, they get more of his gold.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    5. Re:The myth of "spreading the wealth" by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      literally taking profits away from oil companies

      Good troll, but you're missing one little point. Those oil companies don't own the oil that is under Alaska. Alaskans do. That "windfall profits tax"? How about the Alaskans got paid for selling their stuff?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    6. Re:The myth of "spreading the wealth" by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Did you bother to read what I wrote? Lazy people who are not contributing are in fact not going to get money back. Furthermore, right now, "welfare" (properly known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is time-limited and contingent on effort to seek employment.

      Regarding Obama's tax plan, you have to be gainfully employed if you wish to get any tax credit. I suggest page 2, where it says "the 'Making Work Pay' credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples"

      Let me tell you about economies of scale. You can afford to buy a big screen TV, surround sound stereo, and multi-core computer, only because there is a vast American middle class with significant disposable income who create a market for millions of these devices. The huge cost of designing these things is amortized across the volume of product produced.

      Now, recently, the GDP fell 0.3% due to a 3.1% fall in consumer spending, which makes up 70% of GDP. If the disposable income continues to decrease, the middle class will vanish, economies of scale will shrink, and everything will suddenly cost a lot more, because there will be fewer items to amortize high initial costs.

      Then companies...like, say, GM or Chrysler, end up selling fewer products and have to cut jobs and production, which further reduces the size of the middle class, creating a vicious cycle.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    7. Re:The myth of "spreading the wealth" by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that Alaska would sell the land to oil companies who can develop it. Why, then, would Palin tax the oil companies extra after having already sold the land to them?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    8. Re:The myth of "spreading the wealth" by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Your first point is stupid, where do you think the oil revenue should have gone? Should they have drawn straws for who gets it?

      Your second point is right, though. "Windfall taxes" are usually tools of douchebag populist Democrats. Palin is a moron and exhibits the worst of the Republican party, poor fiscal ideology and religious kookery.

    9. Re:The myth of "spreading the wealth" by lennier · · Score: 1

      "This money is not being forcibly taken from the rich and given to the poor. There is absolutely NO social aspect to it."

      I do not think the word "social" means what you think it means.

      "If the city you live in were to find a thousand tons of pure gold beneath it, and then decided to share it equally among all currently recognized citizens, would you call that socialist?"

      Yes.

      I'd say the Alaskan subsidy is the perfect definition of socialism: collective action taken toward a collective goal, sharing common resources and treating all citizens equally.

      But then I don't automatically assume that "socialism" is a synonym for "hellishly evil and of the Devil".

      In fact I consider "socialism" to be pretty much a synonym for "acting like a good neighbour as a member of a society.

      More than that, though, Alaska is inspirational to the left because it has effectively implemented a universal basic income, an idea still considered fringe and outre even among many mainline socialists. Weird that it's a conservative government which did it, but then many features of American "conservatism" (such as your huge military industrial establishment which socialises basic science and technology research) strike me as odd and, well, often quite Marxist (who argued for a standing "industrial army"). With both the good and bad features thereof.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  122. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. Palin is Planet X!.

  123. Request for New Yorkers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I have a request for any slashdotter in New York City who have not yet voted and feel okay asserting themselves. Please take a picture of the voting machine instructions posted in the polling place and post them online. (If you do chose to do this, remember to try to work with the poll workers rather than against them.) Read on if you are interested in why on earth I'd like this.
    The instructions for using a voting machine in NYC are here: http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us/voting.html (Attached at the bottom.)
    I am confident neither these instructions nor the video from this website matched the instructions for the voting machine I used. They are very similar, but I am pretty sure there was an additional instruction about intentionally leaving a race blank on the machine instructions I saw and the ones on the website do not say anything about this.*
    I'll also try to swing around sometime tonight to do this later (like I should have done the first time), but the more eyes the better.
    *There was something about turning a "silver lever". If anyone knows what was going on here, I'd also appreciate someone explaining this to me.

    1. To vote, part the voting machine curtains and enter
    2. Pull large red handle to the right. Do not touch the large red handle again until you've made all your selections.
    3. Push down the lever next to the candidates you want. An "X" will appear. If you made a mistake, move the lever back and select the candidate you want.
    4. You may vote for a candidate not listed on the ballot by writing in the candidate's name. Locate the button over the column of numbered slots on the left of the voting machine and:
    1. For General Election: Depress the button and, while holding it in, open the slot opposite the office for which you wish to write in a candidate's name.
    2. For Primary Elections: Depress the button and, while holding it in, open the slot number indicated on the ballot under the office and party for which you wish to write in a candidate's name.
    Write the name of your preferred candidate in the slot. A pencil is provided. Cast your vote for other offices in the usual manner.
    5. When you finish making your selection, leave the levers down and pull the large red handle all the way to the left. The write-in slot will close, the levers will return to their original position and your vote is recorded.
    6. Part the curtains and exit.

  124. Ageism!? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I think not wanting to elect a guy who is wavering around the average life expectancy of an American man, with a family history of not even reaching that mark, is a valid concern.

    This iReport post sums it up:

    http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-85412

    Yes I looked for a better source but couldn't find any. The facts in that story will check out, except the average life expectancy of an American man which seems to be all over the place, with 70~74 being the most common answers I can find (if anyone can get a solid number from a good source please post it).

    It would be like saying that not wanting a 4' tall guy on your basketball team, or not wanting a narcoleptic on your gaming clan is being unfair.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Ageism!? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      the average life expectancy of an American man which seems to be all over the place, with 70~74 being the most common answers

      You are perhaps unaware that those life expectancy numbers are from birth. Someone who reaches 70 isn't actually expected to drop dead around 75, he's expected to make 85 or 90.

      Harder to find figures for someone who is already 70+, of course. Best number I could find is that a man in the USA, aged 70-74, could expect to live an average of 18 more years.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  125. Mayan Doomsday? by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

    Wait, why didn't anyone tell me about this sooner?!

    --
    music lover since 1969
  126. I hope not by Nimey · · Score: 1

    I want peoples' votes to count. Fortunately we use pencil and paper in my district -- just use your pencil to complete the line belonging to the candidate/issue you support. No Diebold or Premier Election Systems equipment.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:I hope not by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my wife joked that the Diebold machine was actually a paper shredder. I laughed at the time, but the more I think about it, the less funny that is.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:I hope not by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Ummm..? We used a PEN! Why the hell would anyone have you vote with a pencil?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  127. Yhea.. we're gonna win! by ahodgkinson · · Score: 1

    Whatever happens, we win! After eight years of the Bush
    administration, the world is much worse off, and now that
    it's coming to end, much of the rest of the world is going
    to collectively sigh with relief.

    While Bush & Co. are not directly responsible for the 9-11
    attacks, with their hubris and mismanagement, they certainly
    succeeded in making a bad situation much worse. Many countries
    are suffering due to the US's inept diplomacy and military
    policies. The current administration has also been the role
    model for many despots, rolling back hard won freedoms in
    countries where democracy has yet to set strong roots.

    The blame for the recent economic meltdown can also be laid
    at Bush's feet. The massive tax cuts and deficit spending,
    combined with poor oversight of the financial situation
    has led to today's mess. Enron should have warned us about
    what was to come.

    For me, here in Switzerland, it doesn't really matter who wins,
    the main thing is that the current administration is out. It
    may actually be better to have a republican president and a
    democratic house/senate, in order to prevent the excesses
    that are likely to follow if the Democrats gain control of
    everything. I seem to remember reading that the US government
    functions better when the executive and legislative branches
    are controlled by different parties.

    Personally, I'm looking forward to a return to multilateralism
    and sensible financial policies.

    As usual, after a regime change, the pendulum will swing the
    other way and, unfortunately, the US tendency is that it will
    probably swing too far. So be careful what you wish for!

    --
    ---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
  128. Best Post Ever. by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    McCain didn't change the Republican Party. The Republican Party changed him.

    Ironically, I thought McCain was going to be the one to change the party. The GOP has lost it's way, and every year the party moves to the religious right. John McCain always seemed to stand up for what was right. I'm lean left but I respect some of the core republican causes. I once donated to McCain's Senate campaign, because I thought McCain would be the leader to save the Republican Party from itself.

    And yet in the last couple years McCain completely collapsed-- it's like he lost his independence, and quickly started spewing the same vitriol that I hear coming out of the far right. John McCain, what happened to you?

    I'm not sure if he chose Palin because he liked her, or because his Masters told him too. Either way, she is not a good candidate for VP by any stretch of the imagination.

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:Best Post Ever. by dnoyeb · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was told she was not his first choice. He had the final say, but it was his people that pushed her forward.

      I agree with your take on McCain. After Bush won the 2nd term, McCain decided the only way to become president was to quit being such a maverick. Thats when he started supporting all the Bush initiatives. Thats when he lost his "base."

      The real McCain would have been strong with independents. However, I am not sure he could have won the nomination without selling out to Bush.

      McCain made his choice. Kicked his independent support to the curb to try and get ultra conservative supporters that never liked him.

    2. Re:Best Post Ever. by budcub · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either way, she is not a good candidate for VP by any stretch of the imagination.

      You're exactly right. When Reagan nominated the first woman to the Supreme Court, there was no question that Sandra Day O'Connor was qualified, her credentials were impeccable. Can anyone say the same thing about Palin?

    3. Re:Best Post Ever. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > I'm not sure if he chose Palin because he liked her, or because his Masters told him too.
      > Either way, she is not a good candidate for VP by any stretch of the imagination.

      Perhaps he picked Palin because he knew his base didn't like him and without them he wasn't going to win. I know I said the day before that if he picked some lame ass RINO I was sitting the election out. Palin was my choice but I realized that she was a dark horse Internet blog pick and McCain probably wouldn't have the stones to go there. He suprised me and a lot of other folks when he did it. I ordered my yard sign that morning and apparently I wasn't alone because they had a two week backlog.

      In retrospect it was a classic McCain play. He knew he needed Republicans to get behind him. He realized that he needed to go big and he did it. That's the part of McCain we respect, he will take big gambles when he thinks they are the right thing to do. The surge was another big gamble that paid off. McAmnesty was one that didn't. And that is our problem with him, we can't identify a coherent philosophy that allows us to predict where he will come down on an issue.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    4. Re:Best Post Ever. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Can anyone say the same thing about Palin?

      But she has all that foriegn policy experience. She can see Russia from her front porch! Can Obama say that?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:Best Post Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm lean left but I respect some of the core republican causes.

      Hard to eat when you're Socialist, isn't it?

    6. Re:Best Post Ever. by huckamania · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would take Sarah Palin over "Crazy" Joe Biden any day of the week.

    7. Re:Best Post Ever. by Paranatural · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm with you on this. He totally and completely sold out everything that he had stood for for years. I can only imagine it's because he was convinced that's the only way he could win, and after he won he could go back to doing and saying the things he actually believed.

      Of course, he'd never be allowed to do that.

    8. Re:Best Post Ever. by Tim+Doran · · Score: 1

      Ah, the myth of McCain.

      Yes, he was badly out-slimed by Bush/Rove in 2000. Yes, he does have a habit of departing the text and saying things that aren't in the talking points. Yes he has a history of indulging the press with unprecedented access and massive charm.

      Those things don't make him honorable now or 8 years ago.

      A couple articles to consider: http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9365

      http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

    9. Re:Best Post Ever. by oldhack · · Score: 1

      I would take Sarah Palin over "Crazy" Joe Biden any day of the week.

      Of course we would. She's hot. Biden's not. Unless you're into that sorta thing. Not that there's anything wrong it...

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    10. Re:Best Post Ever. by Tenek · · Score: 1
      Yes, we all know Joe is gaffe-tastic. But then, I hear that a gaffe occurs when a politician tells you what they're really thinking.

      Thus, we have one honest politician in Washington, and your immediate response is to toss him out the door?

    11. Re:Best Post Ever. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Not only could the real McCain have been very strong with independents, he was, in 2000. What's quite interesting is that over the last few days I think McCain's decided he can't win, so he's starting to sound an awful lot like the real McCain.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    12. Re:Best Post Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you love these unsubstituted snipes coming from the Right?

      There is no substance to your post. Just a short insult. "I heard Obama is an ARAB." "Obama is a socialist" "Biden is Crazzzzy".

      Do you even stop to think at all, or do you just regurgitate what they tell you?

    13. Re:Best Post Ever. by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The worst part about these kind of snipes is that two moderators considered this "insightful". Does this comment contain any insight? No, it's just a statement of preference. Where's the "agree/disagree" mods? Here's a test:

      I would take Joe Biden over "Malibu Stacey" Sarah Palin any day of the week.

      Let's see if that gets modded up, even though it contains just as much insight as the parent.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    14. Re:Best Post Ever. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      When asked what the VP does, Sarah Palin got it wrong(Leads the senate), Joe Biden got it right in ONE SENTENCE(He breaks ties in the senate). Which, I'll admit, is rare for him.

      Joe biden's a gaffe machine but he's also CORRECT WHEN ASKED DIRECT QUESTIONS. It's not that I started watching the general election thinking Palin was an idiot, but really, c'mon? I'll take Crazy over stupid any day of the week.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    15. Re:Best Post Ever. by jyurkiw · · Score: 1

      IMO (because I have nothing to back this up) the Republicans threw in the towel when they allowed McCain to even run.

      He's not what they needed to win. They needed someone who was basically a knight in shining armor. The exact opposite of the last 8 years.

      They presented McCain, who's presidency would simply be 4-8 more years of the exact same.

      Pallin is simply their attempt to spit-polish the McCain team. If you look at her, or listen to her, she's an air-head soccer mom. They chose her because she looks good on camera as well as trying to counter-balance the "first black man in the white house" claim the democrats have with Obama with their own "first woman in the white house" claim (ignoring the simple fact that it's black president vs. woman vice president).

      Basically, the whole thing is the Republicans trying to shore up their bet for the 2008 election with a pair that will allow the party to look good even as they lose.

      Yes. I'm saying the previous 8 years guarantee the Republicans don't stand a chance because the White Knight they needed didn't exist in their party. They don't attract, and don't recruit, that kind of politician.

      Now, if they had pushed Palin as their Presidential nominee with McCain as her Vice President...they might have done a bit better assuming they spun things harder and were able to pass Palin over as more of a go-getter and less an air-head soccer mom. Unfortunately, her record in Alaska dashed that hope.

      Wait for the 2012 elections. You'll see the Republicans bring out their big guns again if Obama doesn't have a perfect presidency. Any mistakes and they'll put him in their crosshairs immediately. It will be Clinton all over again scandal-wise.

      I personally expect something gang-related that's complete and utter crap yet manages to score a surprising amount of front-page media coverage for how bad it smells.

    16. Re:Best Post Ever. by huckamania · · Score: 1

      The insight is that Joe gaffes everyday and no one mentions it. Attaching more labels to Sarah Palin after the mud she has been dragged thru by the Daily KOS and Huffington Post and now YOU, is hardly insightful.

      She was asked to name a Supreme Court decision she DISAGREED with and I've heard that reported, on this site and others, as "She's so stoopid she couldn't name a single supreme court decision." And so it goes...

    17. Re:Best Post Ever. by huckamania · · Score: 1

      Obama is an honest man. It's just that people are idiots. When he says he's going to lower taxes for 95% of working families, he means it. The key word in that sentence is working. Every family works, they may not pay any taxes, but they certainly do something all day long, right. Crack don't smoke itself.

      The other key word is taxes, which for most people means money that you give the government because you make money. For Obama, taxes also includes money the government gives you because you don't make money. So he's telling the truth as far as he's concerned.

      Unfortunately, I'm in that 5% that is going to have to support everyone else. So, welcome to America. Thanks for coming. Don't mind me, I just work here.

    18. Re:Best Post Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> The insight is that Joe gaffes everyday and no one mentions it.>> dragged thru by the Daily KOS and Huffington Post >> She was asked to name a Supreme Court decision she DISAGREED with and I've heard that reported, on this site and others, as "She's so stoopid she couldn't name a single supreme court decision." And so it goes...

      It's HER JOB to know these things, and she should have formed some knowledge and opinions years ago.

    19. Re:Best Post Ever. by huckamania · · Score: 1

      I follow the courts a little, but I couldn't come up with a decision that I disagreed with on the spot. I finally remembered the decision that allows any taxing authority to seize personal property, but it took a lot of thought to come up with that one.

      HER JOB is Governor of Alaska, not watchdog of the Supreme Court. Just admit that you disagree with her on a political level and stop trying to label her stoopid. The stoopid label has been applied to every Republican since Reagan and it's just childish.

    20. Re:Best Post Ever. by huckamania · · Score: 1

      From the US constitution...

      "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

      The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States."

      From the rules of the US Senate...

      "every question of order shall be decided by the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate."

      Words have meanings...

    21. Re:Best Post Ever. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about *historically* which was the case until the late 19th century, but now the rules of the senate have stripped all power from the VP in the senate to basically "counts electoral votes" (14th Amendment) and "breaks ties in senate." The day to day duties Joe's going to do in the senate if he wins? Break ties in the senate. Atleast officially. He's got immense influence over other senators and him being a senator himself...

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    22. Re:Best Post Ever. by huckamania · · Score: 1

      The constitution takes precedent over senate rules. Senate rules, as you yourself admit, are changeable.

    23. Re:Best Post Ever. by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      HER JOB is Governor of Alaska, not watchdog of the Supreme Court.

      Actually, the job she is applying for is Vice President of the United States. Given that that is a fairly important job, I would expect her to have the requisite knowledge to do it, or I wouldn't hire her.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    24. Re:Best Post Ever. by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · · Score: 1

      I, too, mourn the loss of Senator McCain. My political views lean heavily towards the liberal side on nearly all issues, but I also have the capacity to recognize a good statesman when I see one.

      As an Arizona voter, I've had the opportunity to vote to re-elect McCain to his Senate seat twice now. There were Democratic challengers both times, of course, but there's something to be said for having a senior senator represent your state. He may go ballistic over pork, but he's still been good for Arizona.

      That said, his metamorphoses during his presidential campaign has been quite disappointing. I never planned to vote for McCain in a presidential race, but, sadly, I will very much have to think twice about my choice next time his senate seat is up for re-election.

      --
      Elrond, Duke of URL
      "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
    25. Re:Best Post Ever. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Constitution: Main body: President of senate breaks ties in the senate, 14th Amendment: President of senate counts electoral college votes. Main body: VP is president of senate unless incapacitated.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    26. Re:Best Post Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      but I couldn't come up with a decision that I disagreed with on the spot.

      Yes, but you aren't running for Vice President.


      HER JOB is Governor of Alaska, not watchdog of the Supreme Court.

      Palin was running for an office where she would have had broad legal powers over Americans. She should have a good knowledge of major supreme court decisions, should have formed some strong opinions about some of those decisions, and should at least be able to speak about 2-3 of those decisions.

      The Grandparent meant that it would be HER JOB to know this stuff, before she becomes VP.

      It's not important that she become an expert on the Supreme Court, but I expect a VP candidate to have a good background knowledge of the American legal system, since she'll be a major player in the system.

    27. Re:Best Post Ever. by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if he chose Palin because he liked her, or because his Masters told him too. Either way, she is not a good candidate for VP by any stretch of the imagination.

      I would have probably voted for McCain except for a few things:

      Palin: What an absolute disaster of a choice.

      Joe the Plumber: Stop harping about Joe. Joe needs to learn to obey laws.

      Attacks: Tell me how you're going to get things done if elected. Don't sit there and tell me how your opponent isn't going to get things done. The unity message is a lot stronger then attacking.

      Palin: Did I forget to emphasize how much of a disaster she was as a choice? A strong example of everything that is wrong with the Republican party. Why couldn't he pick someone like Lieberman?

      Veering Right: Instead of appealing to the middle, the Republicans continue to believe that they can govern by only appealing to the ultra-right wing.

      I think the election would have been a lot closer if McCain had picked a better VP and shown more independence from the Republican party.

      Obama's no dummy. I think he realizes that he needs to govern from the center, reaching across the aisle to get things done.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  129. non-stop commercials in my swing state by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Since the beginning of summer. I guess we return to scam mortgages (radio) and erectial disfunction drugs (tv) now. I was starting to think Barack was the Big Brother since he had more screen time than the TV actors in some time periods. I also got tired of a half-dozen robo-call messages in my message box every day too and spam mail from the candidates.

  130. Hastur Hastur Hastur by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Cthulhu/Yog Sothoth vs. Hastur/Tsathoggua 2008.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  131. Which Republican was actually 'conservative'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I can tell, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Gingrich, and Bush 43 all moved to increase the size of government, and make it more intrusive in the lives of ordinary people, and 'freeing the markets' often has meant letting corrupt idiots take the wheel and drive us off the road.

    I am thinking your purist ideology is a lot like Communism... proponents constantly excuse their failures by claiming it was never 'really tried', and that some glorious day, the 'pure ideal' will be perfectly implemented, as if my magic, and we will all see the brilliance of the theory.

    But back in reality, people are greedy.. and we need both lack of government, and intrusion of government, in balance, to have a stable, ordinary society. Every modern country is moving towards a mish mash of the various institutions and ideas that are labeled 'socialism' and 'capitalism', and has been moving this way for a long long time.

    1. Re:Which Republican was actually 'conservative'? by Golias · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Gingrich, and Bush 43 all moved to increase the size of government, and make it more intrusive in the lives of ordinary people, and 'freeing the markets' often has meant letting corrupt idiots take the wheel and drive us off the road.

      Ike, Nixon, and the two Bushes were never small-government conservatives. Nor is McCain, for that matter. Goldwater-esque libertarianism has never quite managed to dominate the culture of the Republican Party. Show up for a caucus meeting sometime and you'll see what I mean.

      For the most part, Reagan and Gingrich both fought hard to reduce the size of government, with the exception of Reagan's ramp-up of military spending. Those who would like to see the GOP return to it's free-market roots are quick to point out that Reagan & Gingrich are not only two of the most successful Republicans in recent history, they are also looked back on much more positively than their "moderate" counterparts.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Which Republican was actually 'conservative'? by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      Every modern country is moving towards a mish mash of the various institutions and ideas that are labeled 'socialism' and 'capitalism', and has been moving this way for a long long time.

      Thank you for not using the word "mashup". Also, I agree with you coward.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    3. Re:Which Republican was actually 'conservative'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "moving towards a mish mash" is not a coherent plan for moving a country. I would prefer that the government have defined roles.

      1) Force openness and documentation. Legislating fool labeling is good. Legislating food content is bad. The former allows intelligent beings to make a decision. The latter makes it for them. The SEC should be responsible for rating banks, insurance companies and market securities. Invest at your own risk.

      2) Build and maintain the infrastructure. Building roads is good. Running trucking companies is bad. The former sets order to allow people to relate to one another. The second determines how that relationship will be done. In the same way, the energy policy should be that the federal government will build pipelines and a massive electric power line grid. They will determine the rules for attaching to said grid. The will NOT subsidize any sort of electricity production. Arizona can go solar, Montana wind, West Virginia coal, Maine nuclear. Whoever does it cheapest gets the most customers, and if they dirty a backyard, it is their own.

      I agree with you. People are greedy. The greed needs to be checked. But handing the reins over to a political body just means that you've given the power to different set of greedy bastards. Don't give them the power to be greedy. Give them the power to enable intelligent people to work for their own interests.

  132. I voted without ID by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

    I went to vote this morning. When I got to the front of the line, the woman there asked my name. I spelled my last name for her, and she started looking for it. She showed me the voter registration info, pointed at a name, and asked if that was me. It was not. I told her that name was before mine alphabetically, and that I was likely on the next page. When she found my name, all I had to do was sign the form and vote.

    I noticed that no one else in any of the other lines was asked to present ID either... How easy it would have been just to name someone. "Yes, I'm John Brown".

    There were reports on the radio this morning of a man that was busted voting 4 times. The poll worker recognized him, and counted as he voted, returned to the end of the line, then voted again.

    1. Re:I voted without ID by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      I voted without ID today too, but in PA, you need to vote in your precinct once before that and show ID to do so.

      They had an image of my signature, and I had to sign in, so unless I signed good, I was gonna have to show my driver's license.

  133. scanning machine crashed in Illinois by DrProton · · Score: 1

    We use a mark/scan system in Champaign, IL. I voted this morning at ~ 6:45 AM. It was a bit chaotic at my polling place. I completed my ballot. When I got to the machine, the poll worker tending the tabulator looked a bit chagrined. Then I read the LCD screen - "SYSTEM HALTED MEMORY REFERENCE ERROR".

    We were instructed to feed our ballots into a different slot on the front of the machine. The county clerk's office informs me that the unscanned ballots will be scanned and counted later. I do not trust these damn machines.

    --
    "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
  134. weren't anabaptists all massacred in the 1500s? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    are you a mennonite? amish? they are the modern day offspring of that medieval religious movement

    or are you like someone who calls themselves cathar (another medieval christian sect the catholics massacred) or manichaen (a dualistic religion from persia, st augustine converted from manichaeism to christianity)

    that is, someone who professes a dead religion just to sound cool and different?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:weren't anabaptists all massacred in the 1500s? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you care how he/she identifies? Or are you someone who just jerks chains to sound cool and different? Because, you know, that doesn't make you different at all. Just like all the rest...

  135. I Hate the Parties by TexVex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To the Democrats: when Obama wins this election, you're going to claim that you have a mandate from the people and as a result you're going to go hog wild and pass bill after bill under President Obama's rubber stamp. You feel like you've got a decade of repression to overcome. You also are blinded by your own hubris; you think that somehow humankind can overpower the universe itself and all that is needed is just willpower. But you're wrong, and you're stupid, and despite being on the short end of the stick for so long you just can't learn any humility. I hate you because you wear rose-tinted glasses. I hate you because you fight against the fundamental forces of the universe -- you think you can change human nature; you think you can turn basic economic principles on their ear and things will work better merely by the force of will; you think that all of humanity is somehow collectively more powerful than the very planet we live on and brighter than the sun we orbit. I hate you, you elitist snobs.

    To the Republicans: thanks for turning your back on fiscal conservatism and mortgaging my child's future. Again. Also, while I think Jesus is great, but please keep your fucking religion out of government. It is not for you to judge me; most of you sensibly relegate that responsibility to God. Now you just need to tell your radical right-wing to shut the fuck up and "live and let live". Unfortunately, many of you allow your faith to blind you to reality. I hate you because you are hypocrites. I hate you because your being in power for so long has corrupted all of you, and you don't even realize it. You deserve to continue to lose power because you need to learn some lessons. But I know you won't, not really, and I hate you for that too. I hate you most of all because you have real contempt for the common man but you're too stupid to realize it; you don't even understand that you are condescending to an entire nation!

    I hate both of you because you treat me like a ten-year-old; I hate how you try to pander to my base instincts and assume I have an IQ of 80. I hate both of you because none of you have any balls and won't allow yourselves to go off script; I hate both of you because you both require your politicians to toe the line. I hate both of you because you lie and you "spin". I hate both of you because of your implicit collusion to keep the status quo.

    I lament the death of the U.S. I hate you, Republican and Democrat alike, for killing our great nation.

    --
    Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    1. Re:I Hate the Parties by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

      When has the US ever been more than a 2-party system? You sound like you just hate democratic republics. I suggest Canada or Europe.

      --
      I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    2. Re:I Hate the Parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, sounds like you got a lot of mass out of your mind, and you can think clearly, now...

      So, what do you say?

      I voted for Obama. Are you with me? There's still time!

      I know you want to do the right thing today...

    3. Re:I Hate the Parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So very true. And yet most of America seems to be comprised of these simple minded people who lap up whatever message makes them feel warm and fuzzy like so much warm milk. It's inane, really.

    4. Re:I Hate the Parties by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      Hating them won't solve anything. There are other options.

    5. Re:I Hate the Parties by kidigus · · Score: 1

      You forgot to demand $1,000,000,000 in exchange for not detonating the Omega device.

  136. They're blaming the party elites by Nimey · · Score: 1

    or at least Rush and his dittoheads are. The elites are, of course, those who are in Washington.

    It has nothing to do with the dittoheads and other white trash being idiots and voting incorrectly for the past umpty years, of course.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  137. "Tomorrow we'll know." O Rly? by jasenj1 · · Score: 1

    We can only hope we'll actually know tomorrow. Another Florida hanging chad incident could well be in the cards. And the reports I've heard about recounts being totally inaccurate in FL doesn't give me hope, either.

    I suspect there will be LOTS of lawsuits filed by whichever side loses. They will challenge the validity of votes in any district Acorn was active in. They will challenge the electronic machines and the trustworthiness of their results. They will claim voter intimidation and disenfranchisement. And on and on. I think the 2000 election was the first of many drawn out election result proceedings.

    - Jasen.

  138. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by FoamingToad · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seems like the Mayans were a bit off...

    You mean like a parity error?

  139. Progressive Taxation vs Redistribution by jmorris42 · · Score: 0

    > Actually, Adam Smith (the guy who basically invented Capitalism) was also in favor of the rich being taxed
    > at a higher rate than the poor, so that's not a good argument.

    Progressive taxation is debatable but people of good intent can argue both sides and still be good Capitalists and traditional Americans. The government must have revenue, even if it were bound back to only doing the things it should be doing. The question of how to raise those funds with the least impact on the citizenry is valid.

    What Obama is proposing is a different thing. He isn't talking about how best to fund the operations of the government, he is talking about redistribution of income by taxing people he decrees to be 'making too much' and handing out checks to people to don't pay any taxes at all. And that is Socialism/Communism. From Each according to their Abilities, to Each according to their Need. It doesn't get more clear cut.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Progressive Taxation vs Redistribution by KovaaK · · Score: 1

      ... he is talking about redistribution of income by taxing people he decrees to be 'making too much' and handing out checks to people to don't pay any taxes at all.

      As I just corrected someone earlier on this same note - the bolded part of your comment is a fabrication. Obama's tax rebate only goes to taxpayers. The half-truth in your statement is that the tax rebate can be given to people who don't pay federal income tax.

    2. Re:Progressive Taxation vs Redistribution by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      > Actually, Adam Smith (the guy who basically invented Capitalism) was also in favor of the rich being taxed
      > at a higher rate than the poor, so that's not a good argument.

      Progressive taxation is debatable but people of good intent can argue both sides and still be good Capitalists and traditional Americans. The government must have revenue, even if it were bound back to only doing the things it should be doing. The question of how to raise those funds with the least impact on the citizenry is valid.

      What Obama is proposing is a different thing. He isn't talking about how best to fund the operations of the government, he is talking about redistribution of income by taxing people he decrees to be 'making too much' and handing out checks to people to don't pay any taxes at all. And that is Socialism/Communism. From Each according to their Abilities, to Each according to their Need. It doesn't get more clear cut.

      This is called a straw man argument. Obama doesn't support this policy. McCain simply claims he does, ignoring that Obama's tax plan is the same as the one we had under Bill Clinton. McCain argued vehemently against Bush's tax cuts when they were enacted, and now that Obama's plan is to simply let the tax cuts for those making over $250k/year expire, he's labeling that socialism. The McCain that existed until 2008 and Obama agree on this.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    3. Re:Progressive Taxation vs Redistribution by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Bill Clinton had a plan to hand out $1000 tax credits to 95% of the working population? How the hell do I retro-actively get mine!?

      McCain claims that Obama plans to handout money, because Obama claims that he is going to give a $1000 tax credit to 95% of working Americans. Well, less than 50% of working Amercians actually pay federal incomes taxes. How is it an extreme stretch of logic to say, "If you get $1000 back, but you haven't paid anything in, you're getting a handout?"

      I wouldn't expect an answer, since the question isn't listed on the Democratic talking points.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  140. Obama's capitalism versus McCain's capitalism by br00tus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do Eric Schmidt and Warren Buffett endorse Obama? Because he is for growth-oriented, social democratic capitalism. Growth through innovation, educating your populace, with a safety net, and did I say education?

    McCain's capitalism revolves around military contractors and, what I am not unafraid to call plain old imperialism. It is also based on monopoly capitalism - like the monopoly Verizon has over the local loop. Exploiting low-educated workers to the last penny.

    The choice of Obama is obvious, unless you're of the worse-is-better school.

    1. Re:Obama's capitalism versus McCain's capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, Obamas "social democratic capitalism" translates into the Fed whoring its taxpayers out more than ever. Why do you think Wall Street was for Obama, the Fan and Fred funding stream contributed to a large influx of previously unrealized cash flow into said market.

      Wake the fuck up, Obama is really about Big Banking via the US Treasury and the Taxpayer and it will be on a Global Scale!

    2. Re:Obama's capitalism versus McCain's capitalism by Detritus · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot to mention that Obama will give everyone a puppy.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Obama's capitalism versus McCain's capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmm.... puppy... OMM NOM NOM

    4. Re:Obama's capitalism versus McCain's capitalism by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      ...unless you're of the worse-is-better school.

      Well, given that I use Linux at home...

    5. Re:Obama's capitalism versus McCain's capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame the worse-is-better school didn't carry this; I was looking forward to McCain's state-of-the-UNIX address.

    6. Re:Obama's capitalism versus McCain's capitalism by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, Obama will provide "good" capitalism and McCain will provide "evil", or, as slashbots like to call it, "strawman" capitalism. Since "good" is better than "evil" especially of the strawman variety, Obama is the clear choice. I wonder how you manage to get by in life with such poor reasoning skills.

  141. So much for science funding... by sdjc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Speaking of earmarks, Palin says "sometimes these dollars go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France... I kid you not!" ( Palin speach).
    Nature magazine studied the origins of this earmark and it seems to be pertaining to olive fruit fly research in order to safeguard California's Olive Oil industry (link between stories) and so perhaps collaborating with France is what she disagrees with? France was conducting this type of research and it seems the money was spent to fund this research abroad. Regardless, she speaks of fruit fly research as though it was completely ridiculous... But of course, genetic research may be against her beliefs.

  142. I voted the American way... with $$$ by El+Fantasmo · · Score: 1

    If Paul A. Simpson used a bicentennial quarter to cast my vote for the president of the United States of America. Money put forth the candidates so let it be money that decides the election. Tails (or the ass) was Obama and heads was McCain. The outcome: TAILS! I voted for Obama, because money told me to.

    1. Re:I voted the American way... with $$$ by El+Fantasmo · · Score: 1

      It should start "I" not "if" sorry...

  143. Fundamentalism, religion and why its the problem by MosesJones · · Score: 1

    Someone is going to have to tell me how this post is any better than a Muslim fundamentalist wanting a global Caliphate. The idea that God is above all and the Church as an alternative power structure is exactly what Muslim fundamentalists want.

    This is why it is bad.

    This is why the world is in the trouble it is.

    The worst thing is that in the Middle East and in the US people with these destructive beliefs are pandered to and hold inordinate amounts of power over sane and rational people.

    WTF would the founding fathers think of a view that placed god and the church above democracy?
     

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  144. incredibly stupid by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)

    2. however, if you use the existence of the electoral college as a reason not to vote, no: you're wrong. the electoral college is a negative tweak to a system that still works. removing the electoral college merely makes it work better. the existence of the electoral college doesn't nullfy the entire process and doesn't nullify your vote. it merely warps the value of your vote in ways that are really kind of arbitrary, neither favoring one ideology or another. it's noise in the system. bush could have won the popular vote and lost the ec election in 2000. it favors neither left nor right

    now, there are people out there with learned helplessness, with deficits in their ability to trust. there are plenty of reasons and examples of the system creating distrust, but there are also people in this world with a pathological disability: an inability to trust

    such people are not disenfranchised by the system, such people disenfrachise themselves

    so if you do not vote, simply because the electoral college exists, you are looking hard for a reason not to vote, and you found a very flimsy one. its really not a good reason not to vote, its a very lame excuse on your part to think you don't matter, when you most certainly do still matter

    then the question is: why are you looking for an excuse not to matter? if you don't vote because of the electoral college, there's something wrong with you. its self-disenfrachisement. your rationalization for not voting because of the ec points to character flaws you possess. it tells us that you invent excuses not to matter, not to care, walling yourself off from the world by thinking about how you can't affect any change in your world, in utterly helpless ways. self-fulfilling prophecy

    your excuse not to vote is wrong, and lame. the ec is a tweak on your vote, not a nullification of it. you need to think long and hard about the way you think about your relationship with your world and remove some deeply seeded issues with trust you have

    your psychological problems are showing

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:incredibly stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vote for things other than POTUS.

      Participating in such a flawed system would be a bad compromise, and makes no sense. It's nothing about trust, it's about futility and herd mentality that corrupts the electoral college system.

      It's not just a skew, it's pointless. Once you are past the tipping point, any further votes are not warped, they are unnecessary and a waste.

      It's too bad you are so much of a fanboi and can't see the obvious...

    2. Re:incredibly stupid by EzInKy · · Score: 1


      1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)

      Going to disagree with you here. The EC exists because it is the States that elect the person to preside over them, not the people. It really is the only way for a union of varying sized states to exist without the larger members dictating their wills to the smaller. I do think, though, that the EC should be tweaked so that each state must divvy up its electors by the percentage voted for by its citizens.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  145. We're still screwed by MadEwokHerd · · Score: 1

    No matter who we choose our country is still screwed. It just depends how you want it. Fast by a young black man or slow by an old white one. Either way im moving to Finland =D.

  146. video games dont cause violence, /. editors do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here we have a prime example. this poor, bedraggled LWATCDR just wants to think about computers all day, and these evil /. editors are making him mad by crufting up the front page.

    this has caused him to want to slap them. which would technically be considered assault, if he was a deranged hollywood star, and the slashdot editors were paparazzi, endlessly trailing after him, asking him inane questions like 'did you vote' and 'which candidate will best represent your views in the government'

  147. 75% right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think you're exactly right on Palin: she's a capable non-intellectual.

    And I think you're right that Obama is not a 'steady hand'. But you're wrong about that nudge left. Obama is at is heart a 1960's radical wannabe, out to destroy what he sees as white supremacy and the power of an unjust AmeriKKKan empire.

    Whether or not you believe that America has an empire, and is unjust, and in the urgency of electing a symbol is whether you buy into Obama or not.

    Despite how nice it would be to elect a black President, I held my nose and voted McCain.

    1. Re:75% right. by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      You seem to be implying that someone who voted for Obama must have done so because he's a symbol for something, as opposed to his record on the campaign trail, or his stance on any of the issues. I'm glad you voted for the person you thought was most qualified but I wish you'd afford others the same respect instead of merely accusing them of being swayed by skin color, etc.

  148. Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to vote it took 15 minutes all together , when I got to the polling place there where a few McCain/Palin supporters outside (mostly older women ) talking to the women that walked up about how they should vote for McCain because Palin is a women , it just was kind of funny and sad that instead of people voting based on the candidates position and what they will do for the country and economy some people are still voting like this is a high school election or American idol . I asked one of the McCain /Palin supporters why I should vote for them there only response and reason for voting for McCain was because Palin is a women .

  149. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    About 30 days, actually. Since the Long Count calendar is base-20 (sort of), that'd be off by 0.0.0.1.10... an odd number I think. If it was something like 0.0.0.1.0 I'd think maybe they forgot to carry.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  150. Change produces opportunity. by Usagi_yo · · Score: 1
    I voted for McCain/Palin because I have and Oedipus complex

    But in reality, I voted for McCain/Palin because Obama couldn't convince me he was anything more then a suite and tie. I had sworn that I would vote for Hillary before I would vote for McCain. This was because I thought Hillary was vindictive, ornerous, exotic in her methods of reprisals, and just a plain mean sonofabitch who gets even at any slight, perceived or otherwise. Somebody I thought would be great to continue the war on terror.

    I just remember McCain as a curmudgeon who gave Bush a hard time at every opportunity. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Obama out manuevered Hillary (which in itself makes him capable of being a good president), And McCain picked Palin. Who I think was truly an ingenius and inspirational pick.

    Now, if you go out and explore other peoples "ordinary" peoples choices for President or nominees, you'll find that for the most part its just like picking your favorite football or baseball team. There is no rhyme or reason, perhaps just a single issue sticks in their head. But largely, it's just capriciousness.

    I'm a conservative libertarian. I want Marijuana legalized. I don't believe in national health care, but I do want nationalized health insurance ... or even nationalized insurance of all sorts because insurance serves a very very usefull national social function -- while regulated healthcare would be a disaster and serve to create a "class" system between the rich having the best health care, and the poor having the basic minimum healthcare.

    I'm for limiting the bonuses and wages of top corporate executives ... because it's become an ol' boy network, and has or is creating an aristocracy of sorts. I do not believe Roe vs. Wade should be reversed. I believe it should be entirely erased from Federal existence. Not because I'm pro-choice, or pro-life, but because It's not the Job of the Federal government to either approve or dissaprove of such things.

    I believe the 17th ammendment should be repealed in such a manner that individual states determine how they select their senators. I believe campaign finance should be such that if you don't live and pay taxes in the state of your politician, then you can't donate money to them.

    I believe it should be a crime for candidates to accept illegal contributions, not a crime for somebody to illegally contribute.

    I believe the Whitehouse door should be painted Shamrock Green.

    And thats my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

  151. everything went fine by darrenkopp · · Score: 1

    maybe Diebold embraced a little TDD?

  152. Voter Suppression by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone have any good stories?

    I live outside philly, in a traditional republican area, and while I waited to vote, two election officials were openly discussing how to slow down the line by forcing people to que up outside the building instead of in the large lobby. I thought it kind of interesting.

  153. If this goes like 2000, 2004... by italbrew · · Score: 1

    If there is a tie in the electoral college, or if John McCain wins there should be MASSIVE PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATIONS. It is very clear from all the polls that the popular vote is overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. The electoral college needs to be abolished so voter manipulation, deception, and disenfranchisement in only a few states can not swing the entire election.

    1. Re:If this goes like 2000, 2004... by ageoffri · · Score: 1
      If McCain manages to win it will be a much needed wake-up call for the media. This election it hasn't been the corporations in general who are running the election, it is the media. Obama can do no wrong.

      The only way I could agree to eliminating the EC is if some form of ranked voting was put in place. This way I could vote for the candidate I really want and put the bad choice like Obama last with McCain 2nd to last.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
  154. Communism doesn't kill people, people kill people by danaris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And let's not forget the millions that have died at the hands of communism.

    Please let's be clear here: I haven't ever heard of anyone who was killed by communism. (That would be like saying that everyone killed by US troops in World War II were killed by "capitalism"...) The millions you're talking about were killed by repressive totalitarian dictators using the name of "communism" to make themselves sound more palatable to the ordinary people. Their economic systems may have been partially communist-based, but their political systems certainly were basically your garden-variety dictatorship.

    Anyone who holds up Stalin as an iron-clad reason why Communism is Evil doesn't actually understand what communism is.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  155. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Seems like the Mayans were a bit off...
    A bit off? The end of the world for them was over 1,000 years ago.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  156. My dearest wish for elections in the USA by szquirrel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I do really wish that we would move past the single-vote plurality system when voting for federal office (President, Senate, House). I like approval voting for its simplicity and its moderating effect. I love the idea that it might be possible to elect a true compromise candidate instead of violently swinging from one extreme to the next.

    But that's not what I want the most (nor is it all that likely to happen any time soon).

    What I want the most is for the US to finally welcome international inspectors to watch our elections. We expect emerging democracies to admit inspectors, so we really should eat our own dog food. Would it be painful and humiliating? Quite possibly, for the first few years. But it would be a nice step toward shedding our reputation as a nation that says, "Fuck the rest of the world, we're the US-of-goddamn-A." Oh, and it might actually drive improvements to our voting system, just maybe.

    --
    Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
  157. Douche and Turd by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    Is that the python regex debugger (http://kodos.sourceforge.net/)?

    Or are you talking about Kodo beasts (http://www.battle.net/war3/orc/units/kodobeast.shtml)? Hey, I just noticed, those silly orcs march in 3/4. Gives a whole new meaning to "Waltzing around" :)

    Maybe it's a bunch of Japanese drummers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodo_(taiko_group)).

    If you ask me, I'd be voting for the giant douche if I could. Although the turd sandwich sure is tasty...

  158. OBAMA is infinitely better on energy than McCain by watersandwind · · Score: 2, Informative

    Brooke Coleman, head of the NFA, calls Obama's position on biofuels "infinitely better" than McCain's. As a daily reader of http://www.greentechmedia.com/ I can tell you that Obama is so so so so so much better than McCain on his understanding of technology and how to use it (great Fast Company mag article on Obama and Facebook worth finding), his understanding of the challenges and opportunitties of renewable energy ( see : http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/driving-change-how-us-prez-candidates-could-impact-cars-5113.html ) and c'mon who is going to make us look better in the eyes of the world??? Obama !!!

  159. Where are we going? by scorp1us · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find calls for âoetax reformâ to be somewhat comical, when you take into account the history of American taxation.

    The first income tax was in 1862:
    âoeThe income tax is imposed upon a certain proportion of the income of these two classes, viz:
    1st. Every person residing in the United States; and every citizen residing abroad who is in the employment of the Government of the United States.
    2nd. Every citizen of the United States residing abroad and not in the employment of the United States.

    Every person in the first class will be taxed at the rate of three percent when his or her annual gains, profits, or income exceed $600 and do not exceed $10,000. Every person in the first class will be taxed at the rate of five percent when his or her annual gains, profits, or income exceed $10,000, after the following deductionsâ¦â (From the 1962 Federal Income tax Return http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/9134d0498e7c820085256e4400040844?OpenDocument )

    $600 in 1862 is $15,000 in 2007.

    Congress then got fast and loose with their terms and the Supreme Court over turned a law in 1894 in the Pollock Case, because the language was not clear if it violated the Constitution or not. This then was the impetus for the 16th amendment, which is a very poorly worded amendment⦠But eventually we get to a tax of 1% on incomes over $3000 ($75,000 in 2007), topping out at only 6% in incomes of excess than $500,000 (12,500,000).

    Those are truly modest amounts compared to what we pay today.

    Prior to our modern income tax scheme, the Federal government was funded mainly by import tariffs. Congress would get to bicker on what to raise or lower the tariff on, sugar and cotton were favorites. The problem was this meant a man of meager means paid a larger portion of his earnings to fund the federal government. It was then proposed that the government be able to tax the vast sums of accumulated wealth of the likes of the Rockefellers, the J.P. Morgans, etc, which held about 80% of the wealth of the nation. The reasoning was money that creates money through investment should be taxed because no effort is expended in the creation of the additional wealth. Also, as an excise tax on the increase, the original principal is left untouched to continue to grow.

    The speeches in congress at the time were quite noble, the idea was to remove the burden of funding the federal government from the poor or common man to those who could better afford to pay it. People spoke nobly about it, and that is was an instrument that would be wielded with considerable care as it would a direct line into the bank account and household of every American.

    Given our current state of affairs: 30%+ taxes, bail out after bail out, it seems that any modern tax âoereformâ is just a shell game. True reform could only come as a consequence of government reform, and specifically the role of government. As we go forward, we continually enlarge the role of the federal government. We never talk about doing away with federal governmental operation, because we think more of something we want must be better. For example, the Department of Education. We all want education, so we are too scared to eliminate the department of it, because that might mean that our county-operated schools might suffer (how exactly?). We are contemplating national healthcare which we all know to be an active industry full of people inventing new ways to spend money. It grows 3x the rate of the GNP.

    People are going to the polls today to vote for either big government or bigger government.

    I am reminded of the words of Alexander Tyler (1787):
    "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:Where are we going? by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Huh. I would have gone with:

      Where are we going?
      Planet Ten!
      When will we get there?
      Real soon!

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    2. Re:Where are we going? by kingsteve612 · · Score: 0

      Dude you gotta get a job or something. way too long of a reply on /.

    3. Re:Where are we going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always snopes before you post

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

  160. Plus sides of President Obama for Republicans by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Ok, as a Republican there are many things to be bitter about in an Obama administration but there are a few plus sides. So, rather than whining about the fact that a socialist is in charge, let's accept that we can't win an election when we follow up the most unpopular president in history with an erratic mummy.

    So, while we regroup for 2012, there are some bright spots to look for in Republicans.

    a) alternative energy picks. Obama's going hog wild with alternative energy so hopefully those of us who have taken a beating investing in alternative energy company will finally see some positive returns. Who cares about Obama's doubling of the capital gains tax when stocks like NBF wind up as 10 bangers.

    b) democratic socialism favors the status quo. Pure socialism is of course the death of wealth but democratic socialism of the european style which Obama proposes has the effect of slowing down social change and thus preserving old money. So if you've got that big old trust, you'll pay a higher tax but that company grandma gave you will enjoy a better playing field.

    c) an overall stock market boom. Yeah, the it sucks that the big media talked the economy down to get Obama elected, but, on the bright side, the big media is going to start pulling out all sorts of facts and figures about the signs of bottoming out, the recovery, etc, and while red state industries will go back taking their usual democratic beating (like farming, mining and oil)... at least there will be other industries to invest in.

    d) stronger dollar and more foreign investment. As dumb as it is, the world likes stupid democratic socialism, and that America goes that way will paradoxically bolster American capitalism as it will create the perception of an America being a safer place to invest in - at least until those capital gains tax bills kick in.

    e) Jay Rockefeller and Bill Ford go to jail. It's a bonus, but at some point, the IRS and DOJ are going to break through that UBS wall to Swiss banking and find out that so many liberals actually don't pay their taxes by hiding their money in Switzerland. And, if they don't go to jail, and the investigation mysteriously dies, then, we Republicans would know exactly where to park our money so that Obama's tax increases won't matter nearly as much as we worry about.

    --
    This is my sig.
  161. The internet by PearsSoap · · Score: 1

    What with everyone following the Election on blogs, Twitter, TV, Youtube, radio and so on, will the whole internet slow to a crawl when the results get announced?

  162. Easy vote by Is0m0rph · · Score: 1

    Got there at 8, no line, no electronic machines, no chads. Our ballots you just complete arrows with a marker. Now I just hope this means my friends will stop emailing out every bit of anti-Obama propaganda they can get their hands on.

  163. Doesn't matter who wins... by vertickle · · Score: 1

    cause we're screwed either way. Welcome to the United Corporations of America!

  164. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Election? As in democracy?
    Wait you mean people in the US think there is an election going on? What stopped the republicans from fixing the vote this time like the last two times?

    Hey remember when you guys where being led by a president who was apointed not elected....
    remember that?

  165. fear of socialistic views by itzdandy · · Score: 1

    Anything that can be viewed as even slightly socialist is quickly attacked. There is no inherent weakness or flaw in socialism or communism for that matter but every single implementation of either one on a national level in any country in modern history has been bad. Socialized medicine has had this view applied to it.

    There are certain truths in the arguements against socialized medicine such as direct government control. All things, when viewed from a very high level must be summarized. Medical costs fall into this category. The management will look at regional expenses but not at individual expenses and coverage will suffer.

    What we need is something of a hybrid system. Government oversight and insurance mandates as well as tax incentives for providing insurance. If this is done, the medical industry must compete for patients or rather compete to be on the 'in-network' list for insurance providers.

    I'm not for bigger government at all. I think that a well designed oversight agency can create an environment where the industry it serves must self regulate by the rules of capitolism. Many of our government agencies are only necessary because the oversight agency at the top is inefficient.

    Just my thoughts. Thanks

    1. Re:fear of socialistic views by Mantrid · · Score: 1

      There is no inherent weakness or flaw in socialism or communism for that matter but every single implementation of either one on a national level in any country in modern history has been bad.

      I disagree with your premise, but even if I did agree, do you really think the USG is the one that is going to get it right??

    2. Re:fear of socialistic views by itzdandy · · Score: 1

      to clarify, there is nothing inherently wrong with all people being guaranteed by law equal provisions from government programs(socialism) or all people in a community being equal in all aspects such as wages and supply(communism). These things have been proven to be successful in small groups such as Mennonite groups which use a form of communism. If you choose to live a life like this then it is possible to have a non-corrupt, functional system. I dont believe that it can be done on a large scale because a primary need of this is that all peoples situation must also be equal, which it never is.

      because of this, I dont think that the US Government can handle this. That is why I suggest a hybrid. Let the government empose rules and regulations and only be allowed to oversee those aspects of the healthcare system and not the actual system. The reason that some oversight is needed is that corruption and non-competative practices will control the system if rules are not enforced.

    3. Re:fear of socialistic views by Grant_Watson · · Score: 1

      Anything that can be viewed as even slightly socialist is quickly attacked. There is no inherent weakness or flaw in socialism or communism for that matter....

      They both assume that human beings can be molded according to the goals of the state.

    4. Re:fear of socialistic views by itzdandy · · Score: 1

      I would say that is an occasional side effect but not part of the design. By design, the state would be shaped by the majority of equal peers but we all know that is not the usual outcome.

      I think the problem is that communism and socialism is adopted as a front to a dictatorship. Germany, Russian, and China all have done this and those are the most successful examples.

      There are states which have a hybrid of democracy and socialism and even some monarchial influences such as Sweden and Denmark that do quite well with their system.

  166. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by stei7766 · · Score: 1

    I wish I could get that low of error in any experiment I do...

    According to wiki the mayan calendar started in about 3000BC (I'm just rounding it a bit here). So 30 days in 5000 years (tongue in cheek math alert!):

    0.08 years/5000 = 1e-5

    Whats that, one part in 100,000?

    Without atomic clocks too!

    Actually...now that I think about it I'm kinda scared...

  167. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  168. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh please. You can't seriously claim that a destroyed pagan civilization is comparable to the end of the world.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  169. You fool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You were supposed to use a #2 pencil!

    1. Re:You fool! by clone53421 · · Score: 1
      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  170. Please Please Please Ban Robocalling! by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    At least I hope someday everyone will agree and kill this form of advertising. Hello, I do not live in a cave, I know who's running and for what in my state. I work at home, so every call is potentially important, and I don't need to have my time wasted by a telephone recording.

    It's a pity the do not call list doesn't apply to non profits or PACs.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  171. Barr... by booyabazooka · · Score: 1

    Voting for either of them - that's what doesn't make sense.

  172. How long to wait? by ichbineinneuben · · Score: 1

    Once the election is over, how long must we wait before prosecuting Bush for his crimes?

  173. Missing Option by Monty+Worm · · Score: 1

    I don't like in the US you insensitive clod.

    --
    ... and today's pet project has ... been discarded for lack of time.
    1. Re:Missing Option by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      You don't like what in the us?

    2. Re:Missing Option by Monty+Worm · · Score: 1
      Dammit, I can't type.

      Message should read:
      I don't live in the US you insensitive clod.

      It was much funnier in my mind, honest.

      --
      ... and today's pet project has ... been discarded for lack of time.
  174. Re:Fundamentalism, religion and why its the proble by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

    Someone is going to have to tell me how this post is any better than a Muslim fundamentalist wanting a global Caliphate.

    Because it's an extremely well-reasoned thought? Because he doesn't want to appoint a Christian dictator of the world (indeed, he says that he believes Christians should submit to the state, but shouldn't worry overmuch about it, as their goal is heavenly, not earthly)?

    I'll be blunt: did you read this gentleman's post, or did you get as far as him mentioning religion, and then ignore what he said to bash him?

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  175. uh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "argument from ignorance" is "this can't be disproven, so it must be true" or vice-versa.

    "the other guy sucks, so we must be better" sounds like a false dichotomy with an implied premise of "either one or the other of us is better."

  176. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  177. Just get the damn thing over and done with already by crivens · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just get the damn thing over and done with already! I'm sick and tired of hearing about the election on the news here in Canada.

  178. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by wombert · · Score: 1

    Wait... when does the Electoral College vote? :-P

    --
    Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
  179. Blah! by Eg0Death · · Score: 1

    I showed up to vote at 6:00 am. After waiting in line for 45 minutes I found that my voter registration is still tied to an old address and I had to go to a different county to vote. The other county is in a different Congressional district, so I didn't get to vote for my Congressman. I didn't get to vote for any of my elected county officials, either. Oh, and I got a speeding ticket while driving around in unfamiliar locations while searching for the correct place to vote. Help, help, I'm being repressed!

    --
    Why is this thus? What is the reason for this thusness?
    1. Re:Blah! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      After waiting in line for 45 minutes I found that my voter registration is still tied to an old address and I had to go to a different county to vote.

      You only have yourself to blame for that one.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Blah! by Eg0Death · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? Voter registration in this state is supposed to transfer with a license renewal. Also, I had no issue voting at this pole location in '06.

      --
      Why is this thus? What is the reason for this thusness?
    3. Re:Blah! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Eh? I had to fill out a card to inform the voter registry of my new address when I moved...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  180. It's been that way for a while by Quila · · Score: 1

    It just was not so obvious. Al Gore sold his vote on the first Gulf War for extra media coverage so he could get some more name recognition for a run at the '92 election.

    1. Re:It's been that way for a while by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I agree it wasn't so obvious.

      It was much easier to ignore when they weren't running campaign commercials for two stinking years.

      Note that people who weren't already in an office they could abuse for free publicity don't get to take advantage of this sort of thing. Obama is an example - his office for the last couple years has been to be a Senator that everyone ignores (being junior and a reliable Party-line vote means that the Senate leadership can safely ignore you completely). Which is why he started running overtly so early.

      Still sucks that the pattern has now been set to start elections two+ years early.

      Also sucks for all those people who approve of government financed elections that Obama is likely to win this one, and he's the first guy to forego public financing.

      Want to bet that next time both Parties skip the public financing in favour of the big bucks?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  181. Re:Fundamentalism, religion and why its the proble by MosesJones · · Score: 1

    From the GPP

    I believe that it is no accident that here (as elsewhere) Paul borrows political imagery to describe the church--the church is, in fact, an alternative power structure that should fundamentally subvert traditional power relationships.

    Emphasis mine.

    Now do you get what I was talking about?

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  182. Chuck Baldwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need someone who will stand up for the things this country was founded on. Thing like personal liberties, adherance to our constitution, a free market, the right to succeed or fail on your own, etc.

    Bush has provided the 'make you disappear' type socialism, Obama will provide the 'make us all poor' type of socialism, not to mention take away many of our rights (property, etc.). McCain will drive us just as much into debt and will continue Bush's war on the constitution and indivudual liberties. I will vote my conscience , which is Chuck Baldwin.

  183. "It's election day." by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    No, it isn't. The Presidential election is on Dec. 15th this year.

    The only people being elected today are congresscritters and local pols.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
    1. Re:"It's election day." by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The only people being elected today are congresscritters and local pols.

      And the electors... you know, those people who are voting on December 15th? You're electing them today too.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  184. how true by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    The media has done a poor job really telling us anything about the candidates. Yes, an intelligent voter who wants to be informed on the issues can go find the information on their own, but the campaigns and the media coverage of the campaigns has done little to help the situation.

    Even NPR is guilty of horse race coverage rather than covering the issues.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    1. Re:how true by u38cg · · Score: 1

      This has more to do with the structure of the media than it's ability to provide useful information. Rolling 24-hour news has an insatiable demand for new content in order to be the network that's first with the next big thing. Back when Clinton was first elected and I was eleven, the papers had pages and pages discussing the published policy positions of candidates, not replay after replay of off-the-cuff soundbites ("spread the wealth", anyone?).

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  185. So the plan by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Observation 1:
    It would appear that the Rep. Party never had a clear plan on winning. McCain at his age would have had a difficult time going for a second term. It would appear more that it was more about stopping Hillary then anything else. Once she lost the primary they took the opportunity to field test a female presidential canidate by putting Palin in as the VP. Not so much to test her as a presidential candidate but to see what issuea a conservative female canidate woul dhave to address (they have seen what a female liberal side via Clinton.)

    Observation 2:
    Obama and McCain have brought the divisive nature of modern American politics to the flash point. I fear, regardless of who wins, we are one step closer to civil war and degenerating into a third world warzone. Iraqq may have a sectariant problem but the US sectarian problem is just about to hit flash point. With the level of violence and hate this election by both sides I fear it is only getting worse after the election. The militant nature of each of the extremes is growing and the moderate voices are drowned out by the ravings of lunatics that can accept nothing but their own exterme and warped view of how things should be.

    Observation 3:
    The old saying, "the election is about the lesser of two evils" is reaching the point that which ever the "lesser" is, the suffering that will result (direct or indirect) is making it the choice of "a quick death or a slow death."

    Observation 4:
    The behavior of both canidates and their supporters, the fact that neither canidate will take responsibility to control their more extremist supporters, the media is no longer bothering to even attempt to conceal their bias, the lack of true journalism, the double standards, and their tactics; has convinced me that both the Democrat and Republican parties are morally bankrupt and I can no longer, in good faith, offer any canidate endorsed by those parties my vote. In addition, the primary news media cannot and must not be trusted at this point. This election was the last draw. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Times, Washington Post, etc... have failed their duty to provide Americans with the truth. Journalism has been replaced by editorial nonsense.

    R.I.P Joe Friday.... "Only the fact..."

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  186. Obama wins and is not a citizen by cachemagic · · Score: 1

    I worry about Obama becoming president and then when the case finally makes it to the Supreme Court and it is proved that he isn't a citizen - then what happens? There are many good reasons to suspect that he is actually an illegal alien. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/lawyersues.htm

    1. Re:Obama wins and is not a citizen by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

      "[truthorfiction.com]" I'm going to go with Fiction.

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
  187. Minor irregularity... by Hierarch · · Score: 1

    So far the only irregularity I've encountered is that I got an odd phone call, anonymous number, purporting to be from the Obama campaign, telling me that my polling place had changed to one that's clear across the city, in a completely different county. I'm suspicious... And wish I had a good place to report that sort of thing.

    --
    --Somebody infect me with a .sig virus, I'm too lazy to write my own!
  188. Vote Rational by wildtech · · Score: 1

    Done. Fill in the circle with a sharpie. Very easy.

    Tried to pick the ones that will do the least damage.

    Too many people are emotionally involved and can not make rational choices that help rather than hinder.

  189. Iceland by quax · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bankrupted by an out-of bounds banking industry that was totally deregulated and ten times larger than the Iceland GDP i.e. the real Icelandic economy. These banks were counter parties to many Wall street institutions that pushed their toxic sludge bonds on the Icelandic banks. Totally not related to their welfare system.

    Nice try though.

  190. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by SCDavis · · Score: 1

    Hmm... seems like they may have been right on... Obama and Biden will have pretty well fudged things up by then...

  191. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by Azheim · · Score: 1

    Very few pro-life Christian conservatives that I know would propose legislation against abortion in cases of rape, risk to the life of the mother, or in extremely rare cases like the one you mentioned where it is known the baby will be born dead. The issue that I take is with the other 99% of abortions. Your argument is a straw man, and it's the most common logical fallacy I've encountered in the abortion debate.

  192. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by COMON$ · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If you walk around and think everyone is wrong and worse than you because they do not share your point of view then eventually you will alienate all those people and they will work against you

    Ummmm this is generally how dems behave as well, that somehow they are the sophisticated light and anything else just isn't socially acceptable or permissible. At least republicans take a stand on issues rather than constantly whining about how they would have done things better and dangling theories in front of their party members. "Oh if a democrat were president 9/11 would never have happened" "If a democrat were president, we wouldnt be in the war" "if if if...for the love of pete, give it up and SHOW the world things will be better". Yes I voted blue this round, but as the Simpsons democrat quote goes "We will screw it up somehow".

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  193. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Which, in 2012, will be December 17.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  194. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by ihatethetv · · Score: 1

    A bit off?

    Yea, the MSB

  195. Re:Communism doesn't kill people, people kill peop by overcaffein8d · · Score: 2, Funny

    Communism doesn't kill people, people kill people

    I disagree! People with mustaches kill people.

    --
    Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
  196. It makes no difference by trud · · Score: 0

    We are doomed.

    This republicans are socialists and the democrats are communists.

    However; to think that we will ignore the constitution and allow Obama to get this far into the process without having produced his birth certificate and not just a statement of live birth is all the while ignoring the fact that he was actually born in another country to a father that was a citizen of that other country and then brought back to the US is unspeakable. His mother was a nut... "Indonesia and muslim as well - WTF" and nuts don't fall far from trees.

    I'm going to vomit now.

    We are doomed

    1. Re:It makes no difference by strikeleader · · Score: 1

      Everything You Wanted to Know About the Obama Online Fundraising Scandal in Less Than 5 Minutes!
      Since it is apparently too much effort for the mainstream media (National Journal excepted) to be bothered to investigate what is potentially one of the largest campaign finance fraud scandals ever, we thought we'd set the table for them. Here's a Cheat Sheet if you will on how the story broke and what the important issues are:
      1. In early 2007, Obama tells Silicon Valley mogul, Marc Andreeson, to watch how I run my campaign - you'll see my leadership skills in action. Which makes the following account all the more concerning. Can we expect more of the same should Obama assume the seat in the White House?
      2. Rumors begin to circulate that the Obama campaign is accepting foreign and other illegal contributions. Atlas Shrugs blog breaks the story on July 23 and confirms the rumors.
      3. On October 22, a citizen does his own investigative work and gives an online donation to the Obama campaign with a the fake name of John Galt along with a fake address. Several bloggers quickly follow up on this story with their own investigative work and find that they too can donate to the Obama campaign with fake names and addresses. Most disturbingly, foreign citizens were also able to donate using their foreign issued credit cards with fake foreign addresses.
      4. By now, it has become common knowledge that the Obama campaign is the ONLY campaign to NOT disclose their under $200 campaign donor list. No substantive reasons are given by the Obama campaign.
      5. On October 24, it is confirmed by the National Journal that the Obama campaign has turned off address verification on their website. This is highly irregular - in fact, it's quite unheard of. Essentially, turning off address verification (known as AVS) enables donors to fake addresses and circumvent donor limits. This means foreigners can give illegal donations and motivated Obama supporters can exceed the $2300 campaign limit! As Internet and e-commerce professionals, we launch this blog to raise the issue of how highly irregular and potentially unethical it is to turn off online credit card address verification.
      6. In light of the aforementioned and in light of the record $150 million haul Obama brought in during the month of September from over 600 thousand new, mostly unidentified, donors, this blog attempts to size the problem. We calculated that over $181 million of Obama's donations fall into the potentially fraudulent category.
      7. On October 29, the Obama campaign is quoted favorably in the Washington Post as checking for fraud on the back-end. The Obama campaign did not elaborate on what this means and the Washington Post didn't bother to ask.
      8. Since the Obama campaign turned off the easiest and most obvious way to stop campaign finance fraud, this blog and the National Journal proceeded to explore other ways in which the Obama campaign could prevent campaign finance fraud. We determined that the Obama camp could use IP addresses (unique identifiers for computers with geographic information) and BIN numbers (unique identifiers of credit cards with geographic information) to prevent fraudulent and foreign donations on the back-end. Unfortunately, all records indicate that the Obama campaign does NOT use these simple and cheap methods to prevent illegal donations.
      9. With public pressure mounting on the Obama campaign to disclose his donor list (despite the apathy from the New York Times and Washington Post), Charlie Gibson of ABC News asks Obama why he won't disclose his donor list. Obama said it would be too difficult to process. RED FLAG! Isn't this the internet generation candidate? Shouldn't it be easy for computers to process these records?
      10. It turns out that the answer is Yes!. The liberal online publication, Slate, proves how easy it is to process the donor list. The National Journal also proves how easy it is by talking to the bank that houses the Obama campaign records.
      In summary, the Obama cam

    2. Re:It makes no difference by trud · · Score: 0

      It stinks.... What a mess

  197. Bill Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Clinton is definitely the man!

    Oh. Wait a second.... You said presidential eLection.

     

  198. i'll be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nader 2008!!!!

    1. Re:i'll be the first by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      As a McC/P supporter, I certainly hope Nader gets lots of votes!

  199. Re:Fundamentalism, religion and why its the proble by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

    I don't think you get what he's talking about. He's saying that the church is an alternative power structure (undisputably true), but he isn't saying the church should rule in place of what is there now. He's saying that Christians shouldn't be devoted to the state - obedient, yes, but their true allegiance should lie elsewhere. The Christian's first devotion is to God, but that doesn't mean Christians seek to forcibly impose Christianity on the world. This is the fundamental difference between the OP and what you were comparing it to.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  200. proof of you being wrong: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    "Once you are past the tipping point, any further votes are not warped, they are unnecessary and a waste."

    this is how you think about your vote

    but if the way you think about your vote is logically valid, it is something we should all embrace. and if more people didn't vote simply because "my vote doesn't matter", then no one votes, or, more accurately, the election is decided by the random few who do vote. in places like california or new york (where i live, and i voted democratic, and new york is going democratic if i didn't vote), the state could swing republican if so many democrats think like you do (and in fact, many do, and it is a major problem, since it means republicans win where they otherwise wouldn't)

    here is a direct demoonstration of that:

    anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster

    there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:

    2,912,790 to 2,912,253

    that's 500 votes that decided the election for bush rather than gore

    http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/7/00&RACE=PRE&PARTY=&DIST=&GRP=&DATAMODE=

    it gave us the last 8 years of fail: 500 votes

    in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever:

    8,752,717 to 6,138,765

    thats two million florida voters, who THINKING EXACTLY LIKE YOU THINK, gave us 8 years of bush, of invading iraq, of not caring about katrina, of letting unregulated irresponsibility reign on wall street and detroy the economy. over 2 million people, who most certainly would have swayed the vote to gore instead of bush

    http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/TurnoutRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE=

    people, who think just like you, are the kind of people who gave us 8 years of bush

    the only morally and intellectually honest and valid opinion about the value of your vote is you must vote. because otherwise, like you, you become a parasite, depending upon other people to express your will for you. if enough people do that, an invalid will is expressed, a will that is not an accurate representation of the will of the people

    in other words, parsitical attitudes like yours destroy democracy

    you are a parasite. you are a major asshole. it is people who think just like you who destroy this country

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  201. One party system by Quenyar · · Score: 1

    The biggest flaw in the US elections is that you have a system in which only candidates from the two principle parties can be elected. Add to that the fact that the backers and leadership of both parties is essentially the same (admittedly some minor differences) and you have what amounts to a single party system. We all know what a great idea that is. In other parts of the world, you can have eleven serious candidates for an election and have a real horse race between 3-4 really different candidates. This is good. Although I realize that my vote is meaningless, I often vote for other party candidates on principle. Better to vote for the good guy who won't win than the lesser of two evils - though in a tight race I will vote against someone who is really bad. Ours is a system designed to create apathy.

  202. No more fucking campaign ads (for at least a week).

    Here in CA, I guess we're supposed to vote on whether to put all the gays into larger solar powered cages so that the chickens can marry meth dealers.

    At least, that what I think all the ads are saying... (They sort of run into each other after a while).

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  203. A case of fraud in northern virginia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My mother-in-law was turned away from voting in Fairfax Station this morning. She was told that she had already voted via absentee ballot. They asserted to her that they triple check voter IDs.

    The day that this vote was allegedly cast happens to be the day she was undergoing one of her chemotherapy infusions. She has been allowed to cast a provisional ballot and was told that 'if needed' it would be counted. I'm not sure what to make about that.

    If it matters she cast for Obama. To me what matters is that there are some who are impersonating others and casting absentee ballots in their name here in Virginia. I'd like to think that number is small, but now that it has hit close to home I'm somewhat worried.

    Frankie

    1. Re:A case of fraud in northern virginia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank You Acorn!

          She was voting for Obama anyway, so they did her a favor right?

  204. Obama & Ayers by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > And it's well known-that one of your good high school buddies was a pedophile.
    > I'm going to show up at your job tomorrow and let everyone there know about
    > how you like to pal around with pedophiles. You cool with that?

    No retard, if you really can't see the difference there is no hope for ya.

    If Axelrod went off the rails this afternoon (just too much stress) and shot up a shopping center nobody would accuse Obama of hanging with a mass murderer. It would correctly be seen as a tragedy. Had Ayers been all talk and no bomb until suddenly going off this week and blowing up some crap, again, it would be wrong to give any serious grief to Obama because a longtime associate got sudden jihad/revolution syndrome. But as Team Obama is always pointing out, Ayers started blowing stuff up when Obama was a wee lad of eight. That doesn't excuse the relationship, it is what makes it so bad. Ayers was the University of Chicago's Star Celebrity Terrorist, the notion that Obama was the only guy in town who didn't know about Ayers is simply not plausible.

    And that's assuming you don't believe Ayers and Obama first met in Chicago and not at Columbia. Both were there and had Edward Said as a common connection. Obama as a student, Ayers as co-consirator.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Obama & Ayers by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      And how many former criminals could I find if I probed YOUR past, huh? How many people do you associate with in church who were once criminals in the distant past? At the office? In your family? How many common connections could I find if I probed every inch of YOUR life?

      If you're friends with a man who was once a criminal when you were 8 years old but had changed in the decades since, does that make YOU a bad person, or just a normal one?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Obama & Ayers by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > If you're friends with a man who was once a criminal when you were 8 years old but had changed in the decades since..

      Now matter how many different ways I say it it is apparent you are 100% immune to reality. But for those following along I'll say it one more time just as clearly as possible.

      Ayers hasn't changed. Not one bit. Listen to him. "Guilty as Hell. Free as a Bird." "I regret nothing." "I'm a small c communist"

      And that is the problem. Ayers, by his own words is still the exact same communist radical. He has just decided he can do more for the cause from his perch as a department head at at major university than as bomber. But he explicitly doesn't renounce terrorism as a valid tactic, no he says he just might take up the bombs at some point in the future should he decide his current tactic isn't working.

      Wright wasn't a nutjob in the distant past who reformed either. He was still spouting the crazy after Obams threw him under the bus, it is just that somebody has managed to get a muzzle on the guy for now. Expect him to resurface in a couple of days. If I wanted to put $100 on Wright being present at Obama's swearing in what odds would you give me?

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    3. Re:Obama & Ayers by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Ayers hasn't changed, huh? So you are saying that he's still plotting to bomb buildings and commit terrorism. Because if that is seriously what you're saying, then you had better either report him to the FBI or STFU. Being a university professor who you disagree with (even if he is a complete flake, and he may well be) is NOT the same as being a terrorist. If you can't see that, then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. Not that there really isn't any point to changing your mind, because in January your party is going to be neutered anyway and then it won't matter what you think.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  205. Re:Fundamentalism, religion and why its the proble by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

    Quick Biblical example, that may help show what he is talking about. Paul and Peter BOTH promoted submission to the ruling authority in the midst of a time when that authority wasn't necessarily friendly to their religious views. They kept on preaching because they believed that their calling was something the state didn't have the authority to tell them not to do; however, they willingly went to their deaths as martyrs and NEVER disputed the power of the state to take their lives for disobeying the laws.

  206. Re:OBAMA is infinitely better on energy than McCai by trud · · Score: 0

    US citizens prefer dog-dung to cow-dung 3 to 1 with a statistically insignificant 1% that prefer no dung at all.

  207. mod parent insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll? I think not.

    Wish I hadn't posted in this thread already.

    1. Re:mod parent insightful by brian0918 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, people get pissed if you feed them the truth when they're addicted to lies.

  208. The american dream by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You are forgetting about the american dream. The dream that one day YOU will be elite, the rich, the powerful. Eat dirt today because tomorrow you will be eating cake. And of course, if you are eating cake tomorrow, you hardly want to share that cake or have it turned into bread for all. No, eat dirt today, because tomorrow...

    It is the american dream. If you were cynical, you might see it as a near perfect ploy to keep the masses content. Not that dissimilar to how certain religions do it. Suffer life now, the after-life will see you rewarded. Never mind dear suicide bomber that you are pisspoor despite millions in support to the palestines. Your reward awaits you in heaven, never mind that your leaders life in luxury in the west (check were the palestine leadership lives, and for instance how many millions old beard face had and where he houses his wife)

    The american dream tells americans that they too can one day have it all, and since one day they will have it all, why should they then share it or ask those who have it now to share?

    Make no mistake, the american dream is the ultimate enslavement tool. Because the truth of course is that NOT everyone can make it, no matter how they try because a capatalist system needs its homeless to allow for the superrich. The american dream at best is an lottery, but one where the winners can buy the winning tickets.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:The american dream by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      You're Israeli, aren't you?

    2. Re:The american dream by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Make no mistake, the american dream is the ultimate enslavement tool. Because the truth of course is that NOT everyone can make it, no matter how they try because a capatalist system needs its homeless to allow for the superrich. The american dream at best is an lottery, but one where the winners can buy the winning tickets.

      Funny, though, everybody who tries to improve on this system ends up killing tens of millions of their own people. Any suggestions for avoiding that?

    3. Re:The american dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its even more than that. Its a case of, "I worked hard to earn my money, why should I have to give ANY of it up to fix up Johnny Gangbanger after he was shot dealing drugs to kids."

    4. Re:The american dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      everybody who tries to improve on [the American dream] ends up killing tens of millions of their own people

      False. Fidel Castro may have killed a few hundred people, probably less.

      But even a few hundred was orders of magnitude less than the body count accumulated by Castro's immediate predecessor, the American-supported dictator Fulgencio Batista.

  209. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by Kagura · · Score: 2, Informative

    I voted Obama a couple weeks ago by mail-in absentee ballot. Give me free karma!


    Or alternatively, mod me funny and "redundant" repeatedly to trash my karma. ;)

  210. Unbridled Capitalism by hackus · · Score: 1

    I think is a bad idea as well.

    Capitalism in various amounts is good. But, I think for example we should have a combination approach...

    For example, I think some jobs SHOULD be moved over seas, but not at the expense of destroying our own markets.

    Take for example steel production.

    I think we should buy steel aboad, tax it and then subsidize our own industries which produce steel at home.

    We can do this with any industry.

    It forces some jobs to go over seas, but keeps some of the industrial production here as well.

    In other words, I see industrial production of a country to make its own things strategic.

    I mean, look what happens when energy prices zoom so high, it no longer makes sense to make things over seas.

    So, this sort of thinking protects our supply lines as a nation and keeps people employed working. Compromise.

    CEO salaries have to be DRAMATICALLY scaled back in this country. Congress could put a restriction on CEO salaries and compensation by 10 to 1. That way the CEO must REALLY WORK to grow the company, and not just lay off people or get stock options or raid the companies war chest for driving it into the ground.

    There should never be more than a 10 to 1 ratio in my opinion of top to bottom. The rest of the that money should go to share holders, company R&D, bonuses, Health Care...etc All the things that make a company grand.

    Unfortunately for you all here, either candidates are basically the same. Obama and McCain are the lapdogs of the establishment (i.e. Corporatocracy of America.)

    I am not voting for either candidate and get a no vote of confidence from the Hackmeister.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  211. A House Divided by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

    My wife wants it to be over just so we won't have the tension of living in a house divided between opposing political parties.

    Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz screwed this country as hard and fast as they physically could. They can't be frog-marched out of the White House soon enough. The rest of this message rambles a bit, and I apologize for that.

    McCain is a GOP robot wearing the flavor of the day.

    Obama is a good man that just happens plays the political game better than anyone else. We, as a country, needed for a political party other than the GOP to produce such a candidate.

    Everyone, even the rich, need to honor the social contract and pay into the system. Bush cut the taxes on the people that make the most, gave subsidies to the corporations that needed them the least, while the middle class and poor watch their earning power and their jobs dribble away.

    We lost thousands of high-earning high tech jobs and gained thousands of low-earning service sector jobs thanks to Bush's policies.

    Bush is a religious whack job, and while McCain isn't, his party is beholden to the religious whack jobs for their power.

    I'm tired of hoping that the stupid in this country get just smart enough to vote *for* their kids' future and not against it. I'm tired of trying to explain basic economics and social theory to the GOP idiots around me. I'm tired of watching Bush screw this country over.

    And I'm tired of the longest election cycle in history.

    I'm glad Obama will win. But the fight to exorcise the demons summoned by Bush won't over for a very long time.

    --
    *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  212. why you have no excuse not to vote by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, most of it predicated on learned helplessness, a pathological inability to trust, or a bullshit rationalization of laziness: "my vote doesn't matter"

    why your vote matters:

    2,912,790 to 2,912,253

    http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/7/00&RACE=PRE&PARTY=&DIST=&GRP=&DATAMODE=

    that's 500 votes that decided the election for bush rather than gore

    it gave us the last 8 years of fail: 500 votes

    meanwhile, in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever:

    8,752,717 to 6,138,765

    http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/TurnoutRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE= [state.fl.us]

    thats two and half million florida voters, who thought "my vote doesn't matter"

    they gave us 8 years of bush, of invading iraq, of not caring about katrina, of letting unregulated irresponsibility reign on wall street and detroy the economy, of going full retard on science policy (stem cells, creationism), etc. none of these things gore would have done (an argument, btw, against another bullshit rationalization not to vote: "the candidates are the same")

    over two and a half million people, who most certainly would have swayed the vote to gore instead of bush, since its usually the young and minorities who feel disenfrachized, and invent bullshit reasons not to vote

    the only morally and intellectually honest and valid opinion about the value of your vote is you must vote. because otherwise, you become a parasite, depending upon other people to express your will for you. if enough people do that, an invalid will is expressed, a will that is not an accurate representation of the will of the people

    in other words, parasitical attitudes about not voting destroy democracy

    you MUST vote. otherwise, you are a parasite. you are a major asshole. you destroy this country by allowing less favored candidates win. and you really have NO right to complain about the next 4 years about anythign in politics if you do not vote. voting is your chance to let your beliefs sway who goes into the white house. if you choose not to do that, you are beneath withering contempt in my book, and have no right to complain anymore about the state of your world

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  213. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    Seems like the Mayans were a bit off...

    Damn those leap seconds!

  214. Negativity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

    Exactly. It's not like Bush endorsed McCain. Oh wait, he did. Well, of course McCain didn't accept the endorsement! Oops, he did accept it. Alright, at least we can say that McCain has never endorsed Bush. What? You say that he endorsed Bush twice? Geez... the Democrats are so negative!

  215. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    You also can't claim that running out of space on the Mayan calendar was a claim that the world would end anymore than using two digit years was.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  216. Two Wrong Choices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fallacy is that there are only two choices, the two candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties. That's what those in charge would prefer you believe.

    The problem this presents is that neither choice is really very beneficial for the country and either choice just means more of politics-as-usual. It's just a choice of -how- we will be screwed, not -if-.

    In good conscience, I could not be a party to that.

    I pulled the lever for the Libertarian candidate.

    1. Re:Two Wrong Choices by Tangential · · Score: 1

      Its pretty scary to think that these two candidates are the best we can do.

      Obama should be able to finally ravage what little bit of the Constitution that previous Administrations haven't been able to get at.

      We will finally be able to finish the transformation from "A government of enumerated powers" to "Citizens with enumerated rights".

      Don't worry. There won't be many rights, so it shouldn't be too confusing.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  217. Alabama Ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As backwards as we are in many things, the actual mechanics of Alabama voting are well done. We have large, sturdy paper ballots with ovals that you fill in with a ball point pen. The choices are always clearly printed in large font, grouped appropriately, with plenty of space in between the choices. The system has worked well for us for many years.

    It's rare for us to have something done well in politics, so I felt compelled to share with you all.

  218. First time Democrat voter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having voted since 88', I was republican republican republican libertarian libertarian democrat.

    I almost voted for Perot during that stretch just because I was already getting annoyed at where the party was going. I did not vote for Bush for as many reasons as I didnt vote for Gore or Kerry.

    I was 100% for McCain in 2000 and was looking forward to his victory (finally) this year. But then I saw his campaign and shook my head again. This time I went democrat instead of third party.

    Strange days for me. If Obama stays centered and rights the economic and worldview courses of this country I will find it hard to vote against him in 2012. And there is also the issue that the Republicans must find some reformation as they try to rise from the ashes.

    Even if McCain wins the Republicans are very weak and Obama showed those weaknesses. If Obama wins it just becomes easier to swallow and allow the needed changes to take place.

    Strange days indeed.

    P.S. Sarah Palin, unless she learns to commandingly answer 'gotcha' questions by 2010 .... something any President must be able without finding themselves mumbling about fastfood and russia within the same question is a must for me. It will be interesting to see how Romney and Huckabee tackle the rising star of Palin though. Maybe the Louisiana governor, Jindal, can save the Republicans.

  219. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by Kagura · · Score: 1

    Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

    The Mayans may have had atomic clocks. Who knows? ;)

  220. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who modded this off topic? I lol'd...this should be modded funny, and I pity the fool who misses the joke. If the shitty Palin comment above is funny this outta be too...

  221. Optical Scan ballots FTW by Rocky+Mudbutt · · Score: 1

    I was pleased to see a choice at my polling station of mark sense optical scan ballots or touch screen machines. The paper ballot line was non-existent, and the ballot took very little time to fill in. Kind of like an SAT for housewives and working stiffs. The scanner was attended and the lady working it said it would scan "any way but sideways". That's progress!

    --
    Ethics II Axiom 2. "Man thinks." B. Spinoza
  222. Excellent post, sir! by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    My parents were always staunch Republican voters, but post "Reagan era", I've watched that party slide "off the deep end" into promoting fascism and "big government", while trying to win most of their votes by bashing the Democrats for being the "tax and spend" types we "all have to avoid".

    (People can say what they like about Ronald Reagan, but I think in hindsight, it's apparent he was part of a dying breed of American leaders who really believed the United States was "the greatest place in the world to live", complete with our values of freedom as they were written in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I won't try to argue whether or not he "went about some things the wrong way". But I can't envision him talking about our Constitution as a "worthless piece of paper" as Bush, Jr. did - or even continuing to fight a "war on terror" that had no clearly defined "end goal". I'm not even too sure he'd be up there pushing for the huge bailout either.)

    The problem *I* now see is, EVERYBODY has abandoned those "3 pillars" you speak of, except for the 3rd. party candidates, who can't even seem to stop fighting amongst themselves this year. (When I heard rumors that Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was going to offer Ron Paul a chance to be his running mate, I got excited for a moment. I think that could have been a powerful enough combination to get some attention for the party. But instead, it seems Ron Paul chose to snub the L.P. - causing them to lash out against him as simply trying to be a "Cult of Personality", etc. Then, the "Constitution party" (who did practically ZERO campaigning) seemed to spend all their effort just encouraging people to "unify" somehow - and vote for Barr, Paul OR their party (pretty please?? with cherries on top?).

    An awful lot of people are going to cast a vote for Obama because they feel it's really the ONLY option besides the screwed-up status-quo we've had for decades. My prediction? The "change" he'll give us amounts to being able to say we finally got a president with darker colored skin, and a little more socialism vs. fascism.

  223. You think we will know tomorrow? by ecloud · · Score: 1

    Ha ha ha. Hahahahahahaha.

    1. Re:You think we will know tomorrow? by strikeleader · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? It has already been decided.
      The media has put too much effort in getting Obama elected.

  224. Republican Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Republicans get crushed and lose Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, I wonder if they're going to clean house or keep on with same failed people and platform that put them in the tank?

    The electorate has not changed so much in eight years. The people who put Bush in office are still out there, and still voting for the party. The Republicans are surely going to do well in rural Ohio (for example) because those people genuinely like Bush and want more presidents like him. The Republican party absolutely can't afford to let these people down. No matter what happens today, don't expect them to abandon their base.

    I'd love to see the Republican party become more reasonable, honest, unifying, and compassionate, but it just ain't gonna happen until the electorate decides to make it a priority.

  225. Fun with Diebold by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just got back from voting, it seems I picked a good time to go, only had to wait 10 minutes before I was making my selections. The key is to go mid morning or mid afternoon and avoid early morning, lunch, and after work (if possible).

    I went in thinking I would just request a paper ballot instead of using the Diebold machines (in Ohio we can request paper ballot if we want)... but at the last minute I decided to go with the machine because I was trying to get in and out quickly (every poll worker was 70+ years old, didn't want to do anything out of the norm). I get to my machine, make my choices.. and went it was printing out the paper ticket so I could review my selections, the paper roll was jammed so nothing was happening. I told a poll worker that it didn't work, and that I wanted to cancel this ballot and do a paper one.

    Lesson learned. Of course then they only gave me the first page of the paper ballot (which left off a few local proposals). I pointed out the missing proposals, they found page two, and I got to finish. I was the 9th person to do paper ballot, so the previous 8 didn't get that 2nd page.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  226. Arizona's paper ballots are the best by ecloud · · Score: 1

    It's very easy to make a black line to complete the arrow, and the scanners are old, fully depreciated and simple - a handful of photodetectors would be enough to find those black lines.

  227. Re:Slot machines... Our Salvation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why aren't the slot machine manufacturers in the voting machine business? They have the know-how AND the political connections.

  228. Voter Fraud email at George Mason University by doojsdad · · Score: 1

    An email that reached 35,000 people was sent from the "Provost" last night at 1AM EST telling students the election is being held on Wednesday. I'm sure someone out there believed it. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/11/gmu_e-mail_hoax_election_day_m.html?hpid=topnews

  229. Can we dock his pay? by Quila · · Score: 1

    Exactly how much senator work has Obama done in the last two years?

  230. Problems in WA state but massive turnout by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Informative

    At most places in the state of Washington, normally a swing state, we've had more than 60 percent of people return their absentee ballots before election day or vote early or emergency (e.g. military being posted or sudden business travel).

    Additionally, all the polling places have had more people vote in the first hour since they've been open than usually vote all day, so it looks like in person voting in the only two in-person counties (King and another Blue county) is off the charts.

    I'm predicting a landslide, and that the GOP will lose two seats in Congress.

    Minor problems with some electronic machines, but virtually everyone other than handicapped/disabled/blind votes using paper ballots that are optically scanned - either by mail, dropoff, or in person.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  231. Cancer! by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

    Don't forget, McCain has cancer. Based on the cancer he has and the amount of lymph nodes he had removed, he has about a 1 in 3 chance of surviving 5 more years.

    1. Re:Cancer! by Altus · · Score: 1

      Never mind the increased impact of actually being president. That's a job that takes a lot out of you physically.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  232. Re:Stock Market is rallying despite other bad news by will_die · · Score: 1

    The financial radio shows I have been listening to here in Europe have put some of the decrease in stocks in the last 2 months because it is realized that Obama will win. If the stock market is going up that would indicate that it is just a freaky day, people happy that is election race is over???, or they think McCain is going to win and the market is correcting itself.

  233. Not just any lawyer by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

    He has a doctorate from Harvard law school, graduated suma cum laude. AND he was president of the Harvard Law review. He worked his way to the top.

    So which would you choose, someone who graduated top of the class with a doctorate or someone from the bottom of his class?

  234. Suckers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who didn't vote for Baldwin deserves what they get!

    Eat it! - Suckers!!

    However I am pleased to see the progress of a Black man in the whitehouse...

    (too bad his policies - despite his words - suck so much)

    I will be blasting Public Enemy proudly through the streets of my small, racist, town tomorrow!

    Fight the Power, yo!

  235. He was against it before he was for it. by nobodyman · · Score: 4, Informative

    his clear anti-torture stance - which went against the general Republican stance at the time - was something he should be admired for

    It's funny you pull mention his talking-point on waterboarding, because John McCain in fact voted against a ban on waterboarding. So his stance is maybe not as clear as you think.

    1. Re:He was against it before he was for it. by confusedneutrino · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting thing... in my jujitsu class, many students are disbelieving and otherwise biased against certain techniques. Until they receive the technique and experience its efficacy. I'm not saying waterboarding or any other form of torture is effective or humane, just pointing out an aspect of human nature that should at least provoke some thought.

      --


      --RIAmAses! Let my MP3ople go!
  236. Educational Video Games by Trojan35 · · Score: 1

    Earlier, we had slashdot stories on the http://www.redistrictinggame.org/ and how it was educating people through video games.

    From that, we have finally gotten Prop 11 on the ballot in California thanks to our Governor(ator). Take what you've learned, and vote accordingly. This proposition will have a significant impact on every election to come in California, and you should really put in the time to learn about it.

    I doubt it will pass, but I really hope it does. Whatever happens, I hope other states follow in getting this prop on the ballot.

  237. But but but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... momma said he was the devil.

  238. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    It hasn't anything to do with running out of space. December 21, 2012 is the date 13.0.0.0.0. The calendar would run out of space after 19.19.19.17.19, or October 12, 4772. The December 21, 2012 date is based on prophecy, and I don't think anyone here would question the scientific authority of prophecies.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  239. McCain and Obama on the Nolan chart by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    Linky linky.
    For those who don't feel like clicking: Obama is moderately statist, just left (liberal) of center. McCain is a pinch more statist than Obama and just right (conservative) of center. On an image ~9cm wide they are separated by no more than 1cm.

    There is no information posted on how whoever created the image filled out the survey for placement on the chart, so I suppose it's possible that it's entirely fabricated. However, it was presumably done by a Libertarian (since they're the only ones who tend to use the Nolan chart in the first place) who has no vested interest in either candidate.

    It provides a decent metric of just how mountainous the molehill separating the Democratic and Republican nominees is.

  240. The big problem with Ron Paul by br00tus · · Score: 1
    Is he talks about capitalism in ideological terms. In the old days, with men like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and Malthus and Say, the field they said they studied was political economy. Political economy. In the mid-late 19th century Marx said capitalism was a social relation between capitalist and proletariat. In reaction to that , "political economy" changed into something which sounds more like mathemat-ics, or phys-ics - econom-ics. Beneath all of the mathematical formulas are the same old political questions though. Keynes addressed some of this, and despite conservatives denouncing Keynesianism all the time, they certainly are not shy about using it when they want to (bailout etc.)

    Going back to the two poles, Marx and a Paul-style laissez-faire capitalist, Marx says capitalism is a social and political relationship while Paul looks at it as an economic system. In this case I think Marx (and Keynes, who leans towards this idea) is right - the capitalists are concerned with protecting their political power. Paul complaining that the capitalists are not for capitalism (with this bailout) is kind of silly. This *is* capitalism. Capitalism is not some theory on a drawing board, it is a social relation involving labor, capital, wages and profit.

  241. Re:Stock Market is rallying despite other bad news by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    I heard people claiming the stock market decline of former weeks was based on the same conclusion – and with no more evidence than you offer.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  242. re: totally free markets? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    If there's really any "flaw" to the concept of having totally unregulated free markets, it's probably that it's a concept thought of by intelligent "long term" thinkers.

    In theory, it's a very good, workable idea. But it counts on people doing what's *really* the "wisest choice" in given situations, vs. attempting to lay down enough rules to attempt to force individuals to make the wisest choices.

    I consider myself libertarian, but far from "delusional" (contrary the remark made below). I simply realize that political change is rather like steering a huge ship. It takes considerable time and effort to reverse its course. Right now, I see it moving ahead, full-steam, with leaders pushing all of their variations of government expansion. If we really had a Libertarian president elected, by the time he or she put all those "radically different, small govt." ideas out there to be watered down or randomly rejected by Congress and the Senate, it *might* be JUST enough to alter the "ship"'s course. We wouldn't wind up with some kind of "utopian but unworkable" perfect-world Libertarian nation.

  243. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    LOL funniest thing I have seen in a while, you get modded up and I get modded down. Doesn't bother me but I find it funny.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  244. Suckers by ZTiger · · Score: 1

    If Obama wins: "Welcome to the Socialist states of America!" If McCain wins: "Welcome to the Fascist Empire of America!"

  245. The recent synchronizations by Quila · · Score: 1

    Bush through most of his term, disaster.

    Clinton at the beginning of his term, disaster.

    Carter, HUGE disaster.

    In between we had periods of prosperity where there were checks and balances. Spare me the "we believe" rhetoric. The only difference is which pig is at the trough.

    1. Re:The recent synchronizations by spun · · Score: 1

      Clinton cut government waste and turned the economy around. Carter was a successful president who did much good for the country, considering the mess it was in when he got it. Bush Jr. was terrible, worse than Reagan. You may want ot look at this chart. Sure it is from the NYT, but the figures are correct.

      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

      There is a huge difference between government run by people who believe government is evil, and government run by people who believe it can do good.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:The recent synchronizations by bonehead · · Score: 1

      Growth in the stock market is not a good indicator of the health of our economy, much less the health our nation as a whole. Much of the "growth" that people talk about during various points in time is actually just bubbles that eventually burst. All that growth in the stock market during the Clinton presidency? Seems to me that the timeframe correlates pretty closely with something that folks now refer to as the Internet bubble. I'm not blaming Clinton for creating that massive bubble that eventually burst, but by the same token, it's naive to give him credit for the (illusion of) growth that took place during his presidency.

    3. Re:The recent synchronizations by spun · · Score: 1

      This chart compares two forty year averages, so the effects of 'bubbles' are averaged out. Spin it any way you want, but over a HUNDRED YEARS the averages are 8.4% growth under Democrats, 0.4% under Republicans. Face facts, when people who believe in government get in power, government works, the economy grows and everyone does better. When government haters get into power, government fails, the economy tanks, and everyone except the well connected cronies do worse.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:The recent synchronizations by Quila · · Score: 1

      Clinton cut government waste and turned the economy around

      After he got a Republican Congress.

      Carter was a successful president who did much good for the country

      Yes, double-digit inflation, high unemployement, 21%+ interest rates, and a third of the 60s economic growth. I'd really like to see your definition of successful.

      Bush Jr. was terrible, worse than Reagan

      And he did it with a Republican Congress. Thank you for bolstering my argument.

    5. Re:The recent synchronizations by spun · · Score: 1

      Spin this however you like, but the stock market grew at 8.4% average under Democrats over the last 100 years. It grew at 0.4% under Republicans. Face facts, Democrats are better for the economy. Just look at the chart.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:The recent synchronizations by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Carter hardly had time to fix all the problems left over by LBJ and Nixon, both of who tried to run a war and expanding government without raising taxes.

      People go on and on about how great Reagan was, but forget his last year or two when people were happy to find mortgages as low as 21%, a doubled national debt, and Iran Contra among other scandals. Carter was a wuss and micro manager in many ways, but at least he had some idea of what "honor" meant.

    7. Re:The recent synchronizations by nschubach · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between government run by people who believe government is evil, and government run by people who believe it can do good.

      I've said it before, the government can only do good when there is a short term project with an end date. No good has come from any program with long term investment. Education, War, Social Security, IRS... I could go on. These organizations get used to the constant shifts in power, find loopholes to abuse it, and cry foul when they need more funding. Nobody has accountability because they blame it on the previous party. When they leave power, they are forgiven for their oversights and all is well for them personally. These agencies should be forced to compete with businesses and be optional. They should be run by businessmen with vested interest in being successful and they should be punished for doing the illegal and face jail time. With government agencies today, you rely on honesty and people doing the right thing. It just doesn't happen.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    8. Re:The recent synchronizations by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Exactly, The Stock Market is no measure of the success of the economy. It's a measure of people's faith in the economy.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    9. Re:The recent synchronizations by spun · · Score: 1

      I guess I just have more faith in my country, my government, and people in general than you do. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if that is wise or stupid on my part.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:The recent synchronizations by Quila · · Score: 1

      Carter hardly had time to fix all the problems left over by LBJ and Nixon

      You mean the Democrat LBJ who went full-blown in Vietnam based on a lie? The Republican Nixon who immediately started trying to get us out of that Democrat mess? Of course that's the same Nixon who otherwise vastly expanded the federal government, with the associated negative effects you allude to. One reasons Republicans have been screwing up lately is that they act like Democrats, thinking more government intervention is the solution, even where government intervention helped cause the problem (see current financial bailout).

      Anyway, Carter apparently had plenty of time to make the problems much worse, with the help of a Democratic Congress.

      People go on and on about how great Reagan was

      Now just imagine if Reagan had a Republican Congress through it all.

    11. Re:The recent synchronizations by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Spin this however you like, but the stock market grew at 8.4% average under Democrats over the last 100 years. It grew at 0.4% under Republicans. Face facts, Democrats are better for the economy. Just look at the chart.

      Not saying you're wrong or right, but one thing to keep in mind: economic growth does not happen instantly. Something that will end up having a positive effect can take months, years, decades to come to fruition, and the same is true for something that can have a negative effect. It's entirely possible that you won't see the end result of economic decisions for several years. Or in the case of a US president, the actual results of an economic decision *might* not happen until the next president is in office.

      Personally, I think the love for outsourcing labor to cheap places like China has had a lot more to do with our recent economic problems than anything Clinton or Bush did.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    12. Re:The recent synchronizations by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      We'll see. Part of the reason the repubs get 0.4% is because Hoover was sitting during the great depression. That doesn't get "averaged out".

      We're heading in that direction again, between this idiotic war, bank failures, bailouts, and all the other idiocy they've been funneling money into. If that's not fixed, we may well find ourselves in a similar boat with a democratic president.

    13. Re:The recent synchronizations by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The Republican Nixon who immediately started trying to get us out of that Democrat mess?

      Amazing that LBJ could create such a mess that it took Nixon longer to get us out of it (1968-1973) than it took LBJ to get us into it (1965-1968).

    14. Re:The recent synchronizations by spun · · Score: 1

      Okay, take out Hoover and you've still only got %4 under Republicans.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    15. Re:The recent synchronizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably. Of course, I'm still under the impression that placing faith in other people gave us wonderful things like the crusades, the fall of Rome, and countless other _really_bad_ things like divorce lawyers.

    16. Re:The recent synchronizations by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      And take out clinton and his 15% which, has been pointed out elsewhere, was largely the "Dot Com bubble" and what do you have for them?

      Statistical anomalies such as the bubble and the depression skew things drastically.

    17. Re:The recent synchronizations by spun · · Score: 1

      You haven't actually read the NYT piece I linked to, have you? All your questions are answered therein. Take out Clinton and Hoover, and it still isn't nearly equal. Averages over 100 year do tend to um, average out anomalies.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    18. Re:The recent synchronizations by huckamania · · Score: 1

      It's also true that markets tank between the time Democrats get elected and they take office. People see the writing on the wall (and the words coming out of the Dems mouth) and naturally want to minimize their tax footprint. Bill Clinton at 15% includes pets.com at $50 a share.

      Obama's plan to give 95% of 'working' families a 'tax cut 'is Orwellian. For most people, taxes are monies you pay to the government, but for Obama, taxes also includes monies the government pays out. He would be lying if he said he was going to give 95% of 'tax-paying' families a 'tax cut'. Working is only necessary to cloud the issue.

      He does the same thing with 'clean' coal and 'safe' nuclear. I kept hoping someone would ask him if he can support existing coal and nuclear technologies.

    19. Re:The recent synchronizations by spun · · Score: 1

      So why would people have more faith in the stock market under Democratic leaders, hmmmm?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    20. Re:The recent synchronizations by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1
      I don't get the part about

      for Obama, taxes also includes monies the government pays out.

      Don't worry, I'm not American so I won't be voting uninformed today. I was just hoping you could explain this to me, since I hadn't heard of it before.

  246. Distribution of last names by KeithJM · · Score: 1

    In my polling place, like all of the others, they divided us up into three lines by last name (A-G, H-P,Q-Z). That's all pretty standard. The problem was that the H-P line was taking 2 to 3 hours to move through and vote, while the other two were taking about half an hour.

    So I've got two questions about that. First, given a database of registered voters, it should be trivial to run a query and get a way to distribute names into three even groups.

    The second issue I have is this -- Last names are not distributed evenly across ethnic groups. A much higher percentage of people of Irish or Scottish descent will be in the H-P group (Think of all of the O'somethings and the McLastnames). So by messing with the distributions of the names, you could actually make it more likely for people of particular ethnic groups to walk off without voting.

    I'm not saying that happened, and people of Irish and Scottish descent are not exactly an underprivileged minority. I guess what I'm really saying, is that an 'M' of Scottish descent, that sucked.

  247. obama by gsgleason · · Score: 1

    I'm voting for Obama because he's black.

  248. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by Kintanon · · Score: 1

    I think a 30 day margin of error over that time period is pretty damn good considering they were doing their calculations with giant rocks...

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  249. Am I alone here? by bugeaterr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the government is getting dangerously big.
    I want smaller government.

    Therefore, I don't have a vote.

    Vote Republican you say? LOL!
    The Repub's oversaw the largest expansion in spending in history.

    Vote third party you say? ROFL!
    We have a two party duopoly headed for a one party monopoly.

  250. So, where do I send my donation? by Ranten_N_Raven · · Score: 1

    What? Isn't there a Sarah Palin for President committee yet? No matter which way this election goes, you know that's coming. So I'll have to wait until the morrow... OK, fine.

    --

    READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
  251. it WAS a pointless war by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    but the real mistake wasn't george w's, it was george senior's. saddam hussein should have been taken out in 1991

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:it WAS a pointless war by Tritoch · · Score: 1

      I agree 100% that George Sr. made the real mistake by not taking Saddam out to begin with in 1991. I'll never understand why we didn't take that chance when we had it, and to an extent it's largely responsible for the mess we're in now in Iraq.

  252. We subsidize their drugs by Quila · · Score: 1

    The socialized systems put price caps on drugs, so the drug companies charge Americans more to make up for it. If America had price caps too there would be no outlet for this violation of the laws of economics, and new drugs would become scarce.

    So we already pay for socialized medicine in America, just not ours.

    1. Re:We subsidize their drugs by Rinkhals · · Score: 1

      This sounds a little far-fetched to me.

      I think that a more believable scenario is that generic medicines may be legal in some countries but are illegal in the US, which, of course means that there is no competing product and therefore the drug companies have a free reign to charge what they want in the US.

      --
      "I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
    2. Re:We subsidize their drugs by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      LOL, that is complete and utter bullshit. A vast portion of dollars spent by pharma companies is *advertising*, not R&D. Cap prices and, worst case, they'll have to cut back on advertising. OHNOES!

      Besides which, the idea that the massive inefficiencies in the US healthcare system are solely due to inflated drug prices is simply ridiculous. You're better to look hard at insurance companies, HMOs, and the other myriad layers of overhead that exist in the US system, but aren't present in a simplified, socialized healthcare system.

    3. Re:We subsidize their drugs by bwen · · Score: 1

      well put. This is often ignored by the masses. Testing new drugs (FDA) is neither cheap nor quick; and socialist nations get the fruits of our labor.

  253. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    "First monday after the second wednesday?"

    Jesus, and I thought the Catholic Church had a fucked up calendar...

  254. Re:Communism doesn't kill people, people kill peop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The millions you're talking about were killed by repressive totalitarian dictators using the name of "communism" to make themselves sound more palatable to the ordinary people

    That's why Communism has pretty much only worked in small communes of a few hundred people or less. Power is too centralized and is easily given to corruption. The trend has been it doesn't work well when scaled up to the size of nation states.
    That's when the totalitarian dictatorships form, then the people suffer more than prosper.

  255. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Karma plus paying for your mortgage and gas too? WTF else do you want? :p

  256. Classless by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1

    There is, however, basically only one class. It is very difficult to get out of the one basic class because taxes are so high. The motivation to excel in business is limited because, well, taxes minimize any benefit. The poor are elevated to this class, the ambivalent are content there, and the ambitious are frustrated but can't do much about it.

    Quite stunning.

  257. Paper vs. Electronic by wazzzup · · Score: 1

    Curiously, as I voted this morning (Ohio, for the curious) I was given the option of a paper ballot or an electronic ballot. People were standing in line waiting for their turn at the Diebold machines while the paper ballot tables remained largely empty. I saw 3 people (including my wife and myself) opt for the paper ballot in my time there.

    Personally, I chose the paper ballot because my tin-foil hat prevents me from trusting the Diebold machines but I assumed more would have opted for paper simply out of time constraints to get to work or whatever else they had planned for the day. Not so.

    I don't have any grand conclusion or poignant observation other than people implicitly trust the electronic voting machines despite the nationally-publicized problems with them, they are unaware there have been major issues with them (Diebold in particular) or the shiny touchscreen is newer and cooler or perhaps perceived as easier to use. Maybe it's something I'm not thinking of.

    1. Re:Paper vs. Electronic by danzona · · Score: 1

      I don't have any grand conclusion or poignant observation other than people implicitly trust the electronic voting machines despite the nationally-publicized problems with them, they are unaware there have been major issues with them (Diebold in particular) or the shiny touchscreen is newer and cooler or perhaps perceived as easier to use.

      I've used the Diebold machine in the last 3 elections. But I live in Chicago so I'm used to my vote not counting.

      The 4 reasons I prefer electronic machines over paper:
      1. If I make a mistake, I can undo it without getting a new ballot
      2. I know that I have voted for what I want to vote for - I don't have to worry that the scanning machine won't be able to read my vote because I didn't push the pin all the way through or the line was too dark or not dark enough or whatever.
      3. When I have to choose 3 (for example) the screen grays out after the 3rd name is chosen, which prevents me from selecting 4 accidentally.
      4. At the end I get an on screen summary of all of my votes, and I can go back and make changes if I made a mistake.
      5. profit!

      At my polling place there was a line for electronic machines, even though there were several unused paper ballot booths.

  258. What we need are involved citizens, not inspectors by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Are you afraid there is some kind of widespread tampering or falsification which will oddly give one side or the other an 80% victory?

    We could allow in "international inspectors," but it wouldn't change much. Since balloting is a state-by-state procedure, as set out in the constitution, there will be variations in form all over the country. With the exception of very, very few precincts, you'll find practically zero irregularities, and none which materially affect all by the closest of elections. And in the closest of elections, one might argue that either side has a legitimate right to claim support from a near-majority.

    The problem - or solution - you are craving is for citizens of the US to actually participate in the election process. You want people to (1) register (2) verify their registration and polling place is correct long before election day (3) educate themselves on the issues (4) have a reasonable grasp of international politics, economics, military, science and the other various relevant topics and (5) vote for the person who they believe will provide positive leadership on those issues in alignment with their beliefs. I think something like half the eligible citizens in the US vote at all, and I'd further suggest that of that half, at least 9 out of 10 would fail a test which asked them to identify 20 substantive details of the platform of their candidate.

    Don't blame the system for a failure of the electorate. Humans, probably up to about the top 60 or 70th percentile, simply don't have the reasoning capacity to choose the "best" leadership.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  259. the iraq war WAS pointless by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    but not for the usual partisan reasons you think i would say so

    george senior should have taken saddam hussein out of business in 1991. that was the real mistake. anything after that was secondary in nature to that initial failure to finish the job completely

    you could say it was another demonstration of american spinelessness (in the eyes of al qaeda types, not in my eyes) that emboldened them to think something like 9/11 would make the usa back down. the first and biggest demonstration of american spinelessness (again, according to al qaeda types, not according to me) that emboldened american enemies in the middle east was under another republican administration too. this time, that republican mythic figure, reagan: leaving lebanon after the 1983 beirut barracks bombing

    1983 beirut, more than anything else, taught al qaeda types (erroneously) that attacking americans would make them retreat. 9/11 is the fruit of reagan's and bush's decisions to back down in the face of hostilities in the middle east. lack of resolve in 1983 and 1991 taught al qaeda types that americans back down from confrontation

    not that clinton helped, but clinton wasn't as thoroughly tested. the 1998 african embassy bombings were responded with a few missiles into empty encampments in the afghan desert and a deserted aspirin factory in sudan. the first world trade center bombing in 1993 was a dud. so clinton wasn't tested, so his failures, or not, in maintaining resolve aren't as manifest in emboldening al qaeda types

    its funny then to see republicans constantly blathering about democratic lack of resolve, when the greatest failures of resolve in the eyes of our enemies in the middle east has been under republican administrations

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  260. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    A brief run-down (of US holidays)...

    Black Friday: Friday after 4th Thursday in November
    Christmas: 25 December
    Columbus Day: 2nd Monday in October
    Independence Day: 4 July
    Labor Day: 1st Monday in September
    Martin Luther King Jr Day: 3rd Monday in January
    Memorial Day: Last Monday in May
    New Years Day: 1 January
    Presidents Day: 3rd Monday in February
    Thanksgiving: 4th Thursday in November
    Veterans Day: Nearest weekday to 11 November
    April Fools Day: 1 April
    Cinco de Mayo (not really USA, but meh): 5 May
    DST begins: 2nd Sunday in March
    DST ends: 1st Sunday in November
    Election Day: Tuesday after 1st Monday in November
    Fathers Day: 3rd Sunday in June
    Flag Day: 14 June
    Groundhog Day: 2 February
    Halloween: 31 October
    May Day: 1 May
    Mothers Day: 2nd Sunday in May
    Patriot Day: 11 September
    St Patricks Day: 17 March
    SuperBowl Sunday: 1st Sunday in February
    Easter Sunday: Oh god. No.
    Valentines Day: 14 February.

    And yes, I have an Excel spreadsheet that calculates all of those for any given year. Except Easter.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  261. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    It's a prophecy, you insensitive clod! 30 days is unacceptable!

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  262. Who wins..... Who loses. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    I'm going to use my psychic power to predict winners and losers in the election today.

    The first and most important big loser is going to be the American People. By once again having large media corporations dictate our choices, we are going to have another sold out corporate hooker in the white house. I'm guessing by the media hype that it will be Obama. Don't get me wrong, I'm as excited as the next guy that our new president will speak coherent English and sell flowery dreams to the public, but his nomination of Biden for VP proves unequivocally that Obama is a partisan hack working for Dow and Boeing, and not the American citizen.

    Expect four more years of corporate welfare, immoral and illegal wars, torture, erosion of the constitution, limitation of personal freedoms, and economic failure based on the entrenched Reaganomics of the last 20 years. Expect further loss of freedom of speech, further loss of the right to bear arms, and an even more distant and remote chance for real American heroes like Ron Paul, Denis Kucinich, or Ralph Nader to be heard or influence democracy. The only democrat with a worse record for the American public would have been Nancy Pelosi. Obama not picking her for VP just proves that even the black guy doesn't think a woman will help his election chances.

    Let me also predict a couple of winners in today's election:

    Churches, corporations, the ignorant, pollution, and human misery are going to make big gains. EITHER candidate has vowed to continue the "War on Terror" indefinitely, with no time table for withdrawal in any of the countries we've invaded since the murder of JFK. EITHER candidate has not vowed to ratify the Kyoto accord, or restore the clean air and clean water acts. Either candidate has not mentioned breaking up the Starbucks, Exxon, McDonald's, Applebee's, Ford, Microsoft, AT&T, and Old Navy monopolies. American people will still be unable to compete fairly in a truly open market with Wal Mart. More and more Chipotles will be built while independent small business owners fold, foreclose, and evaporate. We still will not learn who killed JFK, the truth behind 9/11, or Project Silverbug.

    The media will hype Obama's win as the change of the century, ushering in the power and wisdom of Democracy and freedom for a whole new generation. But the American people will continue to die without health care, continue to be overtaxed by corporations defrauding the public and enforcing extortion such as mandatory auto insurance, corrupt electronic voting machines, and a complete media blackout with regards to truth, justice, or logic and reason. Our species will continue to overpopulate and pollute and destroy entire ecosystems and cultures while more illegal aliens undercut American citizens for the last few jobs that haven't been outsourced. More and more cameras will be put up on street corners, heralding the true death of civil liberty, and ensuring there is no chance for the American populace to rise up and restore the constitution through physical force. Our troops will continue to be abused for monetary gain, and our schools will continue to decline by enforcing misinformation, lies, and ignorance through religion and slavery.

    I'm going to go vote. Then I'm going to come home and watch corporate TV show me how their selection of "realistic" candidates is an inevitable juggernaut that no decent American heroes ever have a chance to compete with. I'm going to watch a sold out hooker that reminds me of Bill Clinton (though he's black) come to power and ensure further globalization, further human misery, and further environmental catastrophe and corporate monopolization. FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  263. Why dont we just add vi or emacs by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Also which gui should the voting machines run Gnome or KDE?

    Lets see if we can get 2000 comments going

  264. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by deets101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I voted Obama a couple weeks ago by mail-in absentee ballot. Give me free karma!

    Don't worry, you will be getting that in the form of raised taxes and a weaker economy. Enjoy!

    --

    --
    My parents went to Slashdot and all I got was this lousy sig.
  265. Depends on Stevens by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    If Stevens is re-elected and resigns, there will be a special election. She'll be in that right like stink on shit, you betcha.

    If Stevens loses, she'll have to keep herself in the public eye for the next four years, and governor of Alaska just ain't gonna cut it. I wouldn't put it past her to resign and take up a TV talk show. Can't be radio, she'll want to take advantage of her hotness among those puritanical righteous righties. The most interesting thing will be Rush's reaction at being upstaged by the latest fad -- he won't dare make too many overt comments until she undercuts herself enough first, but you can also bet there will be no love lost between the two.

  266. Re:ATM machines... by g-san · · Score: 1

    We do millions of financial transactions per day with all the things you mentioned and it works pretty well. Diebold even makes ATM machines for crying out loud. The only reason voting doesn't work flawlessly is because someone doesn't want it to, and the people don't care.

  267. Re:No matter who wins... by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

    America is 2 continents

  268. the white ordnance in the room by copponex · · Score: 1

    This is what pisses me off the most about american politics. Where is the outrage over military spending? Why can't we cut investment in warfare to save taxes? How is it that the hawks are allowed to say, "We have the best military in the world!" and clap each other on the backs, and then in the next moment say, "But government schools are broken!"

    All you have to do is look at the numbers, which make it obvious. If we spend ten times more on the military than on education, what else do we expect besides a paranoid (and frankly dumb) society that's always looking for some country to blow up?

    I responded to you specifically because you are a Christian, or at least you felt the need to defend an imaginary difference between a democracy voting for what they want and a community participating in the way they see fit. (I do not support a powerful centralized federal government, but I don't believe that there is functional difference between a participatory county government and a commune - they both require compromise). So let me ask you directly, why don't the same people who spend millions trying to defeat gay marriage spend the same amount on stopping people from eating shellfish, since both are abominations? And how can you possibly justify spending more money on war than on education, welfare, and social services combined?

    I'm seriously asking your opinion. I can't seem to get my head around it, except for this scripture: "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

    1. Re:the white ordnance in the room by Theolojin · · Score: 1

      Since you asked so very politely I will be happy to respond.

      I responded to you specifically because you are a Christian, or at least you felt the need to defend an imaginary difference between a democracy voting for what they want and a community participating in the way they see fit. (I do not support a powerful centralized federal government, but I don't believe that there is functional difference between a participatory county government and a commune - they both require compromise).

      Oh, my. You do not see a difference between a government that has really, really big weapons telling people they must give, nay, a government that takes people's money and gives it to other people and those same people who have freely and voluntarily entered into a community wherein they lovingly and willingly give of their possessions/wealth to help one another? Really? You don't see a difference? It ain't charity if I go to jail for not participating (by paying taxes). This sort of help is vastly different from welfare.

      So let me ask you directly, why don't the same people who spend millions trying to defeat gay marriage spend the same amount on stopping people from eating shellfish, since both are abominations?

      Those who are seeking an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage are misguided. This is a state issue. The federal government has no business getting involved in marriage.

      God has specifically abrogated the Old Testament laws regarding food prohibitions (among other things). Read Acts 10:9-16 (read the rest of the chapter if you want to know the much greater application of this change).

      And how can you possibly justify spending more money on war than on education, welfare, and social services combined?

      From where do you get this information? Are you adding in all the money that states and cities/townships spend on education? Are you aware that the vast majority of spending on public education is local and not from the federal government? If you are just looking at the federal government's budget, you would have a point. That is an inaccurate picture, though.

      I'm seriously asking your opinion. I can't seem to get my head around it, except for this scripture: "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

      There are many who want pastors who will tell them for whom to vote and never dig into the Scriptures to find out what God wants. I don't do this and get angry when I hear of other pastors who do.

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    2. Re:the white ordnance in the room by copponex · · Score: 1

      Sorry I missed this... wage slavery is constantly getting in the way of brain time.

      ...nay, a government that takes people's money and gives it to other people...

      Taxes are one of the two undeniable realities of modern life.

      and those same people who have freely and voluntarily entered into a community wherein they lovingly and willingly give of their possessions/wealth to help one another? Really? You don't see a difference? It ain't charity if I go to jail for not participating (by paying taxes). This sort of help is vastly different from welfare.

      There is a difference, but local governments have to have two things: police power and money to operate. You're not going to get around it, unless you believe in some kind of unrealistic utopia. It's up to that locally operated community as to how far they would like to take social services, and I wouldn't even mind a "free" community existing that didn't pay into the government, as long as they were not allowed to use a single government provided resource.

      God has specifically abrogated the Old Testament laws regarding food prohibitions (among other things). Read Acts 10:9-16 (read the rest of the chapter if you want to know the much greater application of this change).

      Yes... I've read the New Testament, and I understand why the Roman Empire included certain books and excluded others in order to try and unify their empire. Which Bible do you read? Catholic? Mormon? Protestant? Gnostic? Which translation? Depending on which of these you've picked, Mary was a young girl or a virgin, and Judas was either a wicked betrayer or the only person who received the truth of Jesus' teachings... the devil is in the details, so to speak.

      From where do you get this information? Are you adding in all the money that states and cities/townships spend on education? Are you aware that the vast majority of spending on public education is local and not from the federal government? If you are just looking at the federal government's budget, you would have a point. That is an inaccurate picture, though.

      890 Billion is spent on warfare - federal budget only, including discretionary funds, not including tax breaks for Boeing, Lockheed, Blackwater, Halliburton... and education spending including municipal, state and federal budget and discretionary funds is 795 billion for FY 2007. Had the links somewhere, but lost over the past few days. (One of them was http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php#usgs302)

      There are many who want pastors who will tell them for whom to vote and never dig into the Scriptures to find out what God wants. I don't do this and get angry when I hear of other pastors who do.

      And yet you both have made the same mistake, which is assuming that the Bible is the word of God in the first place.

      That's really the foundational fault of American thought: an inability to engage in a critical analysis that goes beyond scraping the surface of accepted dogma. You may argue how to interpret the Bible as the word of God, but you are unable to consider the possibility that it may be the Qu'ran, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the oral traditions of the Iroquois...

  269. I voted, that's all that matters by Rastl · · Score: 1

    I won't discuss for whom I voted as that's my personal decision. However, I did fulfill my civic responsibility, duty and right by voting. By doing this I now have the right to complain all I want for the next four years because I participated in the process. No vote = shut your trap about the state of the nation since you couldn't be bothered to be involved when it mattered. At least, that's my opinion.

    We voted before lunchtime. We live in a reasonably small district so we never have had much of a wait. Three volunteers helping us go to the right line (two wards vote in our location), one person in front of us in line, the same elderly ladies checking us off the list as having voted, fill in the circle paper ballots. The reader didn't spit them back out so we know that they were accepted. Overall it took less than ten minutes and that's including parking.

    Political campaigns by their nature are not 'clean' and never have been. They can't be clean when the intent is to say "Vote for me and not those other guys". That sets it up to compare themselves to the other guys. So they need to make the other guys look bad, or at least worse than they do. It's a downward spiral.

    Why did I vote the way I did? I looked at the candidates' qualifications, experience, stances, past votes, and all the other things that make up their consistent actions. What they say doesn't matter all that much since no candidate has every been held accountable in any real way for their campaign promises. So you could say I used their own public record to decide if they would be the candidate for whom I cast my vote.

    Anyone who votes for a candidate solely on campaign promises gets what they deserve.

  270. Electronic Voting Machines by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

    This is only my second time voting, I'm 22.

    Last election, my precinct used butterfly ballots and paper punch cards. Maybe someone might find those more difficult, but I could pull out the card and verify my vote before I dropped it in the box.

    My new precinct uses Hart electronic voting machines. I haven't heard much about them security wise, but at the end, it just says "Thank you. Your vote has been recorded"

    Uh, you sure? I got a receipt... before I actually went to the both, with my printed access code.

  271. honesty then by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    you need to find george senior responsible, but also colin powell. he was most influential about saying "stop" outside the gates of baghdad after rolling largely unmolested throught the desert

    i think colin powell did that because of his experience in vietnam

    and i think political operatives under george senior backed colin powell, by imagining that the american people would not take kindly in the polls to hundreds of american body bags flying home

    but bush senior lost the election anyway, and he seemed to try to save face with that ill-thought out action in somalia late in his administration (of "black hawk down" fame)... which he also absurdly aborted at the slightest sign of casualties

    well, what george senior, colin powell, and the american people have learned after 9/11 is that there is no such thing as backing down when fighting the kind of avarice we face in the middle east. that there will be body bags involved, no matter what we choose to do, so we might as well choose to do the most fruitful thing, roll up our sleeves, and get into the fight

    you could say leaving iraq in 1991 was a demonstration of american spinelessness (in the eyes of al qaeda types, not in my eyes) that emboldened them to think something like 9/11 would make the usa back down. but the first and biggest demonstration of american spinelessness (again, according to al qaeda types, not according to me) that emboldened american enemies in the middle east was under another republican administration too. this time, that republican mythic figure, reagan: leaving lebanon after the 1983 beirut barracks bombing

    1983 beirut, more than anything else, taught al qaeda types (erroneously) that attacking americans would make them retreat. 9/11 is the fruit of reagan's and bush's decisions to back down in the face of hostilities in the middle east. lack of resolve in 1983 and 1991 taught al qaeda types that americans back down from confrontation

    its funny then to see republicans constantly blathering about democratic lack of resolve, when the greatest failures of resolve in the eyes of our enemies in the middle east has been under republican administrations

    clinton gets a sort of free pass on the question. the (relatively speaking, to the question of middle east resolve) tangential and inconsequential 1998 african embassy bombings were responded with a few missiles into empty encampments in the afghan desert and a deserted aspirin factory in sudan. the first world trade center bombing in 1993 was a dud. so clinton wasn't tested, so his failures, or not, in maintaining resolve aren't as manifest in emboldening al qaeda types

    although one could say the greatest failure, in policy, not of weak resolve, was under carter, when we let the iranian revoution birth a hostile theocracy, which funded hezbollah and so much other evils in the middle east. a theocracy that is about to get nukes

    and if the idea of a theocracy, any theocracy, pro- or anti-american, with nuclear weapons doesn't scare the bejesus out of you, i don't know what is wrong with you

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  272. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by sjames · · Score: 1

    I would argue that in the case of anencephaly we're not talking about a human life at all. It's not a diminished capacity or a handicapped existance, there is literally no brain there to be human with. Sadly, the baby is organized human tissue that has no hope of ever being human. There is also no hope of living beyond 24 hours (typically less) after birth.

  273. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    According to some Christian interpretations, The Anti-Christ will rule in peace for 3.5 yrs, and then the Great Tribulation will go on for 3.5 yrs. Then there will be the Battle of Armegeddon.

    Oooh! I can be a conspiracist, too.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  274. In Ga. I vote on Diebold with no paper trail..... by Tangential · · Score: 1

    In Ga. I vote on Diebold with no paper trail so I reasonably sure that my vote is meaningless.

    I went through the motions (last week actually) before it occurred to me that I should always do absentee ballots (which are on paper.)

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  275. Cthulhu may be her running mate.. by carn1fex · · Score: 1
    --

    ---------

    No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.

  276. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    That's what they will all say isn't it?

    Fifty percent of the nation will think they have free shit coming their way because they voted for The One.

    Entil'zha veni!

  277. uh, GUYS!! by carn1fex · · Score: 1

    If you didnt vote for Cthulhu today as a write-in im very worried about your sanity being had for breakfast. Hes here!! Look busy!!

    --

    ---------

    No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.

  278. Election Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After reviewing total government budget / deficit, health care needs and cost, corporate crime, tax code, and environmental records, and election reform, the candidate that most reflected my views was Ralph Nader.

    If we had Instant Run-off Voting, like Nader is proposing, my #2 pick would be Obama, and #3 Cynthia McKinney.

    As far as the act of voting is concerned, my Official Sample Ballot gave a fraudulent address. I actually went there. It was a church that is not actually a polling station. When I found the real polling station, my name wasn't on their registration. I ended up having to fill out a bunch of paper work, and I don't even know if my vote will be recorded.

    And before I get flamed, yes I registered. I registered by mailing my forms to Sacramento a month before the primary elections, and I even received an Official Sample Ballot for the primaries. I actually missed that vote because I went to the address on the ballot (the church).

  279. My experience by wannabegeek2 · · Score: 1

    Central Indiana, Northwest corner of Indianapolis suburbs in Boone County Indiana.

    My wife voted was at the polls at 0600 when they opened and waited approximately 50 minutes.

    My work hours are more flexible, so I elected to wait until 1030 hours local, expecting this to be a light time. Arrived to find a 45 minute wait. While I was waiting the line grew to over an hour easily.

    voted on a MicroVote Infinity machine.(http://www.votersunite.org/info/MicroVoteinthenews.pdf ) I hope my County has a better experience this year than they did in 2003.

    No way to know if my vote will be counted, as in so far as I am aware the MicroVote Infinity is a DRE with no backup paper record. :-(

    --
    Never ascribe to malice or conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
  280. Sane Gun Control Laws by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I suspect that Obama is shooting (haha) for laws that are somewhat akin to a motto that I came up with:

    "Private weapons should be legal but regulated to a degree proportional to their utility and destructiveness."

    That adopts a libertarian stand of anything should be legal provided that it does not harm other's rights, and yet recognises that there is an inherent risk regardless of noble intent.

    This is an easy test: What is the risk to the population as a whole if it is intentionally or accidentally misused? A baseball bat is much less likely to kill or injure than say a hand grenade if misused. A baseball bat can be used for constructive purposes, while a hand grenade is pretty much only useful if you want to hurl small pieces of metal in random directions at high velocity. Ergo, a grenade should have a much higher level of regulation than a baseball bat.

    I think its a fair request to have more dangerous weapons regulated. The bill of rights wasn't written to permit you to needlessly endanger your fellow citicens while excercising your own rights. Obama's stand seems to reflect this idea.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  281. Is it me? by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Or is this whole election thingy is a giant subsidy to corn farmers and bailout for Orville Redenbacher...?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  282. Power industry anyone? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    You're right. Just look at the power industry. Every state that's "deregulated" has seen astronomical jumps in their monthly bills.

    I *REALLY* wish the government would just deregulate everything!

  283. Voted for Palin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I myself voted by mail. Palin was my choice; I really like the idea of her succeeding Reagan. As a bonus she gets to bring that war hero guy.

  284. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very few pro-life Christian conservatives that I know would propose legislation against abortion in cases of rape, risk to the life of the mother, or in extremely rare cases like the one you mentioned where it is known the baby will be born dead.

    Sarah Palin is one of those, and she wants to be "a heartbeat away from the Presidency."

    So, yeah. Fuck that.

  285. Road Work by ErnieD · · Score: 1

    My town, in its infinite wisdom, had a road crew tearing up a lane of traffic directly in front of my polling place (only a 2-lane road with a center turn lane). People could still get in & out obviously but it made things more difficult for sure. I'd love to know who's brilliant scheduling idea that was...

  286. Quicker than ATM deposit but really private? by RJFerret · · Score: 1

    My state just switched to optical scan, at 1:30 there was no line to check in, plenty of privacy booths available, and no wait for the scanner.

    However I chose the booth closest to the scanner and one woman's ballot was rejected, whereupon the volunteer worker promptly announced there was something wrong, "let's take a look" and flipped it over, exposing it to me as well as others behind her.

    She had filled in all the bubbles for one of the offices, instead of just selecting one candidate, and went off to get a replacement ballot.

    I failed to observe what they did with her invalid ballot, but she had voted for the same Presidential candidate I had.

    I then went to deposit a check, which took longer than voting did, parking, filling out the deposit envelope and waiting for the printer was about the same, but 14 button pushes on the atm and waiting for it to respond was extra...

  287. 3D Movie techonology improving by Langolier · · Score: 1

    The problems with earlier 3D projection systems have mainly been solved by the system now used in movie theaters. This uses circular polarization to separate the left and right images, so that the polarized glasses worn by the audience still work if they tilt their head.

    Pretty soon, all animated and action movies will be in 3D. Already, next year, Disney has announced that it will release all its animated films in 3D. This also means that theaters will have to get digital projection in order to show 3D movies. So no more scratches or bright blips in film, and a noise-free soundtrack, will be coming to more and more movie theaters. I can't wait.

    Wouldn't you rather not see a movie at all, if you can't see it in digital projection? It is time to boycott analog theaters. Make your choice - choose digital. That is my endorsement on election day 2008. You can vote for president too, if you are a U.S. citizen and not a convicted felon. Those people who still watch analog movies are ruining our country - don't let them. Vote them out of the movie theaters, and return them to their couches in front of the TV. They are probably Sony users too. The Dutch are behind this attempt to make our movie-viewing experience fall behind that of the Asian tigers like Singapore and Hong Kong. Check out the true facts of this on Wikipedia - search for "Hidden pumpkin"!

    --
    Share. Until it becomes uncomfortable. Or at least a little.
  288. My vote by wannabegeek2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I voted, but as in the last few it wasn't for my candidate of choice, it was against the candidate I couldn't abide by winning.

    My candidate would not become a whore to Corporations, would effectively ban lobbying by groups (of ANY kind).

    Would respect the Constitution, even the parts they didn't like.

    Would only sign single issue Bills.

    Would endeavor to clean the garbage and deadwood out of the US Code of Federal Regulations and our nations Laws.

    Would abandon our current taxation system and go to an end user consumption tax for ALL revenue other than import duties.

    Would respect my privacy and not spy on me or my countrymen.

    Would balance our budget and generate enough surplus to begin paying down our debt. (see above)

    Would work with Congress to issue appropriate letters of Marque and Reprisal to eliminate those who threaten us, and bring our troops home as quickly as prudent.

    Would begin an immediate effort to eliminate all Federally funded Energy programs which have not produced based upon their historical record, and transfer that funding to new programs with promise to reduce or end our energy dependence.

    Unfortunately, my candidate does not exist

    --
    Never ascribe to malice or conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
  289. I'd like to ask a serious question by ifwm · · Score: 0

    Why can't we restrict political candidates from advertising on TV and radio?

    And please, don't answer with anything remotely related to the 1st amendment, it has been torn to shreds by the political process and the rules governing how said process occurs for years.

    I'd prefer not to see so many campaign ads (especially this year, it felt like I was trapped between two monkey cages at the zoo) and I see no constitutional right to advertise.

    And it just MIGHT bring the cost of campaigning down.

    1. Re:I'd like to ask a serious question by Kagura · · Score: 1

      And please, don't answer with anything remotely related to the 1st amendment, ...

      ... and I see no constitutional right to advertise.

      Well, it just so happens that the founding fathers thought of this very scenario: Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution

    2. Re:I'd like to ask a serious question by Blappo · · Score: 0

      So your reply is a post about unenumerated rights which has fuck all to do with his queston?

      The Ninth is irrelevant to his question.

      --
      Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
    3. Re:I'd like to ask a serious question by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Just because a right is not explicitly granted doesn't mean it's not a right of the people. It has everything to do with the person who I was replying to.

    4. Re:I'd like to ask a serious question by Blappo · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

      And in light of the fact that your idiot ass has posted exactly ZERO evidence to support your point, I'll ask you, HEY IDIOT, CARE TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT?

      Posting links that don't support you in any way and then saying "yes huh" is not an argument.

      It is however, all the "argument" you've made.

      PS you're wrong on the ninth, and clearly too stupid to read it to realize why.

      --
      Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
    5. Re:I'd like to ask a serious question by Kagura · · Score: 1

      You're a big meanie.

  290. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by icebones · · Score: 1
    the One who was? The One who is? or the One who will be?

    We live for the One, we die for the One.

    Sorry, just wishing we had one of those three as a choice instead.

    --
    Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
  291. I call shenanigans by ifwm · · Score: 0

    "Term limits are nearly impossible to implement in practice. "

    Funny, the constitutional amendment restricting the president to two terms has been exactly the opposite of what you claim.

    Apart from your unsupported claim, that seems to be refuted in practice, I see nothing that supports your position.

    1. Re:I call shenanigans by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Funny, the constitutional amendment restricting the president to two terms has been exactly the opposite of what you claim. Apart from your unsupported claim, that seems to be refuted in practice, I see nothing that supports your position.

      I guess what GP should have said was that *Congressional* term limits are nearly impossible to implement in practice. It's relatively easy for them to vote to limit the number of terms a president can serve, but how likely do think it is for Congress to vote for limiting *their* number of terms?

    2. Re:I call shenanigans by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      how likely do think it is for Congress to vote for limiting *their* number of terms?

      Good thing that we don't need their input. If enough people spread out over enough states wanted it bad enough, we could call a Constitutional convention and do it ourselves.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:I call shenanigans by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Good thing that we don't need their input. If enough people spread out over enough states wanted it bad enough, we could call a Constitutional convention and do it ourselves.

      Good point. The only problem is that we would need a certain level of organization to get it done. I don't suppose you know of any groups that have that as its purpose, do you? (serious question, since I don't know of any but wish I did)

    4. Re:I call shenanigans by ifwm · · Score: 0

      What you should have said there is "I don't have a fucking clue about the process, but I'm going to run my idiot mouth and be wrong anyway."

      It more accurately depicts you.

  292. It would have worked against Hillary. by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

    McCain hasn't changed at all. I think knowing him, Palin was the perfect pick. The issue was that McCain was the perfect pick to put up against Hillary. The PROBLEM is that McCain didn't change his strategy. An over simplification of the issue was that Hillary would have come off as an unrealistic leftist, while McCain made off as the conservative / left moderate. The problem (for him) is honestly Obama's change thing. He wants to revolutionize socialism (what some have called democratic socialism). McCain's plan of attack didn't anticipate this at all, and not knowing how to deal with it, he has defaulted to sticking with a failed game plan OR he is being consistent. Either way, we are now forced to decided between a democrat, and a socialist.

    And only one is seen as a traitor to their party.

    Republicans have not stood on a conservative platform in over 20 years, and conservatives that loved their party are jumping ship. Republicans on their conservative platform saw the advantage of pandering to the religious right. The problem is that they ended up selling out and letting their constituents take over so far as to sell out on their conservative beliefs.

    I consider myself a conservative, and do republicans, but my democrat friends say I am an extreme libertarian. I had hope and belief that Republicans had conservatism as the fore front of their policy, but the constant compromising and this neo-conservative nightmare has become "do whatever sounds nice for the people that support us".

    Some people like this. Obviously, otherwise why would the Republicans have adopted it? They just under estimated the number of people that are conservative because it is the best thing for the country, not their self serving interests. There are people that love Palin, and there are Republicans that see McCain's move to the left as a positive, encouraging bipartisanship.

    And I think it would have been enough for a win against Hillary. It was just the wrong strategy against Obama when it comes to getting the majority of electorates. I do not fault McCain for sticking to what he believes in, if you can at least believe for a moment that he did that. I think the fault lies more with the GOP. I know many people would say this is crazy, but I think the reason Ron Paul was not supported by the GOP is because he is hated by the media / entertainment industry. The GOP be that it couldn't beat the media at that game. Ron Paul ran on a platform of change. dramatic change back to logic and traditional conservatism that believes in a rational science of politics. I think with the back of the GOP, and unfortunately the religious right that would never have voted for Obama, HIS conservative platform of change, getting the Republican party to what it stood for, and had MAJOR victories throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's would have brought hope to people that we can get back to what worked, within an enlightened vision, versus this radically untested democratic socialist platform of Obama's. The media would have been forced to back off and cover the election in the way it could to get ratings. McCain's coverage is proof that the media doesn't go light on any candidate it doesn't support, and McCain got hit harder than has been seen in a long time. McCain's actual weaknesses didn't help either.

    I really think Paul could have stood up to the heat, and I really wish there could have been a real debate between Obama and Paul rather than that monkey dance we were made to endure. IMHO, the reason McCain could not hit any of Obama's weaknesses was because on his important faults, McCain is virtually the same person. I seriously wish some of those weaknesses could have been addressed by a real, experienced, and lovable conservative.

    To anyone that follows business stuff, the GOP was to the entertainment industry what Rubbermaid was to Walmart; a disposable asset that could be manipulated in their favor. And to (certain) music lovers, the only chance they had was what happened between ICP and Disney. ICP may not have done as well, as they could have.. but they are doing a whole lot better than Rubbermaid.

    The GOP didn't know when to quit, so their voters did instead.

    --
    Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
  293. Not Quite.... by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    That's an outside group running that ad. Notice no "I approved this message" at the end.

    All campaigns draw their share of asshats, who are sometimes organized asshats. Obama is a polarizing figure - either you love him or you don't for the most part, whereas McCain is more or less a "meh" figure. Palin, however, is polarizing.

    1. Re:Not Quite.... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      That's an outside group running that ad. Notice no "I approved this message" at the end.

      To be fair though, the "swiftboat" ads were the exact same thing.

  294. John McClain for Prez! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yippie Kai yeah ...

    He took on Nakatomi terrorists.
    He took on Drug Barons.
    He took on Internet-based terrorist.
    He took on Twinkies!

    He's ready to be President.

  295. Re:Communism doesn't kill people, people kill peop by seriesrover · · Score: 1

    The root of what the GP is saying is that 'true' communism is a utopia that is essentially impossible to achieve...and consequently you get repressive totalitarian dictators coming out of them.

  296. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by Ifandbut · · Score: 1

    For a prediction that was made several thousand years ago I would be willing to give them a margin of error of at least a month.

  297. Re: Palin in 2012 ??! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    You just don't get it. Prophecies that are nearly right are no good at all.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  298. Oh Bull by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    "The 20+ years of neoconservative leadership has bankrupted the Republican party of its core conservative platform, and the pandering to the religious fundamentalists has turned off the moderates of the party."

    I'm so tired of hearing this libertarian crap. Look, if you don't like the social conservatives, then go join Bob Barr. Because the so-called "neo-cons" and religious conservatives are not going away. They still make up a huge chunk of the population. And stop it with the "core conservative platform", because it's pretty obvious that you have no idea what that is. Look at the word Conservative. The core word is "conserve". It's always included both political and social values worth conserving.

    The party of Rockefeller has been dead for 40 years, and when it was alive, it was getting its ass kicked. I'll never understand people that claim to be Republican complaining about "those church freaks", when social conservatives have been the engine of GOP success. Barry Goldwater didn't go fully Libertarian until old age. When he was running for office, he ran on just as many social issues as the modern GOP does. Since the 60's, social issues have always been a core component of GOP politics. One of the things that's helped the Democrats tremendously is that they've stopped pushing away religious voters, openly embracing them. Barack Obama came out against gay marriage and preached about the need for personal responsibility. You never would have heard Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis go anywhere near those positions. So quit pretending that social issues don't matter in elections. What you're talking about is expelling the base of the party, it's largest and most dedicated core. That is, to put it mildly, stupid. It sounds to me like you'd be happier in the Libertarian Party or Democratic Party anyway.

    So cease with the "we need to be more moderate" stuff. This same lie gets trotted out every four years; the key to greater Republican success is to act more like Democrats. John McCain has reached across the aisle and partnered with Democrats on so many things, he was actually hated by his own base at one time. How much did that help him today? By your reasoning, Barack Obama should be losing in a landslide, and every Democrat would be packing their bags today. Barney Frank and John Kerry certainly aren't preaching moderation. They're talking about massive military cuts and a second New Deal. Doesn't seem to be hurting the Democrats any, does it?

    The fact is that the GOP could have raised George Washington from the grave and ran him today, and still he would probably lose. There's a perfect storm working against the GOP this election, 90% from economics. People aren't even paying attention to details... they rarely do in big elections... all they know is that they see things are bad, and the guy in the White House is a Republican, so that means it's time for a Democrat. I have no doubt that if Democratic policies start hurting them, voters will start the pendulum swinging in the other direction. But even with that factor, you still need a large, dedicated base to win elections.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  299. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll provisionally accept your rationale. Now, out of all of the abortions that are performed, what percentage do you suppose are related to aencephaly? What percentage do you supposed are related to convenience? Do you not see this as a problem?

  300. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by fugue · · Score: 3, Informative

    I find it telling that statisticians have long noted the correlation between education levels and political leaning. It is fact: smarter, better educated, and better informed people tend to vote Democrat. Find a Republican in the AAAS or NAS. Why do you suppose that is? The better educated stand more to lose, since they tend to be wealthier. (I have a feeling that there's a golden amount of wealth that allows us the luxury of investing in the future, without the pathology of being obsessed with accumulating money.)

    I also find it telling that most everyone saying anything negative about Obama has referred to him using his middle name. This echoes the standard content of the message: "He does not look like us, therefore he must be evil." They don't tend to address actual policy issues, but simply try to instill fear/hatred/uncertainty/doubt based on rumours.

    Could we, as a society, maybe move beyond that?

    --
    "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
  301. History is already being re-written by JRHelgeson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't care who wins, per se - but what has driven me nuts is the Bush Bashing. I know that he didn't lie, the very claim that he did is itself a lie. Yet it is repeated so often it is actually believed.

    So: what history is being rewritten? Just look at this article from The New York Times, as reported from the Wall Street Journal:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122575933265095405.html

    According to the six-year narrative of the press and political class, the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies fall somewhere between the Spanish Inquisition and the Ministry of Love in "1984." So it was something of a shock to read a remarkable front-page story in the New York Times yesterday, the abridged version being: Never mind.

    In their 1,600-word dispatch "Next President Will Face Test on Detainees," reporters William Glaberson and Margot Williams discover that, gee whiz, many of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay really are dangerous terrorists. The Times reviewed "thousands of pages" of evidence that the government has so far made public and concludes that perhaps the reality is more complicated than the critics claim.

    Lo and behold, detainees are implicated in such terror attacks as the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Those with "serious terrorism credentials" include al Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and the so-called "Dirty 30," Osama bin Laden's cadre of bodyguards. The Times didn't mention Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, though he's awaiting a war-crimes tribunal at Gitmo too.

    I dare say that the big loser of the past 8 years has been the American people and how we've let ourselves be brainwashed by the agenda driven Media.

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  302. Don't publish polls during election day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Germany, on election day polls may only be published after all voting places are closed. A reasonable law in my opinion. Fair elections are more important than a few hours of running your mouth. I'm already wearing my asbestos, please explain to me kindly how doing this would be a free speech issue.

    1. Re:Don't publish polls during election day by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, there's no question that it is a free speech issue. The question is only whether the benefits are worth the restriction on free speech. I suspect that you'd get all kinds of opinions on the matter. Personally, I'd want to see some evidence that it really makes a difference before I gave up any rights. I also think that it should be done as an amendment and not through normal laws.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  303. Yes, look at Katrina by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would it be so bad if the government were able to do nothing?

    No, it would be totally awesome if the government wasn't able to do anything. I mean, look at Hurricane Katrina. That was so awesome when the government failed to prevent/prepare for/respond to that disaster. I just get warm fuzzies inside every time I think about it.

    So the government can prevent hurricanes? People choose to live in a sinking bowl of mud with no bedrock and water on three sides of the city, and it's the governments fault? It's the governments fault when those people didn't leave when they were warned that, hey, there's a fscking hurricane coming, get out of Dodge. That's the government's fault?

    I know what you mean. I get those same warm fuzzies when I realize people like you vote.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Yes, look at Katrina by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      I'm just pointing out the fact that most people who were involved with the disaster agree that the government could have done a better job at responding to an emergency that happened. Generally, most governments claim responsibility to help their people when natural disasters happen. I live in New Mexico which is generally free of natural disasters. If a rare earthquake causes a water shortage here. Am I suddenly an idiot for living in this state? The fact that you are blaming innocent people who died from a natural disaster, REALLY sickens me when I think people like you vote.

      I mean seriously, lets blame all starving Africans for making the absolutely retarded choice for living in Africa. Especially those children WHO DON'T HAVE A CHOICE WHERE TO LIVE. It's their fault for having stupid parents.

      Natural disasters happen all over the world, and people might not be as privileged as you to be able to easily pack up their bags and leave their livelihood. "Oh a hurricane is coming, I'll just get a job in Colorado Springs tomorrow and move there."

      Insulting my intelligence because I believe it's a governments job to help people in need? You are a pathetic individual, my friend.

       

  304. Why McCain picked Palin by thtrgremlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1) She was/is the highest rated governor in the Country.
    2) Alaska joined the Union for its oil reserves, and Palin strongly believes that this country needs energy independence (despite any reasons / understanding or how closely she may have had business with oil companies).
    3) She is not a Washington insider / new face
    4) She is a role model for women that take the same position as her on women's issues, not to mention she is a very positive example of a person that takes that kind of position

    And as I mentioned earlier, all together, I think the pair / plan would have beat Hillary. It is just senseless against Obama. The GOP picked the perfect weapon, for the wrong type of target.

    McCain sold the "I am not Bush" plan. Palin is the "I am not Hillary" plan. In addition to being the complete opposite of Hillary with respect to the issues mentioned above, Palin is a more likable person (remember polls saying in 2000 that Bush was the candidate voters would most like to sit with and have a beer? I meant something), and 5) she is really hot.

    Hillary never would have had a chance.

    --
    Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    1. Re:Why McCain picked Palin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Alaska was bought from the Russians (who had no legitimate claim to it) to encircle and piss of the british. No one knew there were any resources other than trees and fur at the time. It is rightfully Canadian territory. That you were duped by the Tsar is of no relevance.

  305. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look up "aencephaly." ... [The baby] will die shortly after birth, and spend its brief moment of life on meds or in agonizing pain and mother knows this for most of the pregnancy.

    I looked it up:

    A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain.

    Still a horrible condition, but it's totally misrepresented unless you realize the baby not only feels no pain, but is never conscious.

  306. smell the glove by mkcmkc · · Score: 1

    As a Nader supporter, I hope Palin gives her concession speech wearing a black leather studded dog collar...

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  307. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look up "aencephaly."

    Did you mean: anencephaly

    And tell me if it's fair/moral to knowingly bring this child into the world. Let me help, so you don't have to RTFA! Most of the baby's brain is missing with a gaping hole in the back of its head and it's spinal cord is mostly exposed. It will die shortly after birth, and spend its brief moment of life on meds or in agonizing pain and mother knows this for most of the pregnancy.

    "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain"
    Source: NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

    There is NO medical treatment for this, it is 100% lethal! Then she gets to watch her child die. Does this make God happy?

    That's pretty far above my pay grade.

    Who is this fair to, the mother, father, grandparents, or the child? Don't give me any of this it's God's plan crap. Who does it benefit to not allow this mother an elective abortion? This is only one example of many. For a human to choose death is not always wrong. Thank God for freedom of religion or freedom from it!

    You are arguing for mercy killing, which most people consider to be abhorrent when applied to adults against their will. It is no better when done to children, babies, or fetuses.

    Further, what you don't explain why it would be any better for the fetus to be killed in utero rather than allowing it to be born and to die a natural death -- especially considering that it cannot suffer any pain. If you intend to argue that the abortion would benefit the mother's health, then you ought to argue that point instead.

    Finally, if there is one tenth of a percent chance of misdiagnosis, surely it is better to birth the baby, rather than to kill a perfectly healthy fetus in error.

    As I see it, these are the basic issues, and it has nothing to do with religion, except to the extent that religion helps some people to value life. Ultimately, this sort of dispute is philosophical rather than religious, with the main question being whether life is to be valued in itself, or only in the feeling of pleasure-in-life.

  308. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by pluther · · Score: 1

    Raised taxes and a weaker economy?

    Well, the tax thing doesn't bother me - as much as I'd've like to, I've never quite got up to $250,000 per year as income.

    Weaker economy, though, that scares me. Obama's going to harm this wonderful economy we've got going right now? Oh, no! I wish someone could have told me that before I voted for him!

    I also wish someone had mentioned that he has terrorists friends, and that he's secretly a Muslim, and that he committed widespread vote caging, and that he was actually friendly with Hillary Clinton, and that he hates white people, wants to outlaw Christianity, and that his middle name is Hussein. I did hear something about him claiming to have invented the Internet, though, I think...

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  309. Re:Communism doesn't kill people, people kill peop by danaris · · Score: 1

    The root of what the GP is saying is that 'true' communism is a utopia that is essentially impossible to achieve...and consequently you get repressive totalitarian dictators coming out of them.

    Well, of course. All pure ideologies are impossible to achieve in this imperfect world. "True capitalism" would degenerate into something at least as bad if it were ever attempted. That's why what we have to do is start with what we have, and cherry-pick the best (and most adaptable) features from other ideologies to form an effective, efficient practical government/economy/culture.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  310. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I try not to do me too posts, but you're basically spot on.

    The Republican party has overseen one of the largest expansions in income redistribution in American history and somehow taking a very small portion of future redistributions and leaving it with the poor and middle class workers is somehow immoral.

    It's amazing how people complain about workers in America being lazy when we're the most productive in the world and the gains in productivity end up being redistributed to those that don't really need any more money.

    And for the record, David Duke was a former grandmaster for the KKK, he wasn't just a member. I don't know how their power structure works and the title might not be right, but he was a leader of the movement and fairly high up.

  311. Re:Communism doesn't kill people, people kill peop by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    I have a mustache, you insensitive clod! (Now off with his head!)

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  312. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by COMON$ · · Score: 3, Informative
    I don't believe your comment was worth a troll mod, oh well the modders are out in full force today though!

    That being said, I have been heavily involved in the academic institution for a while at the College level. I wouldn't say the correlation between Higher education and democrat has much to do with the democrat platform being any more sound than the republican one. Rather the democratic platform favor's schools FAR more. You are also mocked in your career if you are a PHD and a republican unless you are a poly-sci instructor. Democrats also are in favor of looser policies for research and development.

    Another thing you need to remember, just because I have a PHD doesn't mean I am predisposed to rational behavior. It just means I am really good at focusing all my attention on a subject.

    Also the better educated are not always the wealthier. Of the PHDs I know they tend to be poorer as they took the instructor route.

    Remember the whole causation correlation memo that is constantly thrown around here.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  313. Because Bush is in charge of the federal resources by raehl · · Score: 1, Troll

    And disaster recovery is, and must be, a primarily FEDERAL function.

    Could New Orleans have done everything needed to make sure New Orleans was prepared for a hurricane like Katrina? Sure. But that's a stupid way to handle disasters - it doesn't make sense to have New Orleans, Louisiana, Houston, Texas, Miami, Florida, Alabama, Missippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, all each individually acquire the resources to handle a hurricane when you can have the Federal government do it ONCE and then just move those resources to wherever the hurricane lands.

    There is really no way around it - the federal government must be responsible for a large part of major disaster recovery, and with Katrina, the federal government majorly screwed it up, in large part due to the complete incompetence of the Bush administration.

  314. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Could we, as a society, maybe move beyond that?

    No.

    Next question?

  315. Government efficiency & markets by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Or, like, going to the post office and waiting often for minutes in short lines with government workers who are helpful and fri... wait, that wouldn't back up your example."

    Yes, it does, only in ways you didn't think of. The USPS is run more like a corporation than a government bureaucracy now. It's easier to fire a USPS employee than it is to fire drone in another federal agency. And the USPS has to compete with other private firms, like FedEx and UPS. So it keeps them on their toes. They're also governed like a corporation, with a board of directors, and an Executive that basically has all the powers of a CEO. They heavily subcontract out work to non-government third parties to reduce costs.

    The key here is competition. The Post Office has it, and thus treats people like valuable customers than can be lost. The DMV doesn't. Where else are you going to go to get a drivers license?

    "Oh yeah, Wal-mart."

    But Wal Mart is a perfect example of markets. Their motto is "low prices, always". You're making a choice when you go to a Wal Mart to forsake other things... better service, for example... in exchange for the lowest price possible. But you have a choice. You can choose to take your money to other places... Target, Circuit City, Sears, JC Penney, Macy's... where you have the choice to spend more money and get better service.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Government efficiency & markets by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      lol better service at circuit city.
      Your point is solid though, I just thought that part was funny.

  316. I voted but...??? by fuego451 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because the state of South Carolina refuses to acknowledge that Elections Systems & Software (ES&S) voting machines are poorly coded, unreliable and easily hackable, I will never know if my vote was counted or what it counted for. Sure, the good-ol'-boys here have been rigging elections for a long time, including those using paper ballots, but I don't think it has ever been easier.

  317. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by syousef · · Score: 1

    The issue that I take is with the other 99% of abortions.

    So tell me, how many of these babies that would have been electively aborted are you willing to take care of yourself? Because like it or not some of the women who would choose to abort aren't fit to or capable of raising a child. If a woman's not sensible enough to use birth control correctly (though religious nutters would take that option away too), chances are she's not sensible enough to be raising a child. So how many drug addicted whore's babies are you willing to let into your own home?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  318. Efficiency vs. Care by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    "Last year, you spent $1, 975 per-capita on medicare and medicaid. A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this."

    And if people were just items on a conveyor belt judged solely on efficiency, you'd have a great argument.

    That lower cost also means things like rationing, lower levels of physician and nurse staffing, longer (sometimes much longer) waits for critical care, and in some cases, outright denial of treatment.

    It would also mean a huge blow to drug development. Making new medicines is an expensive process, and if you take away the profit motive, you're pretty much stuck with hoping that university labs can find all your new breakthroughs. There's a reason most new breakthrough drugs are developed in the US. You can make money here. Even drug companies that do have some kind of universal care in their home countries do a great deal of their research and new drug sales in the US.

    Efficiency as a judge is a double edged sword. Taken to it's logical extent, it means that at some point, you start cutting the really sick and the elderly off from the system, and basically tell them that they have to die for the greater good. Even if that's not an outright policy, it's often a result of socialized medicine. Don't think so? How many Canadians and Britons die waiting for major surgeries that are rationed because of national health system budgets?

    If you get a major disease, treatment without insurance may very well bankrupt you in this country, but at least you'll get to live. You can always make money back. Once you die, that's it. I'll start taking the virtues of nationalized medicine in a better light when Canadians quit coming to this country for surgery because the waiting list in their home country will literally kill them.

    If nationalized care is so great, why is Europe moving to privatize more, not less of their health care systems?

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  319. United States Naval Academy is nothing to scoff at by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

    While I am not a McCain fan AT ALL, and while it is sad that neither Palin or McCain have ANY higher education, and both Biden and Obama have great educational achievements, it is worth keeping in mind that McCain did graduate at the bottom of his class from the United States Naval Academy, which for any of you who are not military buffs, is about the most prestigious, not to mention most difficult, training facility in the world. It would be little different than criticizing an athlete for getting nearly last place in the Olympics. Yeah, it is nearly last, but it is the MF'n Olympics. Or bottom of your class from MIT, Harvard, or Stanford

    I don't think it is really something that can be used to criticize his experience. The disgusting mess of this war? Now that is certainly something well worth using against him... I just think it is a separate issue from his academic achievements.

    --
    Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
  320. Palin's future by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Palin may have had a shot in 2012, until Tina Fey and the rest of the cast of Saturday Night Live destroyed her political career.

    Now she will always be linked to the SNL skits and not taken seriously. I would be surprised to see her make national headlines again. I don't know Alaskan politics, so it would be interesting to see if she gets re-elected up there easily or not.

    People said the same things about Ronald Reagan. He was always portrayed as being stupid in the press. He failed in two prior attempts (68 and 76) to get the nomination before he succeeded in 80.

    The only people that take Tina Fey's impersonation of Palin as a real model are people that wouldn't vote for Palin anyway. The fact is that Palin has a big future in politics. Romney spent millions of his own money and actually lost support. Same for Guiliani. Palin attracts huge crowds wherever she goes. You can't buy that. Write her off if you wish. More fool you.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  321. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Don't worry, you will be getting that in the form of raised taxes and a weaker economy. Enjoy!

    Yeah, just like when Clinton raised taxes and the economy went to shit. Dumbass.

    Can't you right-wing nuts come up with anything original? You've been spewing that same bullshit at least since Teddy Roosevelt. Of course, the fact that Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were both Republicans should show how far the GOP has changed. If Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were alive today and in politics, they would be skewered by the right the same way the right has been skewering Obama.

  322. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by El+Fantasmo · · Score: 1

    My point still stands, regardless of what the baby may or may not feel. These pregnancies can also be very rough on the mother/parents physically and emotionally. I believe in a God who won't punish me for choosing to end such a pregnancy before delivery. Just because there aren't many cases like this dosen't mean there should be zero abortions. The problem is no one can agree on a middle ground, because we don't share all the same morals. Life support is a bigger moral gray area than this. Blind faith to a set of rules divine or not created thousands of years ago really chaps my ass. Remember when rain was a mysterious working of God. We have a better understanding of the world around and in us and are smart enough to adjust things/rules/laws accordingly. Do you really think God was going to take time out of his busy day to explain electricity to Moses? I've had enough Moral Majority crap to last a life time. Glad to see Jerry Falwell go. Circumcision is one of the earliest form of "birth control." If the boy is a hemophiliac he dies right away and was spared a short miserable life until the advent of modern medicine.

  323. Re:Fundamentalism, religion and why its the proble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One major difference is that a normal Anabaptist would not be violent as a Muslim fundamentalist would likely be, the Munster incident aside. (If you don't know about Munster, Google "Munster Anabaptist massacre").

  324. Not far fetched, fact by Quila · · Score: 1

    It's why the pharma companies paid Congress to make importing them illegal, and they have ads trying to convince us that it's dangerous to buy them from Canada. I'm talking the exact same drug, exact same ingredients, exact same brand, cheaper in Canada than here.

    Otherwise we'd be importing our price-restricted drugs and not buying them here, which would close that one outlet the drug companies have for their profits.

    1. Re:Not far fetched, fact by Rinkhals · · Score: 1

      I still don't believe you.

      Yes, I can believe that the drug companies have managed to get the Bush Government to outlaw cut-price drugs.

      I just don't believe that the drug companies are subsidizing drugs sold elsewhere in the world as you claim.

      I mean, they are being granted the privilege of being able to charge what they like in a market which is prohibited to their competitors, why should they feel the need to take a hit when they sell outside of the US? Surely it make sense if you were making a loss in a particular market (which is what you imply), then it would be pointless to try to compete in that market.

      Alright, if you are not making a loss, but are just not making the complete skinning which you could make in a protected market, then that's a different matter.

      --
      "I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
  325. You forgot to mention the lawsuit culture by Quila · · Score: 1

    Doctors have closed up shop in states and moved to others because baseless malpractice suits are so rampant they can't afford the malpractice insurance.

    Yet when Republicans want tort reform the Lawyer industry backed Democrats stop it.

    1. Re:You forgot to mention the lawsuit culture by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Oh, so now it's malpractice suits. Gotta blame something other than privatization, lest your libertarian illusions be shattered.

      And as an aside, I have no idea why you're bringing partisanship into the discussion. Private versus government-funded healthcare isn't about party affiliation. It's about reality. ie, the reality that the US system sucks and needs an overhaul. Tort reform is probably part of that equation. But it sure as hell isn't a silver bullet.

  326. Worst Post Ever by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The GOP has lost it's way, and every year the party moves to the religious right."

    What a crock. The party has been led by the religious right since 1980. You're acting like you woke up one day and found Jerry Falwell had kicked out Nelson Rockefeller yesterday. I don't know what party you've been taking about, but Republican politics has been dominated as much by social issues as economic since Reagan, Schafly, and southerners took it over from the liberal northeasterners in the late 70's. And they've had a pretty good track record of success since then.

    You're right in one respect about the party losing it's way... Bush embraced "campaign finance reform", "comprehensive immigration reform", and new spending with the same gusto as Democrats. So did McCain on the first two issues.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  327. Yeah, or. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    The media has put too much effort in getting Obama elected.

    Either that, or enough effort so that if McCain wins, the resulting uproar will require the declaration of martial law and an extension of the current administration.

    However, I am more apt to think that the more likely attempt to extend Bush's reign will be an assassination between tomorrow and January, which will have the same net effect. Of course, as generally happens, some unforeseen eventuality will probably come along to change the rules. In any case, I wouldn't rule out a significant fuss on the 5th.

    -FL

  328. Re:Communism doesn't kill people, people kill peop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to effectively enforce communist (or socialist) policies, certain laws must be on the books and offices of the executors of those laws must be filled. Certain rights must not be allowed. It just so happens that repressive totalitarian regimes and communist regimes need the same flavor of agar to live in. The question is why do the leadership cultures tend to be a little more virulent than "garden-variety?"

  329. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by El+Fantasmo · · Score: 1

    That is the problem, it is being abused by a fair number of people. But I'd rather have total choice than no choice in the mean time. I can't find it but I'll say it any way, in brief. Romania outlawed abortions in the early 80s I think. They had a large spike in juvenile homeless and juvenile crime about 15 years later. There are larger and more important systemic problems than abortion, we should address them first.

  330. Why is comparing McCain to Bush negative? by sheldon · · Score: 1

    From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

    I don't understand. Isn't Bush the greatest president on earth?

    How is it negative to compare him to Bush?

  331. I suggest you stop attacking the source by Blappo · · Score: 0

    "I suggest you gather a few more sources besides fox news and NRA mailers if you want people to take you seriously"

    I suggest you start debating reasonably, and avoid obvious ad hominems if you want to avoid looking disingenuous and have any credibility.

    If you can refute the argument, do so. Attacking the source like you did is pointless, as fox news isn't the source, it's just the outlet that is provding the information.

    The source is Obama himself, so if you can demonstrate that the assertions are untrue, do so.

    I suspect you cannot, however, which is why you immediately took the very cheap "it's fox news" out.

    --
    Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
  332. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by El+Fantasmo · · Score: 1

    "A baby born with anencephaly is USUALLY blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain"

    Notice the word "usually."

    I do support "mercy killings," but its not my preferred euphemism, it's too to the point. Would it be the same as a DNR order or do not use life support? If I can choose to artificially sustain life for hope of a better outcome then why can't I decide that time will not come and seek some other closure and let the body/soul be on its way?

  333. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by Monsieur+Canard · · Score: 1

    Don't blame me, I voted for Zathras.

    --
    He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
  334. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by JayAitch · · Score: 1

    "Oh if a democrat were president 9/11 would never have happened" "If a democrat were president, we wouldnt be in the war" "if if if...for the love of pete, give it up and SHOW the world things will be better".

    I knew a fair share of Republicans doing this in the 2000 election. That and Reagan is responsible for everything good in America today.

  335. Agreed by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    As manufactured a stage-production as this whole show is, as much as the 'choice' is between soft and hard fascism, one is SOFT and the other is HARD.

    And yes, the election system is rigged from every angle conceivable, but all voices shouting in unison in the right moments CAN change things. Even a rigged election can be overwhelmed with enough votes; I'd estimate that unless the Democrats win by a 10% margin, (in real votes versus reported votes), then McCain will take the Whitehouse and the world will continue to burn. Voices DO count; Look at France with their nation-wide strikes, where government fears the people, as it bloody-well should be. No wonder Bush made a point of publicly denouncing the French and the official reality we are fed is that, 'Protest does nothing'.

    George Carlin advised that to vote means to give up the right to complain. That's nonsense. You can complain just fine no matter what you do. In fact, if things are going wrong, it's your obligation to make noise and dig your heels in. Voting takes the least amount of courage because its the one time you can complain without getting pepper-sprayed. Get out there and DO it.

    -FL

  336. Re:Because Bush is in charge of the federal resour by randyest · · Score: 1

    That's almost as stupid as it is unconstitutional and inefficient.

    --
    everything in moderation
  337. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by El+Fantasmo · · Score: 1

    No, not entirely. I've been watching the debate and court cases for years. Many try to declare a fetus is alive in some court cast that isn't about abortion and give it all the civil/human rights of you and me, this would set presidence and then the next elective abortion could legally be declared murder.

  338. ok, i have no problem with you not voting by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the mentally handicapped (in your case, paranoid schizophrenia) get a free pass on voting and responsibility

    focus on being able to tie your shoelaces and use the toilet without assistance and you are doing ok in my book

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  339. The three pillars in practice by alispguru · · Score: 1

    However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets.

    I wish that were true. In practice, what the Republican party believes in is:

    Smaller government while they're not running it
    Less intrusive government when they're not choosing the intrusions
    Free markets as long as they're booming

    If they actually believed in the three pillars you listed, they wouldn't have dropped them like a hot rock in 2000.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  340. You'd kick Ron Paul out of the Banking committee? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Push for all candidates to sign a pledge that congressional committee appointments will be by random selection.

    So you'd kick the congresscritters out of the committees that handle things they understand and put them on random committees? Seems to me that leaves them even more as puppets of their party's machine.

    For instance: Ron Paul is essentially the only congresscritter with an understanding of economics. So bumping him from the House Banking committee would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the congress' oversight of the Fed and the banks.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  341. I'd kick out anybody who voted for the bailout. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    At least I would have. But neither of my senators is up this time and my representative was one of the very few in my state who voted against both versions.

    I hope others, who have the opportunity, make the point in the booth this time around.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:I'd kick out anybody who voted for the bailout. by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      That's what I did. A lot of people around here that I know did the same thing. Will be interesting to see what happens tonight.

  342. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by fugue · · Score: 1

    I don't believe your comment was worth a troll mod

    Thanks. It's probably my fault for saying something offensive without providing a reference. Oh well, if they're as smart as they think they are, they will do the research themselves :) I'll just offer this one example like any of a thousand others from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

    Road to 270: West Virginia:

    What McCain Has Going For Him:

    No state has less educated voters in the aggregate

    And so on.

    Rather the democratic platform favor's schools FAR more.

    Good point. However, it makes me wonder how vehemently I should argue that a platform favouring education and research is more rational. Probably not much. Or is that just an artifact of the particular kind of anti-education agenda favoured by Republicans, which currently involves suppression of science in favour of religious doctrine? Hey, someone who has been ignoring current events will probably think that that's a troll too.

    just because I have a PHD doesn't mean I am predisposed to rational behavior.

    I dispute that--on average. I'm not saying that it's cause-and-effect or even that the correlation is 100%, but I will go on record as saying that getting a PhD (at least in science!) is very strongly correlated with being able to think clearly, and to discover and question one's own assumptions. On the other hand, smart people are better at justifying stupidity than dumb people.

    Furthermore, while my "Where's Republican Waldo?" challenge referenced AAAS and NAS, the numbers I've seen show that one needn't look as far as PhDs and career academics to see the correlation between more education and voting Democrat. Still no reference. Yeesh. So prove me wrong :)

    Also the better educated are not always the wealthier. Of the PHDs I know they tend to be poorer as they took the instructor route.

    Yes--I don't know how many PhDs with more than $250k/year (ie. those who will be "hurt" by Obama's tax plan (if they consider only take-home money as a measure of wealth)) are voting Democrat. My sample are--unanimously--but it's too small and self-selected (an even dozen) to be useful.

    Again, there are plenty of non-academics with good BA/BS/MA/MS/legal/medical/etc degrees making piles of money and voting Democrat. Again, I really do need to do things besides track down references, but I'll watch this thread, and if anyone really cares and can't find supporting research, I know I can locate some.

    --
    "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
  343. Tomorrow Morning by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

    Comes the new day, the equitiy holders in the great global financial institutions will open their Times (London, NY, w/e) over breakfast and nod approvingly. The scions of dynastic family fortunes will still have their way, and the underlings who do their bidding will function exactly as yesterday. I will learn of the outcome accidentally and not care one bit. I will simply be satisified knowing that I have again not soiled my hand by endorsing any of the liars, cheats, lackies, and demagogues on the ballot. They are all, without exception, scum. We don't get to vote for the people who really make a difference in our lives. We do, however, get to vote for our own personal honor.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:Tomorrow Morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you are above the fray you frickin genius!

            Yes they are all scum, throw them all out and elet me the independent above the fray candidate....trouble is when it really comes down to it and I really have to make hard decisions and not just type words on a screen, the fray becomes my middle name!!!!!!

    2. Re:Tomorrow Morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      When you and Don Quixote find this mythical hero, let me know.

  344. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by master+control+progr · · Score: 1

    Fifty percent of the nation will think they have free shit coming their way because they voted for That One.

    Fixed that for you.

    --
    This is my sig.
  345. Also: by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    Also:

      - States and localities are supposed to be prepared for and handle the first three days, while FEMA's charter (at the time) was to mobilize the big stuff (financial aid, rebuilding, food restocking, etc.) that comes in after that time.

      - The fed was PROHIBITED (by The Posse Comitatus Act) from coming in without permission from the state's governor - which was withheld. So the fed mobilized as much as it could meanwhile, bringing some of it up to the state line and handing off some others to Non-Governmental Organizations (one of which was the Salvation Army) to bring in. (Then the NGOs were blocked from entering by the state and local authorities, too.)

    (One tinfoil hat theory is that the NGOs were deliberately blocked in a political move to increase the suffering and thus the administration's embarrassment when it was blamed on them.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  346. Re:Because Bush is in charge of the federal resour by raehl · · Score: 1

    And where in the constitution is the prohibition against federal spending on disaster recovery?

    There are certain aspects of disaster recovery where one-per-country is more efficient than one-per-state or one-per-city. It doesn't make sense, for example, for every major city to have their own set of emergency housing trailers when one set that gets moved as necessary will do. Why force every city to pay full price for things most cities will never need when all cities can, through the federal government, pay a portion of the cost and the city that ends up getting hit by the hurricane gets the resources? Seems more efficient to me.

    Now that certainly doesn't mean EVERY aspect of disaster recovery is that way, but some things are indeed better done from the federal level.

  347. You do believe by Quila · · Score: 1

    I just don't believe that the drug companies are subsidizing drugs sold elsewhere in the world as you claim.

    Selling their drugs cheap in price-controlled countries while charging us to keep up profits is a subsidy. We pay to keep their drug prices low.

    then it would be pointless to try to compete in that market.

    Better to get little money than none at all, especially if that foreign country decides to manufacture your drug itself despite your patents.

    1. Re:You do believe by Rinkhals · · Score: 1

      Selling their drugs cheap in price-controlled countries while charging us to keep up profits is a subsidy. We pay to keep their drug prices low.

      Are you SURE Germany runs such a price control?

      I feel a far more likely explanation is that the US prevents the sale of generic drugs thus allowing the drug companies to charge what they want in the US.

      It would seem to me that this would account for disparity in pricing that you speak of rather than a cap being placed on the sale of the drugs per se.

      Better to get little money than none at all, especially if that foreign country decides to manufacture your drug itself despite your patents.

      But if the foreign drug companies are prevented from selling their products in the US, wouldn't the converse apply?

      You rightly say that patents are the issue behind this but that's another argument!

      --
      "I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
    2. Re:You do believe by Quila · · Score: 1

      I wasn't even talking about generics. I'm talking name-brand available cheaper in price-controlled countries than here. That's kind of sad/funny when you see the drug company ads convincing you not to buy them because they may not be safe, but what you buy from that Canadian pharmacy was made by that same drug company.

    3. Re:You do believe by Rinkhals · · Score: 1

      Yes, but is it not the case that the name-brand has to compete against the generics? Outside of the US, I mean.

      I am just saying that I am far from convinced that the US drug customers subsidize drugs in any other part of the World.

      I feel that the price differential between what customers might pay in the US and what they might pay in the rest of the World is better explained by the drug companies in the US having successfully lobbied to keep out competitors.

      I'm sorry, it just seems very unlikely that US drug companies are seeking to subsidize operations in other parts of the world by inflating prices in the US.

      ;)

      --
      "I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
  348. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
    "Yeah, just like when Clinton raised taxes and the economy went to shit. Dumbass."

    Err....it did as he was leaving. Remember that dot com bubble bursting? Bush 2 essentially inherited a recession...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  349. Removed from the rolls in Wisconsin by fishexe · · Score: 1

    I went to vote this morning in Madison, Wisconsin, only to find that despite having registered I had been removed from the list. Why? Because our corrupt attorney general insisted on purging the voter rolls (http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/304321). Anybody living in Wisconsin should help vote J.B. Van Hollen out of office next time he's up. Not that Lautenschlager was much butter, but this turd wants to control the elections and make sure republicans win. Our right to vote in the future depends on getting him out.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  350. All done by bsandersen · · Score: 1

    I have carefully read all 1587 posts on this topic before posting something that would be a duplicate of a previous post--just like all of you. Right? :-) The Internet--the first global Write Only Memory.

  351. Tried it, didn't work by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

    I left the USA after GWB was re-elected, mostly on principle since I'd said I'd do so if he was re-elected, but also just because I wanted to try somewhere else. I've been in New Zealand for two years now. It's a fine place, and I would stay IF I could get all my friends and family to move here too. For most people, friends and family are irreplaceable, and for that reason, it's not a very worthwhile suggestion to just say that people who don't like a system can just move elsewhere. Most people will put up with quite a bit of societal headache just to be near the people they love.

    I'll be moving back to the USA early next year. When Obama is president, and the people of the USA have actually shown some collective good judgement, I'll feel much better about being there. I can only hope that this election will be the start of a long series of societal improvements, because the problem with the USA runs much, much deeper than presidents or politics. It's social, and it's getting worse.

  352. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the parent's post, no human is choosing death either way; death was the unstoppable pre-determined outcome.

    The only human choice is: for the one who will die no matter what: suffering, or no suffering? Only one of these answers is humane.

  353. Re:No matter who wins... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Diregarding , of course polls that show in the rest of the world 79% are infavour of Obama.

    Speaking as a citizen of a foreign country, I hope Obama is elected, and can return the US to the high esteem it was held in by many such as myself for all but the last 8 years.

  354. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by COMON$ · · Score: 1
    You definitely have valid interesting points. According to some (brief) research I just did, aka google-fu. Looks like in states that voted democrat in 2004 they had 21% more college grads than Republican states. Supporting your hypothesis.

    Of course with gov't supported school initiatives I think that would be a futile area for me to argue on as I am a believer in private schools for K-12. Gov't subsidized loans for the families who cannot afford it. Public school has been screwed up enough (Republicans mostly to thank for that). This also makes the Science vs Religion debate go poof as we will see quickly where people put their money.

    I agree that smart people are better at justification than stupid people. I have many friends who are living proof of that. Also think of all the IT guys you know that you would hire in a sec but would never want on your debate team.

    I've seen show that one needn't look as far as PhDs and career academics to see the correlation between more education and voting Democrat. Still no reference. Yeesh. So prove me wrong :) You cant be proven wrong here because it is easily statistically provable that Democrats are more educated. I think the argument would need to be taken to the grounds of, is the democratic platform more rational than other platforms?

    As I said before, College profs tend to be democrat because that is what is healthy for public schooling. Who in their right mind would support politicians trying to squash your funding at every turn when they can vote for one that would bolster your budget to help you teach? That being said, the PHDs are the mentors of the college student for 4-6 years so the democratic platform has a wonderful advertising campaign right there. The republicans have Christians, the democrats have College institutions. An interesting balance.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  355. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by COMON$ · · Score: 1

    Also, of the non-academics with "BA/BS/MA/MS/legal/medical/etc degrees" that I personally know (not to be mistaken for all democrats) I find that more of them are in severe conflict with the democratic platform than republicans are with their platform. Maybe republicans are less likely to look into what their party is doing. Whereas my democrat friends are staunch pro-life, anti-gay, anti social healthcare individuals. It is just weird...its like they are just dems because it is cool to be dem or something.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  356. Good point by Nimey · · Score: 1

    he did serve as a negative example.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  357. I might have voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The poll workers were unable to determine if I had voted or not.
    They called tech support, who had no idea. Level 1 support referred it to the County's Registrar of Voters.

    He agreed that there was no way to verify if a vote had been cast or not. Nor were they able to verify whether any votes cast by the machine were recorded in accordance to my instructions.

    The only thing they know for sure is that the paper vote printed for my verification, then when I tried to verify it, a big red screen came up to say that the smart card was not valid.

    They think that it must have recorded the vote, then ejected the card. Then I must have bumped the card back in. Or maybe it failed to eject properly and that caused the error. That's what they think. But they don't know. And they have no way of verifying that the vote was actually counted. Nor could they cancel my vote and let me vote again. Not even with the error still on the screen.

    With the smart card still in the machine, and before anyone else voted at the machine, there was no ability to vouch for the integrity of my vote.

    Some system.

  358. Palin is the Pinnacle by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1

    Palin is the pinnacle of the anti intellectually curiosity crowd. The intellectually curious crowd, is, of course, what people talk about when they talk about the 'elitists'.

    There are conservative and liberal 'elitists', yet these are the people who did well in school and were punished for it. They are still punished today with this label and still get scorn heaped upon them. These elitists are not necessarily smart, but what they do share is a love of learning and a love of thinking. They are easy to kick around.

    Palin is not unintelligent and she has a good memory. She doesn't seem interested in knowing anything that's not of the US, and probably not anything that's not rural US.

    She is like the kid in class who says "Math is dumb, why should I have to learn it, why would I ever need it?".

  359. Saurfang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saurfang for Warchief. shhhheeeet, I don't wanna get cleaved!

    "I am he who watches they. I am the fist of retribution. That which does quell the recalcitrant. Dare you defy the Warchief? Dare you face my merciless judgement?"

  360. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by Chagatai · · Score: 1
    True story:

    Two medical doctors, husband and wife, went to have an abortion when they discovered that blood samples from the mother indicated that their baby had anecephaly. Ultrasounds also showed a malformation around the baby's head. So, somewhere in the 20th week of pregnancy, the ob/gyn administered a, "forced birth," abortion, where the child is delivered prematurely. The baby's body was carried to a soiled linen room by a nurse.

    The birth father went to examine the baby to find, to his horror, that his son was perfectly formed and was healthy. The abnormality was caused by an incomplete twin whose sack was near his son's head, both explaining the high protein levels in the blood and the ultrasound. And his son died in that soiled linen room.

    I can relate to this story, because the same thing happened with my daughter. We knew that abortion was morally wrong, so we kept going, even knowing the risk for anecephaly in my daughter. Except, in her case, her twin brother died in the 20th month of pregnancy, which is why we saw the same thing in my wife's bloodwork.

    And now, she will be turning 6 in January, and is the top student in her class.

    I can not bring myself to vote for someone who has sworn to continue and further the genocide of 4000 babies per day. And that is why I did not vote for Obama.

    --
    --Chag
  361. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by fugue · · Score: 1

    Weird. Is that sort of like Catholics who use contraception?

    --
    "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
  362. Re:Fundamentalism, religion and why its the proble by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Because he isn't talking about killing anyone or blowing anything up?

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  363. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by tha_mink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's amazing how people complain about workers in America being lazy when we're the most productive in the world and the gains in productivity end up being redistributed to those that don't really need any more money.

    But it doesn't work like that. Do you know anybody who has their own business and DOES make more than $250,000? Here's the theory. They got that way by growing their business. Maybe started off barely able to make ends meet but took all their extra money and corporate profits and reinvested to make the business grow. Then the business got big enough to give them a health salary. Now, with their big salary, they take their extra money and add a location, or buy a new truck or more equipment. That, in turn, creates jobs which allow everybody else to make some money. If the average profit margin for a company is 8%, which I'm not saying it is, but that works for the folks I've worked for, then increasing taxes by 8% pretty much wipes out profits. Wipe out profits, wipe out growth. Wipe out growth, wipe out jobs. Wipe out jobs....well...you guess.

    --
    You'll have that sometimes...
  364. The important information (for a non-American) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how's fox news handling it?

  365. Smooth Voting Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first non-absentee voting experience was very smooth. I came right before the lunch, and there wasn't any line at all; I came to the local community place where the election was held, signed up, and voted. The whole process took no more than 10 minutes. I was glad that I avoid the morning/afternoon rush. People who complain about the voting rush should've done absentee voting.

  366. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by tha_mink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Err....it did as he was leaving. Remember that dot com bubble bursting? Bush 2 essentially inherited a recession...

    Nah. He's got you there. Say what you want about Clinton, but he did a good job with the economy. That's pretty much undeniable. He made it a priority early in his presidency to focus on reducing national debt instead of tax cuts as a good way to keep the economy strong and he was right. It worked. Huge surplus, record low unemployment, smallest growth in government spending in a while...He did a fine job. I don't think you can really provide evidence that says otherwise.

    --
    You'll have that sometimes...
  367. Ha ha! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Oh my! You can't agree on something as simple as voting without resisting the urge to make a (very) feeble personal jab of some sort?

    Ego first, country second. You'd do well in politics.

    -FL

  368. You have a good point, but... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "Oh if a democrat were president 9/11 would never have happened" "If a democrat were president, we wouldnt be in the war" "if if if...for the love of pete, give it up and SHOW the world things will be better". Yes I voted blue this round, but as the Simpsons democrat quote goes "We will screw it up somehow".

    9-11? I think that would've still happened under a Democrat, unless they replaced the people who failed to act on that intelligence (and, to be fair, these things are easy to spot in hindsight).

    And which war are they saying wouldn't have happened? Afghanistan would almost definitely still have happened, but no one was too against that. But the Iraq war? Bush lied to get us into that war. While it's possible that a Democrat would have done the same thing, I'm going to say that they're innocent until proven guilty.

    As for the whole part about going around like the people who don't agree with you are worse than you, I agree. It's just not a good idea, any way you look at it.

    1. Re:You have a good point, but... ? by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      anyways, it showed what good the whole "vote for obama and be loved" thing was. we had clinton. and during this love fest 20 men were training to massacre our people by flying planes into buildings. thats what love bought us. and the french were busy stabbing us in the back the whole time. thats love. remember...the words of the "world" are cheap.

  369. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 1

    Can you please explain to me how this constitutes either a straw man or a logical fallacy?

    I see no logical flaw in the argument itself.. perhaps you're talking about some assumed/unstated premise?

    --
    http://www.xkcd.com/354/
  370. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by tha_mink · · Score: 1

    I dispute that--on average. I'm not saying that it's cause-and-effect or even that the correlation is 100%, but I will go on record as saying that getting a PhD (at least in science!) is very strongly correlated with being able to think clearly, and to discover and question one's own assumptions.

    Yes, but one could argue getting a PhD is very strongly correlated with the desire to stay in school without actually having to produce anything. Just saying...

    --
    You'll have that sometimes...
  371. Actually, it /was/ a pen in my case by Nimey · · Score: 1

    never mind.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  372. Re:Paper Ballot & Incompetent Election Officia by kidigus · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it was rough. I waited for two hours to vote in a zip code who's population is less than 2,500. I tell you, I get no regard... no regard at all. No esteem neither!

  373. The endless campaign by violet16 · · Score: 1

    Politicians never really stop campaigning, of course, but I think it's exacerbated by two things in the US:

    1. Fixed election day. Which is useful in its own right, but encourages campaigning to start early. Where I live (Australia), the government can call an election any time within a certain window, which prevents parties from entering full-scale campaign mode until then.

    2. Term limits. When an incumbent runs, their governing--what they're doing in office--is a major part of their campaign. The challenger's campaign is forced to focus on what the incumbent has done wrong and what they'd do differently. Without an incumbent, it's much more hot air and promises, the kind of campaigning that gets tiresome. The US has very low term limits, relatively speaking, which creates many incumbent-free elections.

  374. Busted for "passive electioneering", voted anyway. by atomic-penguin · · Score: 1

    So I proudly put on a vote Libertarian t-shirt, this morning and wore it all day. I went straight to the polls right after work, the parking lot was crowded, but I only had a 20 minute wait at the polls. Several of the poll workers and others, whom are there to vote, make comments that they like my shirt. I get my ticket from the poll worker, strangely after showing no identification other than my voter registration card made from flimsy yellow poster-board. This is not my first time voting, I always remember having to show at least one additional form of ID.

    After I get my ticket, I go stand in line, maybe 15 people in front of me. A poll worker comes up to me, stares blankly at my shirt for at least a minute without saying anything. So I am thinking she must be amused by my shirt, I just stand there waiting for her to say something with this shit-eating grin on my face. Finally, she says, "Sir, I am going to have to ask you to remove your shirt, or turn it inside-out." To which I reply, "I don't think so. Why, would I turn my shirt inside out?" She retorts, "Because it is political." Baffled, I say, "So what, isn't that why we are here?" She says, "Sir, please leave your ticket with a poll worker, go outside, and put on another shirt, or turn your shirt inside-out." I went back and forth with her for a few minutes on this, trying to get more than "it is political" out of her. At one point, I said, "Do I not have a civil right to freely express myself with a corny t-shirt, protected under the First Amendment?" Poll worker would not dignify that question with a response other than rolling her eyes.

    After five minutes of this, I give up. I walk up to one of poll workers, hand them my ticket, walk outside and turn my shirt inside-out. I walk back in, grab my ticket and get back in line. At this time, a very cute 18-20 yr. old blonde, turns to me. She, the cute blonde, grins and says, "You know, I can still read it." Which really makes me laugh about this whole situation that was a bit embarrassing.

    About 5 minutes later, I go up to vote, hand another poll worker my ticket. This woman, the poll worker at the voting booth, looked like a grizzled old lunchlady. She had fresh stitches in her face, and old monochrome blue-ink tattoos up her arms. In other words, it is probably not a woman you want to mess with. So she is politely showing me how to use this new-fangled electronic voting booth, as I told her, I had only voted with a paper ballot in the past. After she is finished, she laughs and says, "Sorry about your shirt."

    I was aware that campaigning outside or near polling places was not legal, otherwise known as electioneering. However, I had never heard of the terms "passive electioneering" for wearing political pins or clothing items, that is until I went home and found it by Google. Is this, in fact, legal in many states? Is this not unconstitutional to deny someone their right to vote for a corny t-shirt. At first, I almost thought the poll worker was going to tell me to cover up my t-shirt, because it said "Libertarian".

    Did anyone else have any similar embarrassing or humorous stories from the polls?

    --
    /^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
  375. Re: totally free markets? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    If there's really any "flaw" to the concept of having totally unregulated free markets, it's probably that it's a concept thought of by intelligent "long term" thinkers.

    I'd say the "flaw" is in deciding just what "unregulated" means. In the extreme case, an unregulated market would allow anyone to do literally anything... including, say, kidnapping your competitor's CEO and holding him for ransom. Clearly that's not acceptable, so there has to be SOME regulation. So now you have to figure out where to draw the line. But where? Is racial discrimination in making loan decisions acceptable? Is the use of Microsoft-style monopoly tactics to squeeze out your competition considered okay, or not? Why? Etc. And pretty soon, you're back to our current system again, with a muddle of regulations, some effective, some not.

    Free markets sound good in theory, but in real life they quickly degenerate back into what we have now. If the government doesn't regulate, then the most aggressive (and most powerful) private entities will step in and make their own "regulations" (enforced by their economic power), the difference being that their regulations will not be arrived at through any sort of democratic process, and will inevitably server their own interests alone.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  376. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by gillbates · · Score: 1

    I don't need to look up encephaly - I've got a sister in law who gave birth to a child with the disease. After birth, she got to hold her first child for the few hours of her short life. Afterward, they gave her a Christian burial.

    What impressed me the most was not that they thought she was going to live, but that they stuck by their principles. They gave her the same opportunity to live that had been given to them. And while there was little doubt about her fate prior to delivery, they resolved to give her the best care medicine could provide for the short time she lived outside the womb. Instead of abandoning their child, they gave her every chance possible to live. I think it came down to living out the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have done unto you." Just as I would make every effort and spare no expense to keep myself alive, I can't in good conscience deny someone else the chance to live, no matter how slight the odds may be.

    I suspect the reason why diseases such as encephaly are 100% fatal is because parents are told that their children have no chance of surviving, and hence, have them killed by abortion. Hence, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where anyone with the disease dies, regardless of whether or not they could have survived it. I find it more likely that the fatality rate for this condition is driven by hopelessness and fear than the lack of technical means to keep the child alive; if we can put a man on the moon and the complete vacuum of space, surely we could keep someone with an exposed brain alive. The artificial heart is nearly 20 years old by now. The primary difference, though, is that a lot more people have heart attacks, and there's a lot more money involved in keeping them alive.

    Which is interesting that it comes down to money, and inevitably, power. A society in which the rich and powerful oppress the poor and weak can hardly be called civilized. Yet, we all start out helpless and weak, and only by the gift of life and support given us by our parents can we become self-sufficient. It would seem that anyone who denies someone else the same gift upon which they've relied for their success is hippocritical. Even worse, it is done for purely arbitrary reasons - the mother cares not for the child, or justifies her decision by reasoning that it is only a matter of time before the child dies. When we think about it, this last statement is true of all of us; if we can deny someone the protection of law, or life-giving care simply because their death is only a matter of time, then we can justify killing anyone, for surely the death of anyone is only a matter of time.

    The notion that terminal conditions somehow justify killing someone is ridiculous, as life itself is a terminal condition. At what point does, "going to die anyway" justify killing someone? If they are expected to die in the next day? The next hour? When? What I think it comes down to is that those who want to kill others when they become burdensome are searching for a rationale to justify their decision. But ultimately, the decision to have an abortion is about selfishness, not the best interests of the child.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  377. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  378. Greg Palast is not optimistic. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    This is not in the bag.

    The Ugly Secret

    Here's an ugly little secret about American democracy: We don't count all the votes. In 2004, based on the data from the US Elections Assistance Commission, 3,006,080 votes were not counted: "spoiled," unreadable and blank ballots; "provisional" ballots rejected; mail-in ballots disqualified.

    This Tuesday, it will be worse. Much worse.

    That's what I found while traveling the nation over the last year for BBC Television and Rolling Stone Magazine, working with voting rights attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This we guarantee: there will be far more votes disappeared by Tuesday night than the three million lost in 2004. A six-million vote swipe, quite likely, shifts 4 percent of the ballots, within the margin of error of the tightest polls.

    Begin with this harsh statistic: since the last election, more than ten million voters have been purged from the nation's vote registries. And that's just the start of the steal.

    Read the rest here.

    -FL

  379. what do you think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you're under 30 and not a liberal you don't have a heart. If you're over 30 and not a conservative, you don't have a brain"-Winston Churchhill

    1. Re:what do you think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it's amazing what drunkards will say sometimes. How much do you swill back each day?

  380. Obama by Moe1975 · · Score: 1

    is who I would vote for - if I could. I hope he wins! Moe

    --
    SARAVA!
  381. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by pluther · · Score: 1

    You have a very persuasive argument.

    That is, it's persuasive if you have no idea how taxes work.

    Here's a hint: taxes are assessed on your profits, not on your total gross income.

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  382. If Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were alive today ...

    If Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were alive today, they'd be clawing at the insides of their coffins saying "Help help! I'm trapped inside this coffin!".

    1. Re:If Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were ... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      If Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were alive today, they'd be clawing at the insides of their coffins saying "Help help! I'm trapped inside this coffin!".

      :-) And after they were let out, Lincoln's first question would be "So, how did the play end?"

  383. Keep watching out for our Civil Liberties! by Danathar · · Score: 1

    With an Obama win my main concern is that the left leaning organizations that were so rabid and dogged in their pursuit of watching GW don't drop the ball and all of sudden become blind to an Obama administration.

    I'd recommend everybody make a list of the things (violations of civil liberties) that GW enacted and re-visit them 2 years down the road to see if Obama has ordered them stopped or is continuing them.

    1. Re:Keep watching out for our Civil Liberties! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      With an Obama win my main concern is that the left leaning organizations that were so rabid and dogged in their pursuit of watching GW don't drop the ball and all of sudden become blind to an Obama administration.

      And your basis for this Concern would be...? Remember that it was liberal Democrats, not libertarian leaning Republicans, who led the opposition to telecom immunity. And while there are some Obama fanboys, the base as a whole does not carry water for him, nor do liberal pundits like Olbermann and Maddow, as opposed to the GOP base and GOP pundits. Finally, remember that the media has a word that applies to Democrats but not to Republicans: accountability.

  384. Anyone can file a lawsuit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's recap the facts here. I know you don't like them, but facts are facts and you're not entitled to your own set of them. They're called fact-checkers for a reason:

    A) The lawsuit has a 0% chance of having cert granted.

    B) McCain was born in Panama and the law was retroactively fixed to make him count as a 'natural born' citizen.

    C) Both McCain & Obama helped pass a Senate resolution saying this wasn't a real issue for either of them.

    D) Obama's birth certificate can be seen on his website and has been confirmed by the AP. The reason random nutjobs on the internet can't get it is because the state of Hawaii has privacy laws.

    E) Anyone can file a lawsuit. Just ask SCO.

    I don't care how many affidavits you have. ANYONE can swear to anything (though they might get in trouble for it when proven a liar). You don't have proof. And proof is required before I'll believe any of that.

  385. Oh please by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    Alot of us don't buy that. I mean some of remember how the world supposedly loved the US after 9/11 yet it was only a couple of weeks after it that we had Guiliani return a donation from the Saudis because of a crack about us deserving it.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  386. My Voting Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in a western Chicago burb. I walked to the polling place a little before 9 AM this morning. I was expecting a line, but there were only 3 people actually voting among the 12 or so voting booths, which were really little more than tall, portable desks with privacy screens. They were arrayed around the room with the back (the side you stood on) of the "booths" facing outward toward the wall. There were probably 8 election volunteers and a single judge helping voters. The ballots were large, thick paper with large type. To cast a vote you filled in a oval with a felt-tip marker. Similar in concept to the standardized tests they give to school children except that it was with a marker and not a #2 pencil, the ovals were bigger, and there were fewer of them. The most time consuming part was trying to carefully filling in the ovals. I was thinking to myself that if anyone had dexterity problems they would be screwed.

    Anyway, I was in and out and feeling good in only 15 minutes.

    My girlfriend voted early because she'd heard there was going to be record turn out. She had to drive to a local mall and stood in line for over two hours to vote. She also complained about having to deal with some complicated voting machine.

    So much for voting early!

  387. Re:Just get the damn thing over and done with alre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just get the damn thing over and done with already! I'm sick and tired of hearing about the election on the news here in Canada.

    And, why exactly is that OUR problem here in the US?

  388. Denmark by hvidstue · · Score: 1

    I am born and live in Denmark. Well, the world is not perfect here, but watching the american election and the problems you are facing in the states, I'm really happy to live in this little paradise. Our community can (i think) easily be compared to the one of Canada ... a society, where we aim to make sure that nobody is left behind, while everybody have the possibility to move along. It's an aim, and not (yet?) reality. We are working on it, we are working on it :)

  389. So that's what it feels like to witness history! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Just watched the McCain concession speech. Nice to see the old man act like a gentleman for the first time in months.

    Now we just have to make it through to January without Bush blowing us all up.

    -FL

  390. Re:Because Bush is in charge of the federal resour by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 0

    And where in the constitution is the prohibition against federal spending on disaster recovery?

    Methinks you didn't read our constitution carefully enough. Don't feel bad: it's a common error. See, the thing is, the constitution does not prohibit our government from doing things, it allows to do things. So, if something is not explicitly allowed in the constitution, it's effectively prohibited.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  391. o-BAM-a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He won. WTF. Well, not really, he was ahead for weeks. So it's over. I have nowhere to go to in place of 538. What shall happen to my life?

  392. HOORAY by Moe1975 · · Score: 1

    HOORAY

    --
    SARAVA!
  393. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by SageMusings · · Score: 1

    I feel Presidents don't have any control over the economy. It seems to me Congress exerts much more influence but not nearly as much as they think they can.

    When the economy is doing well, we call the lucky sitting President a "good" president. When it cycles the other way, that president is an "awful" leader.

    --
    -- Posted from my parent's basement
  394. Media - A template for future US politics? by ThinkTwice · · Score: 1

    Big Brother, the media has shown what it is capable of. Step 1) present a biased view of the current Pres by implying crazy things, like he was responsible for the internet bubble bursting, he knew about 9/11 before it happened and even natural disasters like Katrina. Then he gets the blame for believing Saddam had WMD technology, when everybody on the planet thought he did including Congress (or at least the voted as if they did). The media also has a sly side. I can't count the TV shows that had direct and indirect criticism of the President, mentioning exaggerated or fictitious information. Step 2) Biased representation of the favored challenger. the media was so blatant in their love for the Democrats. They are unionized and always lean left, but they went overboard this election. CNN had a story about how daytime TV shows like Oprah, The View and Ellen had fun dancing and complimenting Obama, but they turned ugly, grilling McCain on issues he was in agreement with Obama on. I can't think of a positive representation in the media of any Republican in the last year. The media was well paid for their efforts, with record media spending. Are they in control? I'd bet 50% of Americans think Bush is responsible for something, anything he didn't have any control over, because the media said so, over and over and over again. Great programming? What will they do next?

  395. holy shit, what a speech by tjstork · · Score: 1

    AS a Republican I have to say that Obama's acceptance speech blew me away. I almost had my lighter out in one hand, my seig heil in the other... save the planet, yes my fuhrer!

    Seriously, that was one hell of a speech, and I honestly hope his administration succeeds.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:holy shit, what a speech by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Only a human will shit where they sleep. Enjoy resting in your own filth buddy.

  396. Re:Communism doesn't kill people, people kill peop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What communism is? Communism is a system that lets the likes of Stalin and Mao take control -- every time.

  397. Obama Administration by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new African-American overlords...

    Sorry... I just couldn't resist.

  398. Wow! by Falconhell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just heard Obamas victory speech.

    We here in Australia, are traditonally extremely cynical about politicians in general. But to my amazement I was inspired and moved in a way I rarely have by a speech of any kind. I was too young to hear JFK speak at the time, the same for Dr King, and this was the closest thing I have heard to the recordings of their speeches. I fell like a pivotal moment has come.

    Hopefully Mr Obama can restore the admiration the rest of the world has had for the US for as long as I can remember prior to this century.

    I dont believe it, for the first time since 2001 I feel some hope for us as a species. Shit.

    Damn that cynical little voice thats telling me "You've been sucked in"

    Heady stuff indeed.

    1. Re:Wow! by Ztream · · Score: 1

      I agree (Swede here) - I don't think Obama is the bloody Messiah, and I agree more with McCain on some issues, but damn.. I was up until 7am just to see this unfold, and seeing both McCains gracious concession speech and Obamas acceptance speech was rather emotional.

      Now I'm very tired.

  399. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 1

    Don't blame me, I voted for Zathras.

    Why? Clearly he's lacking the needed experience. You should have voted for Zathras like I did instead.

  400. Dutch by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    But thanks for not actually refuting it, says it all. Claim bigotry on my part rather the try to disprove my claim. Not that it matters, the same could be said about many "freedom fighters" or "believe institutions". No catholic should question why they live in poverty while the vatican is richer then many nations.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Dutch by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      If I'd wanted to refute your point, I would have done so.

      Instead I guessed at your nationality because Israelis are the only people I know who would draw the comparison between Americans struggling at their mythical dream and specifically-Palestinian suicide bombers. Turns out I'm wrong. Apparently at least one European exists who can see the Palestinian "resistance" against "Israeli imperialism" for what it is.

  401. The dutch? The swedes? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The brits? The french? The canadians? The icelanders?

    Come on, the fast majority of the world does NOT follow the american dream and a fair amount of them do NOT kill millions of their own people. Hell, tens of millions of their own people? Most countries don't even have that many people so how could they ever kill that many?

    No my dear friend, it is time you take of the blinders and truly look at the rest of the world and see that there are other methods. perhaps today, with the election of Obama and the end of neo-conservative rule (Clinton was for all purposes a republican) the US seems to have taken a new path. Wether Obama can actually change anything remains to be seen, but the voter has made it clear, the masses are no longer listening to the neo-conservatives. The silent majority has voted for the first time and their voice is clear. Out with the old and lets try something new.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  402. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 1

    Err....it did as he was leaving. Remember that dot com bubble bursting? Bush 2 essentially inherited a recession...

    Graph for reference
    The downhill slide in the dotcom-heavy NASDAQ started at least eight months before Clinton left office.
    If you disregard short-term fluctuations in the market, the DOW peaked near the middle of Clinton's second term.
    See the current decline has been going on for about 12 months. If you examine the last 30 years closely, you'll see this doesn't happen prior to every election, but the DOW does seem to tank when presidents are up against term limits.

  403. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush 2 also had the largest economic bubble in the history of the world - the (quickly deflating) housing bubble, to prop up his numbers. The tech bubble bursting hurt, but the tax cut on the top 5% and the dubious war in Iraq cost $400-500bn/yr between the two of them. Which is why they added a 14th digit to the debt clock last month.

  404. Re:So that's what it feels like to witness history by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

    McCain was a class act, some of the trolls in attendance on the other hand....

    --
    "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
  405. You got what you wanted...now what?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all those who wanted Obama to win, welcome to the Islamic States of America! We are SO screwed! I really hope the country makes it through the next 4-8 years!

  406. Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    I read one item in the Catholic digest about a mother who had an anacephalic baby, and decided to go through with the birth. She said that she held the child in her arms for 20 minutes, and loved her, and when she died was able to rejoice that the baby had 20 minutes of being loved.

    Of course, that is not from a death-fearing perspective. That is from a Christian perspective.

    Christ said, he who believes in me shall never see death.

    If you are seeing death, then perhaps it is because you are not believing in Christ enough.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  407. Re:Fundamentalism, religion and why its the proble by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Money is also an alternative power structure that fundamentally subverts governance.

    But money subverts towards evil. The church -- look at mother Theresa, if you will -- subverts towards compassion and goodness.

    Which do you prefer?

    Now, add to that, the following point: the way to eliminate subversion is to incorporate the subverting influence into the government. My brother suggests an additional "auctioned house", whereby seats are auctioned to the highest bidder, the winner getting to name the US citizen who will hold the seat for one year (replacements in case of death are immediately auctioned again), one for each day of the year. That house would have the power to block any legislation. He advocates this, intending to stop the subverting influence of money on the rest of the government, and also reduce the need for direct taxation.

    However, by the same point, if you *want* the subversion of the church on the rest of the government, then *keep it out of the government*.

    I don't know if he is correct, but I am inclined to think he is.

    If so, he'd agree with the OP in its principles.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  408. Participation by alecwood · · Score: 0

    As an overseas observer the lasting impression wasn't so much the usual bitching and sniping of the campaign, but the sheer volume of people who participated this time.

    Alas, in this country people wouldn't queue up for more than ten minutes to cast their vote, much less four or five hours.

    Democracy is supposed to be the will of the people, but surely that can only be true as long as the people can be bothered to express their will, this time in the USA they have been, and it's a good thing to see.

    Given the economic global crisis, and the ongoing troubles in the world, you've got to wonder if it isn't a bit of a poisoned chalice though

    --
    Real happiness lies in the completion of work using your own brains and skills.
  409. It's true, look here by Quila · · Score: 1

    Here's an article about a bill to legalize the reimportation of drugs.

    Notice the side for cheaper imported/reimported drugs says it ends subsidies and the side against it says it will import other countries' price controls. Both sides are stating the same thing -- we subsidize the price controls of other countries. The only difference is one side wants the subsidies to continue, while the other wants it to end.

    The problem is that if it ends that outlet for the violation of the laws of economics ends.

  410. Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke by COMON$ · · Score: 1

    I have no clue, I gave up on rationalizing with those people long ago ;)

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  411. Methinks you're an idiot. by raehl · · Score: 1

    Methinks you didn't read our constitution carefully enough.

    How about Article 1, section 8:

    The Congress shall have power

            To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

    Maybe you should try reading yourself.

  412. Overhaul, yes by Quila · · Score: 1

    Replacement, no.