Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary

Posted by samzenpus on from the strange-bedfellows dept.

30 Republicans and 14 Democrats are running for president in the New Hampshire primary this year, the largest number since 1992 when 62 candidates ran. Among other factors, the meager $1,000 fee to get one's name on the ballot makes New Hampshire an attractive place for unusual candidates. This year we have home-builder John Davis who "has budgeted $500,000 to visit all 3,143 counties in the U.S. in a 43-foot live-on bus emblazoned with a photo of himself brandishing a femur-size wrench and the slogan 'Let's Fix America.'" The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness. Vermin also promises a pony for every American. From the article: "If ever there were a year for has-beens, wannabes and neverwillbes pushing oddball solutions to serious problems and serious palliatives for problems no one has yet postulated, this may be it."

116 comments

  1. Let see one implement their motto... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Funny

    I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die". Extra points if he (or she) can get away with appending it to "Live Free Or Die, Bitches"

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      How about just, "Live free." http://garyjohnson2012.com.

    2. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a New Hamshirean (born and bred) I would object to such obscenities. That motto refers to the willingness to die fighting for freedom and should be treated with proper respect.

    3. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by DesScorp · · Score: 2

      I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die".

      Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on? I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    4. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Informative

      I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die".

      Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on?

      Not any libertarian I've ever heard of running for anything notable. Every self-proclaimed libertarian I've seen lately who has been able to bring attention to their campaign is just another conservative who finds it advantageous to run under a different label.

      When you are tethered to corporate everything the way the likes of Ron Paul wants people to be, you are less free than we are now. And when you continually roll back anything resembling controls on large corporations, you inevitably give them the power.

      I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

      The people who call themselves libertarians - at least in the US - are functionally identical to republicans on >99% of all matters.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by AuMatar · · Score: 0

      Yes, so long as you redefine the word "free" to mean whatever they claim it means. Which seems to have no bearing on what the rest of the world considers it to be.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    6. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Live free and die' would be more apt. Freedom for the rich. Death for the unterschicht.

      deregulation of food, medicine, and so on should add to the death count, too.

    7. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by stms · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on? I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

      Yes that's what the Libertarian Party stands for when you boil it down. When you boil down the Republican party it stands for "vote for us if you hate poor people". If you boil down the Democratic Party platform it's "If you vote for us we'll give you free money". Isn't it fun to over simplify complex political ideas even though it's ultimately what's destroying this country.

    8. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Fned · · Score: 5, Funny

      Citizen

      You are hereby declared to be not Living Free Enough

      As per NH criminal code LFOD2012 this is a summary captial offense

      Prepare for immediate execution

    9. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Tethered to corporate everything? Ron Paul? The one who is against corporate personhood? This is not correct. Also, the ginormous corporations use the political system to bring about huge regulatory bills to virtually kill any competition or severly limit it to anyone but them and the rest of their cartel, no matter what the industry. It is the regulations you so desire that CAUSE the problems you are trying to fix. They know the people are easily lead to believe these regulations are called for by those who care... but the dirty secret is, these regulations were constructed by those the people think these laws were to protect them against. It is a con game. Same way the bankers got together to create the FED, which was supposed to protect the people from the big bad bankers. It was the bankers that crafted it and pretended to be upset about it. This is fact. Cause a problem, incite a reaction by the people, then give them your pre-crafted solution. Sheeple buy it every time.

    10. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people who call themselves libertarians - at least in the US - are functionally identical to republicans on >99% of all matters.

      The same Republican Party that gave us massive expansions in Medicare, the Department of Education, and the national debt? The same Republican Party that has shown no interest in eliminating any Federal entitlement programs, the Department of Energy, the aforementioned Department of Education, or much of anything else? The same Republican Party that's been fighting for the same absurdly broad definitions of the Interstate Commerce Clause when it suited their draconian drug policies? The same Republican Party that took the country to war against Iraq despite having no evidence that Iraq was a direct threat to the United States or its citizens? The same Republican Party that continued and supported US troops being stationed in over 150 countries around the world? The Republican Party that supported the likes of George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger? No Child Left Behind? Massive Federal land grabs? FCC censorship? Support for Federal marriage restrictions and Federal abortion limitations? Support for banning flag burning? Indefinite detention of American citizens captured on US soil like Jose Padilla? No Fourth Amendment protections for Americans returning to the United States? Invasive and dangerous searches at airports by security which became forcibly Federalized? Bailouts and takeovers of private businesses?

      It just goes on and on and it's been going on for decades. The Republican base and the GOP itself are -NOTHING- like libertarians. Most Republicans I've seen don't have a clue what the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth Amendments are, why we have them, and why they should care about them. Democrats are certainly no better when it comes to the second, fifth, eighth, ninth, and tenth Amendments. President Obama picked up exactly where George W. Bush left off pulling the same kind of garbage, only with a more articulate spin on why shredding the Constitution is the right thing to do. Where's your hope and change? It's in Guantanamo Bay, the Obamacare insurance company giveaway, the Federal Reserve trying to run the economy behind the curtain, and the continued bailouts and stimulus that have kept us barely treading water while adding the weight of debt to our ankles and threatening to drown us all slowly and painfully.

      Let me correct your statement for you:
      The people who call themselves the Democratic Party - at least in the US - are functionally identical to the Republican Party on >99% of all matters.

      Not a one of them gives a damn about you or me. Neither of them has our interests at heart. Neither of them has or cares about solutions. The only thing they care about is selling you a promise to get your vote so they can take your money and sell your ass for a carton of Lucky's the first chance they get once they make it through the next election. They've got you playing these stupid games of blaming this group or that when all the while it is they who tug on your strings like expert puppeteers making you put on a show for their benefit.

      You see, what you're missing is a very simple fact of life almost universally lost on folks thinking that government can be a force for good: government IS politicians. libertarians don't want small government because we hate the poor or because we don't want to do our part to help those around us. libertarians want small government because all governments are inherently populated with these kinds of self-serving scumbags within a few years of their formation and we want to limit the amount of damage they can do. The larger your government is, the smaller you are by comparison in the eyes of the egomaniacs who seek that kind of power. You're a tool for them to use to build a machine that enriches them and their cronies. Any good that comes from their actions is purely for PR purposes and the sheer level of damage caused is truly unimaginable.

      50 sm

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    11. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tethered to corporate everything? Ron Paul?

      Wow, another slashdot message in blind support of Ron Paul. Shocked, I am not. Said message didn't bother to read all of what I said; also not shocking.

      The one who is against corporate personhood?

      Saying you're against corporate "personhood", and then removing regulations that prevent corporations from effectively owning people and walking all over both those they do and those they do not own, are a conflict that Ron Paul has no apparent problem with. He is fine to strip out government regulations that keep our water, air, and food safe. That's not libertarianism; that's just extreme pro-business action.

      What a shocking surprise, that you wrote up a message of nonsense, in reply to a message that you didn't read in its entirety, and yet you got moderated up because you praised Ron Paul. Next you're going to try to tell us that there is a secret enclave of far-left slashdotters holding you down.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    12. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're not free.

    13. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by stinerman · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must not know the joke.

      A Libertarian is a Republican with a conviction for possession of weed.

    14. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 1

      The people who call themselves libertarians - at least in the US - are functionally identical to republicans on >99% of all matters.

      You must not hang around very many libertarians . . .

    15. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a resident of New Hampshire I see the motto as a joke. Sorry. We don't have to wear seat belts, big deal. The Governor of this state is a joke. I see lots of people thinking they're free...... The state in which I was raised has the motto "Don't tread on me". That doesn't mean shit either, anymore. I'm sure the NH motto at one point had meaning, as did the other states. But guess what suckers, corporations rule the feds, the feds rule the states. And they all rule us.

    16. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Sean · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that Ron Paul wants to take away the privileges large corporations get from government. He is a true libertarian.

      http://youtu.be/qWxaGRZ7Nrs
      http://youtu.be/BnPV2xea2ro

    17. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that Ron Paul wants to take away the privileges large corporations get from government

      Except that he will give them a lot more than he will take away from them. He plans to abolish most of the regulatory agencies that large businesses are always bitching about - you know the agencies that are tasked with keeping our air and water clean; silly things like that. Taking away their privileges is trivial in comparison to the mandated blind eye that we will be forced to turn towards them as they kill us off in the name of profit.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    18. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Republican party today is not the same as the one back in Reagan's era, in fact it's changed quite a lot just in this decade alone, and the stuff the current Republican candidates are saying on the campaign trail is straight out of an ultra pro-corporatist anti-regulation playbook, almost identical to what the Libertarians spout, except with some added fundamentalist religion to appease the evangelical Christian voters. The current candidates have been talking a lot lately about eliminating the Dept of Education, the FAA, the FCC, and any other Federal agency that stands in the way of corporate profits. Taking the country to war, however, is still perfectly fine by them as one thing they don't want to downsize or eliminate is the DoD, and the hefty contracts for defense contractors. As for marriage and abortion stuff, again, those things don't stand in the way of corporate profits, yet they bring in votes from the evangelicals and fundies.

      You're mostly right about many of your other points, especially Obama and the "change" (or lack thereof) he brought. But your idea of what libertarianism is, and what real national-level politicians who call themselves Libertarian or espouse Libertarian principles consider to be libertarianism, are two different things.

    19. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you boil down the Democratic Party platform it's "If you vote for us we'll give you free money".

      The problem is that their platform is rather different from what they do when they're in power. The Dems promise nice social programs and such when they're on the campaign trail, but as soon as they get elected they look for as many ways to give free money to giant corporations as they can, and happily screw over the poor and middle class people who voted for them.

    20. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by diamondmagic · · Score: 2

      "Effectively owning people," what the hell? The market comes with very strong regulations: You can't defraud people, you can't pollute, you can't enslave people, you can't steal, and all the other stuff that comes with individual rights. Just because you're against the federal government regulating schools, healthcare, engaging in undeclared wars or the "drug war" (among other things that the Constitution doesn't permit the Federal government to do), in no way implies that you're against food safety or want people to be high all day. To the contrary, it implies that it's a completely inappropriate role of the federal government, just like the public sector is a completely inappropriate sector to place the production of food in!

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
    21. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      The Republican party today is not the same as the one back in Reagan's era, in fact it's changed quite a lot just in this decade alone,

      What they advertise has changed; what they actually do has not. The Contract with America was virtually nothing but hot air. The only reason we got close to a balanced budget was that the Republicans in Congress and the Democratic President couldn't agree on what to spend tons of money on.

      and the stuff the current Republican candidates are saying on the campaign trail is straight out of an ultra pro-corporatist anti-regulation playbook, almost identical to what the Libertarians spout, except with some added fundamentalist religion to appease the evangelical Christian voters. The current candidates have been talking a lot lately about eliminating the Dept of Education, the FAA, the FCC, and any other Federal agency that stands in the way of corporate profits. Taking the country to war, however, is still perfectly fine by them as one thing they don't want to downsize or eliminate is the DoD, and the hefty contracts for defense contractors. As for marriage and abortion stuff, again, those things don't stand in the way of corporate profits, yet they bring in votes from the evangelicals and fundies.

      I would strongly disagree. The current Republican candidates (minus, to an extent, Ron Paul) give a small amount of lip service to cutting taxes and regulations because - quite frankly - it's not an issue where they can distinguish themselves from President Obama. They'll mouth some words about it to sound tough, but I don't think there's a sane person alive who actually believes Rick Perry would start dismantling major sections of government. The flub he had in that debate was not one of having the 'senior moment' we all have once in a while. The guy couldn't remember what some writer stuck on an index card for him as part of a pathetic attempt to get his name back in the news to regain momentum. Mitt Romney will happily tell you the sky is purple and he wears women's underwear if it'll gain him +1 net vote. His positions don't change; he doesn't have positions, and if you put him in a debate with President Obama it's going to sound like a damned echo chamber. Gingrich would rather tell you what 74 people have written about a topic over the last 300 years than give you anything original or firm. And quite honestly, when you look at President Obama, you can't begin to claim he hasn't bent over backwards to the point of forming a pretzel shape when it's come to big business and corporations. He's even fought for tax breaks for people up and down the line. There's nary a candidate for President in the 2012 election who isn't for tax-and-spend-but-sound-like-you-care-about-deficits-by-giving-lip-service-to-microscopic-cuts-that-keep-Washington-politicians-firmly-in-the-driver-seat-of-the-country. The only one of the bunch who's really come up with a firm position is Ron Paul in that he's strongly and consistently against both regulations AND subsidies and special government perks for big business. And again, I don't think that's because Paul is such a great guy and I don't trust him any further than I can throw him. The last guy who came into a presidential race talking about how government was the problem and not the solution ended up blowing up our deficit in a way not seen since WWII with both military and discretionary spending programs. But at least he's claiming and appears to sincerely believe that his goal is to cut down on the power and influence of the politicians in DC.

      You can't begin to tell me that someone like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich believes or has any intention of implementing libertarian principles of small, limited government. You can't begin to tell me that someone like George W. Bush had a clue what those principles are. I'll bet you anything that Newt can recite the Constitution and all the Federalist papers from start to finish; but he doesn't give a damn about what

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    22. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and insider trading, lobbyist driven IPOs, shit that will get you and me locked up like Martha Stewart but is perfectly legal for them because they write the laws to exempt themselves.

      Both parties are guilty of that shit, and those that participated in it should be investigated and tossed in jail like anyone else that games the system with insider knowledge.

      Time for term limits, if it's good enough for the office of the president, it's good enough for the rest of those clowns.

    23. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      What they really need is much harsher penalties for politicians found guilty of crimes, with the penalties going up with the level of their office (i.e. a small-town mayor convicted of a crime gets a lesser sentence than a US Congressman convicted of the same crime, though still much worse than a non-politician). So US Congressmen convicted of things like insider trading or corruption, for instance, should be drawn and quartered.

    24. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Have you actually read Ron Paul's writings? You kinda have to keep looking at what he actually says and not what he seems to say.

      He is not against 'corporate personhood'. Quite the contrary in fact as he is defending the corporate right to 'free speech' inasmuch as it pertains to corporations being able to buy advertising time to promote their favorite lackey...er...candidate.

      He's also not against regulation pushed by corporate lobbying. His 'solution' for lobbying and corruption is, and I'm paraphrasing, 'less government is less to corrupt' which is not a solution at all just more bullshit that sounds good but doesn't actually FIX anything.

      Auditing the fed is a good idea but ending it would be much worse than having it. Look at things before the fed existed where boom and bust were not the exception but the rule.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    25. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      add on to my post:

      http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/product-reviews/0446549193/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    26. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Quothz · · Score: 1

      Man, I hesitate to reply to ACs but I see this meme a lot. The simple truth is that truth isn't simple: Some regulations are good and useful, like the ones that say food distributors can't poop in the food; others are anti-competitive or purely fee-driven, like requiring licensing to practice interior decoration; and some are both, like requiring banks to have a certain amount of cash on hand. The only way to avoid the bad and keep the good is to elect honest, thoughtful representatives instead of demagogues and fools. Which is t'say, it can't be done.

    27. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I thought that a Libertarian was a Republican that wanted to get laid, hence why so many on /. claim to be Libertarian.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    28. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The market comes with very strong regulations:

      The Libbies want to dismantle those regulations.

      You can't defraud people,

      You must be new here -- in the country, I mean. You've never been cheated by business? You're either really young or really lucky. Ever heard of OtherOS? You don't consider Sony removing a feature you've paid for to be fraud?

      you can't pollute,

      No? Why is no one in prison for that? You can bet your ass if you, a person, negligently did something like that you'ld be in prison for life.

      you can't enslave people,

      Tell that to anyone dependant on a paycheck when unemployment is 9%. Tell that to migrant farm workers.

      you can't steal,

      Ever heard of emminent domain?

      What about negligent homicide? A mass murder and nobody went to prison for it.

      Wanting to dismantle the federal EPA is brain-dead stupid. Pollution doesn't honor state lines. Wanting to dismantle the FDA si similarly moronic as most of your food and medicine comes from out of state.

      just like the public sector is a completely inappropriate sector to place the production of food in!

      Huh? You're batshit crazy, son. Nobody is asking for the government to go into the farming business! Take your meds and then a nap.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    29. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by residieu · · Score: 2

      Good thing to bring up when the GOP campaigns in NH. "Our slogan is "Live Free or Die." Are you a candidate brave enough to let us do that? Will you restore our freedoms and let us take the tiny risk we might die in a terrorist attack?"

    30. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they really need is much harsher penalties for politicians found guilty of crimes, with the penalties going up with the level of their office (i.e. a small-town mayor convicted of a crime gets a lesser sentence than a US Congressman convicted of the same crime, though still much worse than a non-politician). So US Congressmen convicted of things like insider trading or corruption, for instance, should be drawn and quartered.

      Just strip them of their assets and force them to live on minimum wage.

    31. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that they're frequently able to stash assets in foreign accounts where they're difficult or impossible to get to (if they don't tell you they have a numbered swiss account, how will you know?). But yes, any assets they have that can be seized, should be seized.

      But no, I don't agree with the minimum wage thing. That's too nice. They should be made felons and be ineligible to have a normal job, just like they do to thousands of non-violent drug offenders in their stupid War on Drugs, and forced to live under a bridge.

      I still think a public execution (with disembowelment, just like in the middle ages) is a fitting punishment for those convicted of corruption. Corruption is the Achilles' Heel of democracies/republics, and anything that can be done to deter it is fair game IMO. I do think capital punishment should be eliminated, however, for normal people, but politicians aren't really human so I think an exception should be made for them.

    32. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "Live Free Or Here"

    33. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what he is trying to say is that as per the constitution these are not roles with which the federal government has been lawfully assigned. Rather that only the individual states should be able to pass such regulation. You are not understanding the bigger picture and it's no wonder because most self described libertarians often forget to mention this when they decry the actions of the federal government. It is unfortunate that libertarian philosophies have been hijacked by folks only looking to legitimize their sociopathic nature but they are simply picking and choosing the parts of libertarianism that suit their needs rather then accepting the ideology as a whole.

    34. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you retarded? You don't seem to know anything at all about the Libertarian Party. You apparently know how to use a web browser, but seem incapable of navigating to http://www.lp.org.

    35. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      This is the worst strawman I've ever seen, you need to stop stuffing words in people's mouths. I mean, of course emminent domain is theft. Those are precisely the things I'm arguing against!

      Nobody is asking for the government to go into the farming business!

      Nobody even implied that, which is the very reason I use it as an example, because it's one of the more overwhelmingly accepted notions, that placing food production in the public sector causes famines. Yet people can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the same thing happens when we place product safety or healthcare, among other things, in the public sector. You realize the entire electronics industry isn't regulated for safety by the government? We have this little organization called Underwriters Laboratories instead, and that's just one example of industry organization. Even without industry certification like we have in electronics, companies are still liable if the safety or quality of their product has been misrepresented.

      Wanting to dismantle the federal EPA is brain-dead stupid. Pollution doesn't honor state lines. Wanting to dismantle the FDA si similarly moronic as most of your food and medicine comes from out of state.

      You're assuming that the EPA is the only way we can enforce property rights, which is completely ridiculous, and means you completely missed my point that a federal government executive agency is a completely inappropriate place to assign powers to and the very last place we should be creating these rules, in fact, it is one of the very reasons it's still allowed, by creating a tragedy of the commons! The solution is to simply enforce private property rights. But don't take my word for it, google "pollution private property" or something. As for the FDA, why are you complaining to the government? If you don't want to go on medication with nasty side-effects then don't buy the thing!

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
    36. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      it's one of the more overwhelmingly accepted notions, that placing food production in the public sector causes famines.

      I've never even heard that notion, which is easily discounted by the fact that farming in the US is a business, and we haven't had a famine since the 1930s dust bowl (which was obviously weather related).

      Yet people can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the same thing happens when we place product safety or healthcare, among other things, in the public sector.

      And you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that there are evil people out there with filthy food production facilities who don't care if you live or die. If everyone was loving and generous we'd need no police. Just as we need laws against burglary, we need laws against selling tainted food.

      You realize the entire electronics industry isn't regulated for safety by the government? We have this little organization called Underwriters Laboratories instead

      Every single piece of electronics sold has an FCC certification. Without it there wolud be chaos in electronic transmissions.

      You're assuming that the EPA is the only way we can enforce property rights

      What are you smoking, Rush's used oxycontin patches? Pollution has nothing whatever to do with property rights! Pollution has to do with my right ro breathe. Why are you standing up for Monsanto's "right" to poison my air? Companies wantonly spewed poisons in the air and water until the EPA came along. If clean air and water could have been accomplished without the federal government, then why didn't it?

      you completely missed my point that a federal government executive agency is a completely inappropriate place to assign powers to and the very last place we should be creating these rules, in fact, it is one of the very reasons it's still allowed, by creating a tragedy of the commons!

      The tragedy of the commons was industry poisoning our air and water with no curbs whatever. What "tragedy of the commons" are you talking about? How in the hell is pollution in any way a "private property" issue? You seriously think that property owners are the only ones who deserve clean air? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN, SON???

      As for the FDA, why are you complaining to the government? If you don't want to go on medication with nasty side-effects then don't buy the thing!

      When you catch the clap and drugs aren't regulated, good luck getting rid of it with half a dose that's been marked as a full one. The FDA is there to protect YOU against unscrupulous drug dealers (and if you think everybody in Bayer or Merck are moral, I have a bridge in New York for sale.

      You seem to hold the insane view that the rich are all philanthropists who would never purposely do anything to harm anyone. The fact is, 99% of the 1% would put a bullet in your brain if it made their pile grow.

      Take off those rose colored glasses. We need the Federal Government to protect us against powerful sociopaths.

      Perhaps you ARE one of those powerful sociopaths, that would explain your insanely naive opinions.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    37. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      If you make someone ill with your poisoned food, you're criminally liable. No if's, and's, or but's. No CNN articles make that untrue. End of story.

      Now again, go google "pollution private property" or something similar so you can stop making these stupid-ass straw-man arguments. Private property does NOT EVER mean that some other company can dump toxic chemicals on my land without permission. No if's, and's, or CNN articles about it. End of story.

      What "tragedy of the commons" are you talking about?

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tragedy+of+the+commons Rinse, repeat for all the other questions you have about the formally defined economics terms that I use. Got it?

      While I'm at it: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=straw+man Are we getting the picture now?

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
    38. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Pollution knows no boundaries nor respects private property. Dump your garbage on your own property and it will wind up in the groundwater for me to drink, PERIOD. Burn toxins on your own property and the wind carries it to mine. You have no right to pollute.

      And again, you think people who own no property should have no rights? That's pretty telling, Mr. 1%er. I find classism as disgusting as racism.

      I know what the "tragedy of the commons" is, but it doesn't seem like you understand it. The true tragedy of the commons happened before envoronmental regs, when industry polluted the whole damned continent. Your tragedy of the commons was solved with those regs, noit instigated by them.

      The only tragedy is in the minds of polluters, who are no longer free to poison my air and water as they formerly were.

      And I know what a straw man argument is, too. You seem not to, because I'm making no straw man arguments whatever.

      Sorry, son, tell your masters in the Monsanto board room you failed to oursmart an old nerd. Your arguments are irrational, and anyone wioth half a brain can see that.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    39. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Fanned. Since the Paulbots are out in force I'll copy and paste what I said upthread in response to another Paulbot:

      Case in point for the Paultards: how the cigarette industry went decades without losing a liability lawsuit because there's no way to know if Grandma got lung cancer because she smoked two packs a day or because she was genetically predisposed to it. Do they think other polluting industries wouldn't do the exact same thing?

      "Your Honor, the plaintiff simply hasn't proven that the poisonous mercury that gave her children birth defects came from our mine. She could be a carrier, or the alleged poison could have come from from Massey Energy upstream....."

      Then there's the fact that regulations and inspections are proactive, rather than reactive. Ask the parents of Valerie Lakey [wikipedia.org] what they would prefer: to have their daughters guts back in her body before she was hydraulically disemboweled from a faulty pool drain, or the $25 million judgement against the manufacturer. But back to pollution - just how the hell is the average family going to afford the tens of thousands of dollars to hire independent experts and subpoena documents and testimony from the polluting company in question?

      The Libertarian Way would literally result in poverty, misery and even death for many in return for even more power and money for those who are already powerful and rich.

  2. And this is how by geekoid · · Score: 2

    you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:And this is how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is necessary but not sufficient. To be sufficient you'd also have to replace first-past-the-post elections.

    2. Re:And this is how by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

      Not only that, but remove primaries.

    3. Re:And this is how by wanzeo · · Score: 1

      I wish. This will never happen in my state, as we sell our senate seats at auction. But it's nice to see there is some hope left elsewhere.

    4. Re:And this is how by Snarfangel · · Score: 2

      I would mod this up if I had points. Plurality voting sucks. At least go with Approval for single-winner races, if you think Condorcet is too complicated.

      --
      This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
    5. Re:And this is how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do all those other countries with First Past The Post systems manage then? Hell, the UK currently has a coalition government, and they've had FPTP for centuries!

    6. Re:And this is how by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      How about also removing the party label for each candidate from the ballot. We already have multiple parties running in various elections but there are probably too many people who look for the D or R label and vote based off of that. This would at least require that people be some what informed as to who the R and D candidates are since they couldn't just vote down the ticket unless they knew all of their party's candidates.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    7. Re:And this is how by monkeythug · · Score: 2

      The UK has a coalition government precisely because it has more than two parties! However it is also the first coalition we have had in decades, and it (arguably) only happened this time due to very particular circumstances that are unlikely to happen again any time soon.

      This is most likely the reason why the LibDems were so keen on switching away from FPTP - it represented the only way they were likely to get another bite at the cherry in 2015. Sadly it was not to be, which is a shame as having more than two parties with a fighting chance of being elected would not only have been good for the LibDems, it would have been great for the UK.

      --
      Don't you wish you hadn't wasted 3 seconds of your life reading this sig?
    8. Re:And this is how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell does it cost anything anyway??
      All you should need is enough signatures. Period.
      There are virtually no costs to having an additional candidate, and anyone with enough signatures is supported enough to deserve that paid via taxes anyway. In the name of an actual democracy!

      But hey, in a country where government is solely decided by who gets bought most (aka. "campaign financing"), things are FUBAR anyway.

      Shoot that horse already!

    9. Re:And this is how by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

      There were five parties on the Presidential ticket in enough states last election that they had a mathematical chance of winning. The trouble is, media are controlled by the corporations, who have convinced everyone that a vote for a Green or a Libbie is a wasted vote. That way they only have to bribe two candidates.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    10. Re:And this is how by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      This will never happen in my state, as we sell our senate seats at auction.

      What state? The only state I know of where Senate seats are sold is here in Illinois. You did hear that Blago was sentenced yesterday to fourteen years in the federal pen for that very crime, didn't you? Likewise, our previous Governor (the one before Blago) is still in prison for selling commercial drivers licenses to unqualified drivers.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    11. Re:And this is how by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      No. The history of this country has quite clearly demonstrated that there will not ever be more than two viable parties. Every time a new party has arisen, the weaker of the other two quickly died. Two parties is quite clearly the stable state for the system our Constitution has given us.

      Poly-party systems only exist in parlimentary democracies that allow minority representatives in their government. For example, if a party gets 20% of the vote nationwide, they may get to make up 20% of the representaves in the legislature. We have a system where you have to get majority support somewhere to get any representation at all in government. The top two parties have a shot at that. A third place party has no chance.

    12. Re:And this is how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in New York, so any vote I make is a wasted vote. The state's going to the Democrat no matter what I do. I voted Green in the last presidential election for that reason.

      But seriously, the focus to getting third party acceptance shouldn't be on the Presidency. Third parties should be concentrating on getting their candidates into state legislatures and Congress. There's much less money involved in those races, and lower turnouts so you'd have less heads you need to turn.

    13. Re:And this is how by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I'll go one step further. Remove the names from the ballots. Seriously, if you can't even legibly SPELL the person's name (physical disabilities aside), don't vote. This is not a poll tax, or a way of keeping the "disenfranchised" from voting. It's a way of keeping the uninformed from voting.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    14. Re:And this is how by wanzeo · · Score: 1

      Yup, I'm from Illinois. And yes, I've been following the Blago news. It seems that part of the problem is that people become career politicians, and so they start looking at everything as a potential for making money.

      If you had normal people running for office, and only serving for a few terms, I think the corruption would be drastically reduced.

    15. Re:And this is how by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but how would you get normal people to take a job like that? It seems that wanting to be a cop or a politician should automatically disqualify you for the position, since both jobs only attract the power hungry.

      Term limits wouldn't help, Ryan was a one term Governor. With term limits, they just jump from position to position; Ryan was SoS before he was Governor. Obama served one term as State Senator, then part of a term as Federal Senator, then President. He hasn't served two terms in any office so far.

      They were partying in the streets here in Springfield last night. State workers hated Blago more than anyone did, partly because he screwed them all over and partly because he screwed the state over so bad.

      One woman from Human Services was telling me that the first thing he did was to appoint an incompetent crony who hadn't supervised more than 150 employees at a college before being handed the reigns to the biggest agency in the state, with thousands of employees. The first thing she and Blago did was to offer early retirement to all the people who knew how things worked and how to get things done. The next thing they did was to lay off the low-level workers -- the ones who actually did the work. Then the dept head or whatever she was called transferred everybody to jobs they had no clue how to do.

      People wonder why state government is so disfunctional, that's why. I think Blago was Bush's long lost brother, because their governing styles were exactly the same.

      OTOH another friend works for the SoS, she says that things vastly improved when Ryan left, and I noticed when I got my drivers license renewed it was a lot better for me, the client, too. Saturday morning and no lines, it took ten minutes. It was a three hour ordeal under Ryan.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  3. Vermin Supreme? by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Vermin Supreme sounds like a pizza in some dystopian future. "Includes all toppings, with rats, cockroaches, and maggots. Dung Beetles are extra".

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Vermin Supreme? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      At first I thought he was an exterminator, although with the zombie preparedness platform he might actually be.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Vermin Supreme? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Why vote to trade the frying pan for the fire?

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    3. Re:Vermin Supreme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the replacement is a downgrade.

  4. Re:one by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary and only one to restore sanity.

    That on its own doesn't mean shit. You want us to read your signature? Maybe you should actually say something in your message. Or is one of your hands too busy since you're thinking about your messiah candidate?

    You really should stop phoning it in like this. You make people who actually want to say something look like screwballs by being associated with you.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  5. Ponies? by Wandering+Voice · · Score: 1

    If Vermin Supreme runs again in six years or so he may really have a chance at winning. As long as these kids keep the internet Pony meme going. Though he may even have a chance in this election. I know several adults who would support his zombie preparedness platform.

    And really how much worse can he do than what we've seen over the last 30 years.

    1. Re:Ponies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I somehow doubt there are 300 million ponies out there that can be given. Steer & cows maybe. I guess maybe if you dye one purple, lop off a horn, and brand it with some stars....

    2. Re:Ponies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I don't want my pony. You can have it.

    3. Re:Ponies? by khallow · · Score: 2

      Sorry, Uncle Sugar knows that you need a pony even if you don't want it.

    4. Re:Ponies? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Then there's only one answer: an effort to build a massive pony cloning industry during his mandate. Not only would it fix unemployment, but it would give the USA valuable know-how in high tech like cloning and... PONIES!!!!!1!!

    5. Re:Ponies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's time to vote for Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho!

  6. Oh, that kind of primary! by syousef · · Score: 1

    I thought you were talkinga bout primary school and gifted students, and therefore was interested. As soon as I realized this was about politics, I became very bored.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  7. Re:one by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Interesting

    what the hell, here is a good link.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
  8. Re:one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does that mean? In English?

    Is Unique Candidates a party? Why is it capitalized? What one? Since you seem to be using and as a conjunction, what does "The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary" mean on its own?

  9. Re:one by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So that's what it comes down to!

    First they stopped reading the fucking articles.
    Then they stopped reading the fucking 'Scoops'.

    Now they don't even bother with the title.

    Do you even know what site you are on?

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
  10. Re:one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What what comes down to? How can you say that? What are you talking about? Site?

  11. Re:one by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    this way for you.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
  12. Oddly enough by tylersoze · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find it hard to tell the difference between those candidates and the "actual" Republican candidates.

    1. Re:Oddly enough by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd take the super rat guy over a bigoted, homophobic asshole any day of the week.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    2. Re:Oddly enough by shilly · · Score: 1

      He really is an unutterable cunt in that video. I feel like I need to wash my eyeballs.

    3. Re:Oddly enough by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'm not ashamed to call myself a Christian either, and I can't really disagree...

  13. From the article... by skids · · Score: 2

    From the article: "If ever there were a year for has-beens, wannabes and neverwillbes pushing oddball solutions to serious problems and serious palliatives for problems no one has yet postulated, this may be it."

    ...and he was probably talking about the front-runners, not the gadflies.

    --
    Someone had to do it.
  14. And he should be at the Donald Trump debate by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Funny

    The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness. Vermin also promises a pony for every American.

    Still saner than Michele Bachmann.

  15. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If my anniversary wasn't coming up, I'd have the $1000 to enter the fray..

    I'd probably have at least an equal chance as 90% of the other candidates.

    But I'd move the White House to Fiji (after buying Fiji, of course..)

    meh..

  16. Sounds like... by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...a good place for the Pirate Party to start running candidates.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    1. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up, but please not "funny". This is really a great place to bring the "Digital Privacy" and "Copyright Term and Enforcement" points to the table.

    2. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, where they can be safely lost in the shuffle with all the other candidates who'll never get the time of day.

    3. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, where they can be safely lost in the shuffle with all the other candidates who'll never get the time of day.

      Not necessarily, if they are serious about this (a wishywashy campaign and candidate will, rightfully so, not be covered) and properly deal with the media. Joe Blow the Independent is just that, but the Pirate Party is backed by a large international organization, with a proven track record in Europe. Trying to land a beachhead stateside would be newsworthy and can be expanded to include a little blurb about the War Against Excessive Copyright and the new DCMA exceptions.

    4. Re:Sounds like... by Agripa · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily, if they are serious about this (a wishywashy campaign and candidate will, rightfully so, not be covered) and properly deal with the media. Joe Blow the Independent is just that, but the Pirate Party is backed by a large international organization, with a proven track record in Europe. Trying to land a beachhead stateside would be newsworthy and can be expanded to include a little blurb about the War Against Excessive Copyright and the new DCMA exceptions.

      The established players have no worries. Plurality voting is sufficient to crush all newcomers.

  17. Missing Option by cashman73 · · Score: 2

    Is CowboyNeal running, too?

  18. Please oh great fsm... by jcwayne · · Score: 3, Funny

    Please, tell me that The Rent Is Too Damn High Party will be represented. I've missed that guy.

    --
    Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
  19. Fighting zombies? Start with slashdot! by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Funny

    This place is overrun by Ron Paul zombies. If a potential candidate can find a way to control them, they'd certainly win my vote.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  20. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ohhh....don't criticize The One here. Slashdot is filled with Obama sycophants and anarchists.

    Yeah, Barry would be able to put on one hell of a bukkae party with Slashdot users.

  21. Re:one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Got any links I can read?

  22. Re:Fighting zombies? Start with slashdot! by ezratrumpet · · Score: 1

    Drink the kool-aid. Assimilate. Become a Paullower. It is....inevitable.

  23. Re:Fighting zombies? Start with slashdot! by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

    Ron Paul is the candidate with the most, erm, independently minded supporters you'll find, and I dare you to name any base that knows more about US history back to Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson, about monetary and fiscal policy, or about foreign policy. He's the one candidate who's actually changed the dialog of the country and sustained it for years, that says something about the issues he speaks on.

    --
    Wonder what the public key field is for?
  24. Re:Fighting zombies? Start with slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dare you to name any base that knows more about US history back to Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson

    Unfortunately, a lot of what they know is Internet memes about these two guys, as opposed to actual facts. Don't worry though. We all know Snopes is controlled by radical statist Leftists...

  25. Not true. by mosb1000 · · Score: 0

    As far as I can tell, what you've said here is not correct.

    You see, the way the system works right now people are granted protections from liability and lawsuits as long as they meet standards set by regulators. And beyond that, corporate shareholders are granted many protections from liability in general, regardless of a corporation's compliance with regulations.

    So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he want's to weaken protections for polluters. The opposite of what you've said.

    But on top of that, he has not proposed eliminating the EPA, or any other regulatory agency. So you are completely wrong about that. He has proposed eliminating the departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. The departments that regulate businesses in the way you've described are the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA. He has talked about streamlining and eliminating regulations to reduce their burden on industry, but it is generally understood that those regulations need a serious overhaul, and if you'd worked with them the way I have, you would probably agree.

    1. Re:Not true. by Sique · · Score: 1

      So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he want's to weaken protections for polluters. The opposite of what you've said.

      ... which is a pipe dream. There is no disincentive for short term profits, that is strong enough. And strong property rights (whose property will be strengthened anyway?) will solve nothing e.g. when it comes to contamination. If you poison your own property, no one can hinder you without regulations forbidding exactly that. If later the borders break that were designed to limit the intoxication, and people get sick or die, how will you solve that problem with property rights? Paying for the lower value of the poisoned property?

      The property rights of home and land owners are very strong, but there are still burglars and trespassers. How will you solve that problem with even stronger property laws? How much money do you get out in a civil court from someone who steals? If he has no money left to pay, he can't be made paying more. But he could still break into the next house and start stealing again. How do you hinder him with strong property law? What disincentive gives an even stronger property law?

      People who think that property laws will solve anything always forget the most important part of the law: the ability of the intruder to actually pay. If a company can get away with setting up a shell company doing the contamination which will be dissolved or defaults as soon as the work is completed, then what use is a stronger property law?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Not true. by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he want's to weaken protections for polluters. The opposite of what you've said.

      Except that proposal doesn't actually work. It places the responsibility on the private citizen to make a case against a polluter. If, for example, a polluter is burning toxic waste and contaminating the air, the private citizens need to prove where the products that make them sick are coming from. That is an incredibly difficult task and takes a significant amount of time, such that many people could not afford to pursue that problem. It is more likely that the people living in the polluted are would - if they could afford it - sell their houses and move. At that point, of course, someone else would buy the polluted property (at a loss to the seller) and the cycle starts over. The polluter continues to make money, the victims continue to lose lives and money.

      He has talked about streamlining and eliminating regulations to reduce their burden on industry

      Which generally means a lot more of the latter and very little of the former. Nevermind the fallacy of "their burden on industry". In other words, it is recognized that there is a very good reason to have the kinds of regulations that Ron Paul wants to throw out. This isn't a matter of "civil liberties", because reasonable people do not see slowly killing entire populations as a "civil liberty" that should be granted to companies.

      He has proposed eliminating the departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education.

      Have you considered what the dept of the interior does? Or for that matter what elimination of the dept of education will do in the long term to the uneducated and underemployed people who end up buying the polluted properties because they can't afford to live anywhere else?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:Not true. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Nevermind the fallacy of "their burden on industry"

      Why would you say that it's fallacious? I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars doing contract work for manufacturers by helping them comply with environmental regulations. How can I make all this money with it, if it doesn't cost them anything? And environmental regulations are just he tip of the iceberg. Also, the money they pay me is just the tip of the ice-burg, because they often have to make changes to the way they do business to comply with regulations. And regulatory agencies tend to write regulations as conservatively as possible (for political and ass-covering reasons) in a lazy, one-size-fits-all manner that really doesn't make sense in the real world. And then, to top it all off, they give exemptions to existing businesses! The result is regulations function as a barrier to entry to new businesses.

      I don't know if you've ever worked with it or not, but it's a pretty sorry state of affairs. People who work with it don't really wonder why new factories are rarely built in the US.

    4. Re:Not true. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Except that proposal doesn't actually work. It places the responsibility on the private citizen to make a case against a polluter. If, for example, a polluter is burning toxic waste and contaminating the air, the private citizens need to prove where the products that make them sick are coming from. That is an incredibly difficult task and takes a significant amount of time, such that many people could not afford to pursue that problem. It is more likely that the people living in the polluted are would - if they could afford it - sell their houses and move. At that point, of course, someone else would buy the polluted property (at a loss to the seller) and the cycle starts over. The polluter continues to make money, the victims continue to lose lives and money.

      Have you ever seen Erin Brockovich? Did you know it's a true story? It happens all the time, it's happening today. Obviously, you haven't heard of any of this, or you wouldn't be making such an absurd claim that totally contradicts reality.

      What is true, however, is that a company can shield itself from this kind of liability by complying with environmental regulations even if they are hurting people. Yikes!

    5. Re:Not true. by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
      I'm amazed you haven't already been moderated up to (+5, informative) by all the Paullowers on slashdot; I guess they ran out of their moderation points.

      Nonetheless, Erin Brockovich is not a realistic portrayal of how the country would be if all the environmental regulations were eliminated as most of the candidates want to see happen. While yes it is based on a true story, the fact is that the case was brought up by someone who had legal connections. Without her involvement in the matter it is hard to tell how long the company would have been able to continue polluting the water and what the outcome would have been.

      And had she not been connected to an experienced legal team, she may well have been steamrolled by the lawyers that were hired by the company, and ended up with nothing.

      In other words, no matter how much of an inconvenience the polluters might view regulations to be, they need to be in place.

      It happens all the time, it's happening today.

      Companies polluting? Yes, that does happen all the time. People winning legal cases against those companies to stop them from doing it? That is really quite rare. And on top of that, you are ignoring the fact that the Brockovich case was reactive, not proactive. The pollution already occurred, the damage has already been done. It cannot be undone by money. How many people can corporations be allowed to kill?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:Not true. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      It is not rare for people to win these kind of lawsuits. In fact it is so common that companies always try to settle out of court rather than bringing them to trial. Because if pollution they've caused is shown to have injured someone, there isn't a jury in the country that will let them off the hook.

      Preventing lawsuits is the main reason companies try to reduce pollution. They're not worried about a couple million dollars in fines. Today, preventing lawsuits simply means meeting environmental standards. Sure, the picture would be very different without regulations, but it's pretty silly to think that potential polluters would just not worry about it. The potential liability associated with pollution is enormous.

    7. Re:Not true. by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      It is not rare for people to win these kind of lawsuit

      Really? How many do you know of that haven't been featured in hollywood movies? For some reason do you think hollywood likes to put very common stories into film? If so, then why wasn't my last oil change made into a movie?

      In fact it is so common that companies always try to settle out of court rather than bringing them to trial.

      Wrong. They settle out of court because they don't want the bad publicity. But even that doesn't happen very often. There are far, far, far, more cases of polluters getting away with it than there are of them not.

      Because if pollution they've caused is shown to have injured someone, there isn't a jury in the country that will let them off the hook.

      Bull. Shit.

      The companies know exactly what attorneys to hire to get out of this. The attorneys know exactly how to pick a jury that will lead to acquittal. And the lawyers representing the people in the case are comparatively underpaid to boot.

      They're not worried about a couple million dollars in fines.

      They should be worried about not hurting people. Instead they are worried about PR and their bottom line.

      but it's pretty silly to think that potential polluters would just not worry about it

      You're an idiot to think that they would worry about it if there were no regulations. They make much more money by cutting corners than they do by being careful.

      The potential liability associated with pollution is enormous.

      Only if they're caught, and proven liable. Which is already a big hurdle to clear even with existing regulations. They very case you used in your (barely even qualifying as flimsy) argument mentions that the actual pollution measurements weren't taken until many years after the plant had claimed to have stopped polluting. Which means that had nobody cared, they would have certainly maintained the high pollution levels they were previously at.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    8. Re:Not true. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Bull. Shit.

      The companies know exactly what attorneys to hire to get out of this. The attorneys know exactly how to pick a jury that will lead to acquittal. And the lawyers representing the people in the case are comparatively underpaid to boot.

      Case in point for the Paultards: how the cigarette industry went decades without losing a liability lawsuit because there's no way to know if Grandma got lung cancer because she smoked two packs a day or because she was genetically predisposed to it. Do they think other polluting industries wouldn't do the exact same thing?

      "Your Honor, the plaintiff simply hasn't proven that the poisonous mercury that gave her children birth defects came from our mine. She could be a carrier, or the alleged poison could have come from from Massey Energy upstream....."

      Then there's the fact that regulations and inspections are proactive, rather than reactive. Ask the parents of Valerie Lakey what they would prefer: to have their daughters guts back in her body before she was hydraulically disemboweled from a faulty pool drain, or the $25 million judgement against the manufacturer. But back to pollution - just how the hell is the average family going to afford the tens of thousands of dollars to hire independent experts and subpoena documents and testimony from the polluting company in question?

      The Libertarian Way would literally result in poverty, misery and even death for many in return for even more power and money for those who are already powerful and rich.

  26. Yes, he's the crazy one. by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness.

    As opposed to the serious candidates who what us to build an electric fence to keep the mexican't out, full body scan everybody at the airports to protect us from the terrorists, start wars in the middle east to bring about peace, and keep pot illegal in the face of irrefutable evidence that it is not harmful and it's prohibition kills thousands every year.

  27. Vermin Supreme? by hitmark · · Score: 1

    Is that some kind of Decepticon?

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  28. Re:Fighting zombies? Start with slashdot! by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Ron Paul is the candidate with the most, erm, independently minded supporters you'll find, and I dare you to name any base that knows more about US history back to Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson, about monetary and fiscal policy, or about foreign policy. He's the one candidate who's actually changed the dialog of the country and sustained it for years, that says something about the issues he speaks on.

    Clearly, you are trying for a (+1, informative) or (+1, insightful) mod there, although based on some of the rabid, uninformed Paullowers here the proper mod would actually be (+1, funny). Too much of anything, even the anointed Ron Paul, can make one into a raving lunatic over time.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  29. Bob Greene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did NO ONE READ the article???

    Why is no one excited about an ENGINEER for President who is talking about Thorium??

    I officially Endorse Bob Greene for POTUS

    http://www.greeneforoffice.org/Home_Page.html

    1. Re:Bob Greene by JazzLad · · Score: 2

      I'm sure the AC endorsement will make all the difference!

      Kidding aside, I agree completely. Finally a candidate the "nerds" can & should care about & he is the only one not discussed. I'm not new here, so not surprised. Still disappointed.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    2. Re:Bob Greene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do too!

  30. Resume Builder by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    I know what I will be doing in 2016 as I will finally meet the constitutional requirements to be president. This way I could truthfully add that I was a 2016 presidential candidate. I would even make a reasonable platform centered around my areas of expertise. Why not its not like it is that expensive. At worst (most likely) it would make an interesting story and at best (extreme remote) I elected and I could probably do a better job than the current crop of clowns.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  31. Re:one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Jesus, for sure!

  32. Re:one by residieu · · Score: 1

    Video's nice and all, but I'd usually much rather READ something than watch it. So write down whatever happens in your video and post that somewhere. You might have something interesting in the links in your signature, but I'm not following tinyurl links. They're a necessary evil on twitter (if you find links in twitter necessary), but they have no place outside of that. Find some links that tell me where I'm going. And then title your links better. If your link is about Ron Paul, make your link text "Ron Paul, a Real POTUS". Then maybe I'll read your link.

  33. Re:one by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    If nothing else, Brooke Baldwin video is helpful, particularly if you need to rub out a quick one at work.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon